LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:30 pm See Techs post before my first one. Ascribing older folks support for the Trump world to a push back of the excesses of younger generations. Reality is that just called getting old and anachronistic. I’m 41, spent a number of ears doing the jerkoff, work on excel models and build macros to 2am and now feel like a Luddite w respect to technology. “What the heck is wrong with waking eight blocks, these Bird and Lyme scooters gots to go!”

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:14 am

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:00 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:53 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 4:02 pm Barr is the AG, confirmed by the Senate -- just like "tarmac hostage" Lynch, "wingman" Holder & all their predecessors.
Before resorting to personal attacks on fellow posters, consider some facts.
It's complicated. REALLY complicated. To get a feel for "the law", consider this Twitter thread from Jack Goldsmith, starting with #1.

I didn't attack YOU. I attacked your POSITIONS. I'll consider my words more carefully, though.

And you and JackGoldsmith are acting as though you know what the whistleblower complaint is. You have no clue what's in there, and more to the point, IT DOES NOT MATTER what the complaint is. The whistleblower law does not care. It has specific time constraints to reduce corruption in government by giving employees a lawful path to get their complaint to the proper parties, while maintaining the classified information that for the last three years was really important to you. Now you suddenly get a case of "it depends". No. It doesn't depend.

If you don't protect the whistleblower law, you are telling all Federal employees who are patriots that your only avenue is the press. This is the opposite outcome from what Old Salt wanted for the last three years.

You're the one acting like you know what the whistleblower's complaint is, just based on unconfirmed leaks.
Goldsmith & I are reacting based on not knowing what the whistleblower's complaint is ...because we don't.
We are ALL responding to what's been leaked & reported (so far) as uncorroborated facts.
I'm not going to respond to your what if/if true hypotheticals. They never end.
I continue to caution -- wait until the facts emerge, as they surely will, now that the whistle blower has been burned.

Goldsmith knows a hell of a lot more about the applicable law than anyone posting here.
He maintains that the whistleblower protection act does not override the confidentiality of a President's classified communications with a foreign leader. Schiff knows this, which is why he's threatening the DNI via witholding appropriations rather than via the courts.

The whistleblower has been outed now. If the documents upon which he bases his complaint are not released, Schiff will drag him before the HSPIC. That's Schiff's objective anyway.

Did you see former acting DCI McLaughlin on MSNBC ? He explained how these complaints are resolved, in secret, via an "accomodation," by briefing 2 - 4 key members of Congress, while protecting the whistleblower, without going to the media, as Schiff did.

Your sacred 7 day limit has not halted the process. I'm just not going to join you in chasing hypotheticals over the cliff until more facts come out.

This is what took place after the ph call in question :
https://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-pres ... nd-1459100
No Ukrainian prosecutors were fired to secure that aid.

It doesn’t take long to find you making assumptions all over the place on here. Your being completely and unambiguously dishonest in this post

seacoaster wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:23 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:44 am

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:00 pm Did you see former acting DCI McLaughlin on MSNBC ? He explained how these complaints are resolved, in secret, via an "accomodation," by briefing 2 - 4 key members of Congress, while protecting the whistleblower, without going to the media, as Schiff did.

Yep. And they failed to follow the law and do just that. And we're supposed to believe that you don't care. 3 years of bloviating about the importance of intel laws, and now here you are making fun of them, and trying to sell us that you now think they are unimportant.

Troll. On everything Trump you troll. You don't mean a word of it.

I did see McLaughlin. This is exactly what went wrong in the sequence: the IG passed the complaint over to the DNI noting its apparent credibility and seriousness. The next step would have been to consult the "2-4 key members of Congress," one of whom would have been the Chairman of the HSCI (which democracy in action made Schiff, who you loathe) and another might have been Burr, to seek the accommodation. I assume this process -- the effort at accommodation -- would have substantially complied with the 7 day deadline. But the DNI stopped that process, and appears to have allowed Barr to step in and help the DNI (and, not parenthetically) Trump figure a way to nullify the law. It's really bad, and should be terrifying to any American who understands shared powers, checks and balances, the proper governance.

Sorry if I called you names. That was my TDS.

NRPLUS ARTICLE
Breaking Down the Whistleblower Frenzy
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
September 21, 2019 6:30 AM

The Democrats’ media narrative of impeachment portrays President Trump and his administration as serial law-breakers who, true to form, obstruct all congressional investigations of wrongdoing. This then becomes the analytical framework for every new controversy. There are at least two fundamental problems with this.

