Gotta disagree with the general notion here, on this basis: Nothing good that comes from pandering to complete idiocy, except breeding more of it.

That's a slippery slope argument of course but, well, people DO slide down hills & suffer injuries, so it's not like slippery slopes don't exist.

Israeli investigative reporter says Trump shared more information than has been publicly revealed with the Russians https://t.co/muRC81DkQ5 pic.twitter.com/HvujgYV33W

— Garance Franke-Ruta (@thegarance) February 1, 2018

Completely lost in all the Nunes-memo-kerfuffle is that there was probable cause in 2014 to believe that Carter Page was a Russian agent.

So, the memo has been released. And near the end of it, it states that the Russia investigation was already underway before the Steele dossier existed. So the FBI couldn't have used the dossier to begin their investigation.

A true nothingburger.

I don't see why Dems don't want the memo out.

I get its biased and slanted but this way media, politicians & FBI can react to it, there's transparency and context to what is being said or what the accusations are and the inevitable rebuttals.

If the memo truly has inaccuracies, I think it'll all come out.

Truth is so 20th century,

What year are you currently living in?

:lol: By seconds!

Your punctuation was far superior though :)

I see the argument that the memo was given outsized importance in part by how hard the Dems have fought against it.

But I still think it was the right call. If the Dems had been silent, the GOP noise machine would have still trumpeted it, and the media might have gone along with "BREAKING: A classified memo just released proves that Trump gets to fire anyone investigating whether Russia attacked our election and that's cool."

As it is, the media has to at least acknowledge that the memo is controversial and not just take it at face value.

Kind of a least-bad option, I think.

I think if the competing memos had been released at the same time, we could have gotten a clearer picture of what this was all about. Hard to comment on it until that memo does. So if the Republicans try to block that from happening now, few, other than the base are going to find real value in what was released. I do hope however that this is the beginning of the end of Devin Nunes in any leadership position.

Isn't it controversial in the way that a single climate scientist states that his data and only his data proves that climate change is a hoax. And that we must believe him because the other scientists are wrong and unimportant and excluded because he says they are wrong?

The FBI, DOJ and Dems all still maintain that the memo is inaccurate. Why wouldn't they fight against its release?

Because even if they think it will hurt Republicans in the long run maybe they don't want a Congressional committee pushing a false narrative and misleading memo designed to attack the FBI and IC.

I think now I would like to hear from the FISA judge in the interest of transparency. I mean we've just had classified documents released after all, so nothing is sacred I guess. Walk us through the process that went on here, what he/she knew about what the R's are claiming here etc.

Why? The memo is a poorly reasoned clown show that actually proves the opposite of what it set forth to do, yet is a strategic masterstroke by getting people once again to look over to the left while the real action is on the right.

Gold, Jerry. Gold!

Why? Because we have just one side of the story here. And the Democratic memo is likely to be very partisan too. Let legal experts who have more experience than I and most Americans certainly do weigh in on what went on here. Could or should the FISA process be changed? why or why not.

.@mattgaetz just said on CNN that “Devin Nunes didn’t write this memo. His staff did.”

— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) February 2, 2018

How long until we're hearing, "Nunes didn't even really read the memo until after it was released."

Well, he didn't read the underlying intel, so that's a possibility.

You know Trump's handlers are printing out every post from every MAGA head and Russia bot on social media calling this a gamechanger and handing it to him. He's probably wondering why Mueller hasn't already fired himself.

Jesus-so should his staff be fired now-names all revealed to the public just in the name of "transparency" of course. Did they all vote for Trump? It's not out five minutes and already you are back pedaling and laying the blame for it?

Jim Sciutto‏Verified account @jimsciutto









New: Two Democratic members of House Intel tell me McCabe did not say dossier was basis of FISA warrant, disputing central claim of #NunesMemo

check out Seth Abramson's twitter feed, especially the responses he gives as he evaluates the memo from a lawyer's perspective.

Damn. You suck.

Damn.

FOFC

You ain't kidding. Abramson savages the memo.