First, our constitutional system is based on friction between competing branches vested with separate but closely related powers. The Framers understood that the two political branches would periodically try to usurp each other’s authorities. Congress often does this by enactments that seek to subject executive power to congressional (or judicial) supervision. Presidential pushback on such laws is not criminal obstruction; it is the Constitution in action.

Second, we’ve become so law-obsessed that we miss the forest for the trees. Often, the least important aspect of a controversy — viz., whether a law has been violated — becomes the dominant consideration. Short shrift is given to the more consequential aspects, such as whether we are being competently governed or whether power is being abused.

These problems are now playing out in the Trump controversy du jour (or should I say de l’heure?): the intelligence community whistleblower.

As this column is written on Friday afternoon, the story is still evolving, with the president tweeting as ever, and the New York Times producing a report by no fewer than eight of its top journalists, joining the seven (and counting) who are working it for the Washington Post, which broke the story.

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:24 pm AF, i admire your rope-a-dope here. Have for many years now. You have him dead to rights this time...total lack of credibility on full display. Someone blew the whistle on my earlier post, probably crying about someone being "mean" . Done with him SO much longer ago than you others...but that said, it is also SO useful to make a clear, 100% contrast...to "win the day" (over and over) as it were.

Well done.

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:44 am So now we no longer have a whistleblower law. And you and Old Salt are thrilled. Nice job.

Old Salt has now openly told us that he thinks leaking of classified intel is the only path for those who witness wrongdoing in our government. After lecturing us for years as to how important the classified system is.

Bravo. Gee, i wonder if anyone is going to get killed over this green light on leaking? Who cares, right? It's not me.

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:00 pm Did you see former acting DCI McLaughlin on MSNBC ? He explained how these complaints are resolved, in secret, via an "accomodation," by briefing 2 - 4 key members of Congress, while protecting the whistleblower, without going to the media, as Schiff did.

Yep. And they failed to follow the law and do just that. And we're supposed to believe that you don't care. 3 years of bloviating about the importance of intel laws, and now here you are making fun of them, and trying to sell us that you now think they are unimportant.

Troll. On everything Trump you troll. You don't mean a word of it.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:38 pm We all sound like Walt Kowalski in the movie Gran Torino

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:28 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:23 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:44 am

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:00 pm Did you see former acting DCI McLaughlin on MSNBC ? He explained how these complaints are resolved, in secret, via an "accomodation," by briefing 2 - 4 key members of Congress, while protecting the whistleblower, without going to the media, as Schiff did.

Yep. And they failed to follow the law and do just that. And we're supposed to believe that you don't care. 3 years of bloviating about the importance of intel laws, and now here you are making fun of them, and trying to sell us that you now think they are unimportant.

Troll. On everything Trump you troll. You don't mean a word of it.

I did see McLaughlin. This is exactly what went wrong in the sequence: the IG passed the complaint over to the DNI noting its apparent credibility and seriousness. The next step would have been to consult the "2-4 key members of Congress," one of whom would have been the Chairman of the HSCI (which democracy in action made Schiff, who you loathe) and another might have been Burr, to seek the accommodation. I assume this process -- the effort at accommodation -- would have substantially complied with the 7 day deadline. But the DNI stopped that process, and appears to have allowed Barr to step in and help the DNI (and, not parenthetically) Trump figure a way to nullify the law. It's really bad, and should be terrifying to any American who understands shared powers, checks and balances, the proper governance.

Sorry if I called you names. That was my TDS.

No problem. Glad to see you're coping with your TDS.

I agree that an " accommodation " might have been possible, while still shielding the whistleblower's identity.
It's looking like this whistleblower is a savvy insider who knows how the system works & who can be trusted.
Burr & Warner would have been the members to seek out ; nor Schiff & Nunes.

I'm witholding judgement on the DNI until we see how this plays out. The whistleblower system is not immune from abuse, especially within DoD, which is where this DNI previously served. Phil Mudd may have been right.

On the 7 day limit. In addition to Goldsmith, I also agree (as usual) with Andy McCarthy :

NRPLUS ARTICLE
Breaking Down the Whistleblower Frenzy
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
September 21, 2019 6:30 AM

The Democrats’ media narrative of impeachment portrays President Trump and his administration as serial law-breakers who, true to form, obstruct all congressional investigations of wrongdoing. This then becomes the analytical framework for every new controversy. There are at least two fundamental problems with this.

First, our constitutional system is based on friction between competing branches vested with separate but closely related powers. The Framers understood that the two political branches would periodically try to usurp each other’s authorities. Congress often does this by enactments that seek to subject executive power to congressional (or judicial) supervision. Presidential pushback on such laws is not criminal obstruction; it is the Constitution in action.

Second, we’ve become so law-obsessed that we miss the forest for the trees. Often, the least important aspect of a controversy — viz., whether a law has been violated — becomes the dominant consideration. Short shrift is given to the more consequential aspects, such as whether we are being competently governed or whether power is being abused.

These problems are now playing out in the Trump controversy du jour (or should I say de l’heure?): the intelligence community whistleblower.

As this column is written on Friday afternoon, the story is still evolving, with the president tweeting as ever, and the New York Times producing a report by no fewer than eight of its top journalists, joining the seven (and counting) who are working it for the Washington Post, which broke the story.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:30 pm .. ...who's trolling now. Plz don't misrepresent what I posted. It's not honorable.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:30 pm The WB is not without options. I've explained twice now (see below) how the WB can be protected & "accommodated" without it leaking to the media. He still can go to Congress or file a complaint with the FBI.

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:00 pm The WB cab still go to Burr & Warner if he doesn't want it leaked.
...but somebody's now feeding the MSM details.

old salt wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:00 pm I was serious when I said there's a Constitutional remedy. ....
.........That's not trolling. I'm deadly serious. I'm hardly the only voter fed up with all this.

old salt wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:28 pm First, our constitutional system is based on friction between competing branches vested with separate but closely related powers. The Framers understood that the two political branches would periodically try to usurp each other’s authorities. Congress often does this by enactments that seek to subject executive power to congressional (or judicial) supervision. Presidential pushback on such laws is not criminal obstruction; it is the Constitution in action

DMac wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:07 pm Wouldn't pay a dime to buy my way back in time, life was good for boomers. For all the bad they brought, it will pale in comparison to what the generations who followed will bring. Your technology, with all it's potential, will phuk things up like nothing we've ever seen (can feel it happening now). This generation couldn't hang with the boomer generation, they're far too fragile and sensitive, and life is more artificial today than ever. Hope you boys can fix all the damage we've done.

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:19 pm And I get that.....you likely didn't see the post where I told Old Salt that I caught Lawrence ODonnell (sp) and Maddow (because of the Missus) for an hour or two for the first time in I don't know how long, and it made me understand where Old Salt was coming from in his gripe about the Resistance and the Prestwick story. Those two are just waaaaaay over the top, and are more ridiculous than ever. Did see this and it warmed the cockles of my heart

But, again, that doesn't mean that this stuff Trump is doing is ok. It's a mistake to judge what Trump and Co. do by the reaction of the left. They can both be wankers, and send the whole country down the toilet. That's a bit "alarmist" for my taste but see your point of course.

I've gone from liberal, to libertarian (boy was I dumb back then), to fiscal conservative in my last 30 years. How about you? I supported Gore in 2000. 9/11 changed everything for me. That was a while ago... at this point, I'm a political hybrid (but pragmatist feels about right).

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:46 pmAt this point it’s time for boomers to shut the f up and make sure to keep their diapers clean and stay in the right lane on the road.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:57 pm When you guys start dying off. And we begin to emulate the hot younger sister version of what Japan has become.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-survey ... 7-t12.xlsx

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g

For every hot chick you have, there’s also a pederass/Roman polanski/Bill cosby/Jesse Jackson/Jon dough/harvey Weinstein too.

I got love for you dmac, although you shouldn’t take credit for legalizing weed, that’s the generation after mine (millennials, gross). Maybe Tim Leary and leaking spines, that good juice in Guyana/Jonestown, but not weed. But boomers arguing that they have any business “pushing back” on younger generations is a bit much.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:44 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:30 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:04 am Trump probably knew he was being monitored and repeated Obama's saying ' I will have more flexibility after elected'.

Why do you and FoxNation keep citing that as if there anything wrong with that comment?

Explain how that's wrong, please. I don't understand what you think the problem is with telling Putin about a political reality?

Not implying it is wrong, I just remember how wound up the right got over it...so it does not surprise me if something similar happened here. Trump is childish, we all know that, he is going to push the envelope on getting back to those that have burned him (right or wrong) from the left. Sadly, politics, especially during the campaign, is unscrupulous.

DMac wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:07 pm Wouldn't pay a dime to buy my way back in time, life was good for boomers. For all the bad they brought, it will pale in comparison to what the generations who followed will bring. Your technology, with all it's potential, will phuk things up like nothing we've ever seen (can feel it happening now). This generation couldn't hang with the boomer generation, they're far too fragile and sensitive, and life is more artificial today than ever. Hope you boys can fix all the damage we've done.

NRPLUS ARTICLE
Breaking Down the Whistleblower Frenzy
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
September 21, 2019 6:30 AM

The Democrats’ media narrative of impeachment portrays President Trump and his administration as serial law-breakers who, true to form, obstruct all congressional investigations of wrongdoing. This then becomes the analytical framework for every new controversy. There are at least two fundamental problems with this.

First, our constitutional system is based on friction between competing branches vested with separate but closely related powers. The Framers understood that the two political branches would periodically try to usurp each other’s authorities. Congress often does this by enactments that seek to subject executive power to congressional (or judicial) supervision. Presidential pushback on such laws is not criminal obstruction; it is the Constitution in action.

Second, we’ve become so law-obsessed that we miss the forest for the trees. Often, the least important aspect of a controversy — viz., whether a law has been violated — becomes the dominant consideration. Short shrift is given to the more consequential aspects, such as whether we are being competently governed or whether power is being abused.

These problems are now playing out in the Trump controversy du jour (or should I say de l’heure?): the intelligence community whistleblower.

As this column is written on Friday afternoon, the story is still evolving, with the president tweeting as ever, and the New York Times producing a report by no fewer than eight of its top journalists, joining the seven (and counting) who are working it for the Washington Post, which broke the story.

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:58 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:57 pm When you guys start dying off. And we begin to emulate the hot younger sister version of what Japan has become.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-survey ... 7-t12.xlsx

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g

For every hot chick you have, there’s also a pederass/Roman polanski/Bill cosby/Jesse Jackson/Jon dough/harvey Weinstein too.

I got love for you dmac, although you shouldn’t take credit for legalizing weed, that’s the generation after mine (millennials, gross). Maybe Tim Leary and leaking spines, that good juice in Guyana/Jonestown, but not weed. But boomers arguing that they have any business “pushing back” on younger generations is a bit much.

I brought up GenX cause a fan has mentioned more than once that that is his generation and I was just ribbing him. You're making it a generational argument which is wrong. I understand people don't like Trump, have all along and don't much care for him either which I've stated more than once. But the "idiot resistance" are those who hate him so much they're willing to hurt the country and/or destroy the Constitution in the process of trying to get rid of him. Their maxim being..."the ends justifies the means"... a large portion of MSM included. The idiot resistance spans all generations BTW.

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:13 am

tech37 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:58 am

Farfromgeneva wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 8:57 pm When you guys start dying off. And we begin to emulate the hot younger sister version of what Japan has become.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-survey ... 7-t12.xlsx

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g

For every hot chick you have, there’s also a pederass/Roman polanski/Bill cosby/Jesse Jackson/Jon dough/harvey Weinstein too.

I got love for you dmac, although you shouldn’t take credit for legalizing weed, that’s the generation after mine (millennials, gross). Maybe Tim Leary and leaking spines, that good juice in Guyana/Jonestown, but not weed. But boomers arguing that they have any business “pushing back” on younger generations is a bit much.

I brought up GenX cause a fan has mentioned more than once that that is his generation and I was just ribbing him. You're making it a generational argument which is wrong. I understand people don't like Trump, have all along and don't much care for him either which I've stated more than once. But the "idiot resistance" are those who hate him so much they're willing to hurt the country and/or destroy the Constitution in the process of trying to get rid of him. Their maxim being..."the ends justifies the means"... a large portion of MSM included. The idiot resistance spans all generations BTW.

Well I was responding to you literal text missing any of those face icons to demonstrate sarcasm. But I’m not wrong our “organic”/“indigenous” (and I use that term poorly for lack of a better descriptor) population is declining as the boomer generation does off. It’s basic population economics, we’ve been below the replacement rate for the better part of 20-30yrs in terms of births. This current crackdown on immigration will only exacerbate that. Should mean structurally slower growth over the next 20-40yrs compared with the 50s to early-mid 90s. A lot of growth since the late 80s-early 90s have been due to a more or less kondrietev wave of technology combined with the end of the Cold War. Throw in a lot of legal and regulatory arbitrage and that’s what you have from
The internet bubble through the crisis and everything since is an (over)reaction to and fighting of the last battle. But leadership is what politicians, representatives of the citizens of this country, means being mountain men (Zarathustra)rather than sheep and make decisions with an eye towards both current and future outcomes. The boomer generation have been saying “but but it’s all about the children” since I was a young kid in the 80s and yet most decisions made in review were made for that generations own benefit. Now they want things for themselves because they pulled forward so many societal benefits and life in the 55+ cohort looks a little less stable or predictable and want decisions made for themselves.

Surely someone will pop up and say “that’s not me” and that may or may not be true, but as a cohort it looks pretty obvious. Hence any “pushback” from
The boomers is totally selfish and self interested and so they do need to do more listening and less talking.p