This is probably the best summary of his thread:

30/ In other words, this memo is written like a campaign ad—not an official document, and *certainly* not a legal document. It gets every fact wrong and every point of law wrong and *wildly* so. This is an embarrassing piece of work, but I'll keep on analyzing it anyway. We must.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) February 2, 2018

I think this one sums it up nicely:

Seth Abramson‏Verified account @SethAbramson 2h2 hours ago




70/ Look, anyone who actually knows a lot about this investigation can see immediately this "Nunes Memo" is a dirty dinner napkin—zero value. If Trump takes *any* action as a result of this memo, it's wholly pretextual and—under the circumstances—likely illegal. Be prepared. /end

Abramson is a colossal hack who should not be taken seriously.

Oh the irony

Hey is there any kind of action in the betting markets that you can get on a US athlete protesting during the anthem in the Winter Olympics?

says Devin Nunes? :)

lol

Nunes is saying that there will be a second memo, this time about the State Department.

Some day in August we'll be waiting for the release of Memo 11, detailing how HUD and the WH chef filed a false application for student aid which they used to attend Trump U and create a false scam narrative.

For what it's worth, they've been talking about doing this for decades. I remember it almost happening when I was a kid. The reaction up here has basically been that it's no big deal, with the exception of a small handful of right-wing outlets/politicians who are trying very hard to emulate what you folks have going on down in the US these days. The rest of us... shrug.

No claiming credit for the worst week the stock market has seen in two years??? Shocked I tell ya.

Somehow it will come out over the weekend that it was Obama’s fault.

No, says everything he's done. He's not a reporter. He has no real expertise in anything he talks about. He's an assistant English professor who rambles on Twitter about conspiracy theories and begs for donations.

Stop Listening to Seth Abramson's Hack Trump-Russia Theories :: Politics :: Features :: Seth Abramson :: Paste
How the Left Lost Its Mind - The Atlantic

There's bigger takedowns of him online if you go looking. Or just go back through some of his megathreads a year ago and see how none of it came true.

He's not as insane as Louis Mensch but he's right up there with Eric Garland.

My favorite:

Bernie Sanders Is Currently Winning the Democratic Primary Race, and I'll Prove It to You | HuffPost

The Trumpkin talking point that the job of law enforcement is to inform the judge of every possible reason to deny warrants, is novel.

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 1h1 hour ago




This memo totally vindicates “Trump” in probe. But the Russian Witch Hunt goes on and on. Their was no Collusion and there was no Obstruction (the word now used because, after one year of looking endlessly and finding NOTHING, collusion is dead). This is an American disgrace!


But wait, I thought the memo had nothing to do with the Mueller probe? :puzzled?

Or the meaning of obstruction and collusion-but he will

A secretary at a public high school in Lancaster, PA, said she was pleasantly surprised her pay went up $1.50 a week ... she said [that] will more than cover her Costco membership for the year. https://t.co/yLX1Bod1j0

— Paul Ryan (@PRyan) February 3, 2018

IT'S TRICKLING DOWN!

I hope she stocks up, because he's coming for her Social Security next.

Who distrusts law enforcement more? The Black Lives Matter movement or the Trump administration.

Social media erupted on this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nts/303827002/

When I first read that Ryan tweet I thought it was a parody account.

I saw that it was his verified account, and I assumed (hoped?) he'd been hacked.

https://www.axios.com/gop-turns-on-f...mpaign=organic

I would have never believed that a day would come when the GOP was anti football and anti FBI.

and Pro Russia

I thought he wrote $1.50 an hour and I was thinking "ehh why's everyone complaining?".

Thought WSJ was fake news? Editorials, even more so?

We must be in the upside down now.

Carter Page bragged that he was an adviser to the Kremlin in a letter dated Aug. 25, 2013 obtained by TIME. https://t.co/Q3xZiUck9Z

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 4, 2018

lol

Is this winning?

The U.S. government is set to borrow nearly $1 trillion this year, an 84 percent jump from last year

Is anyone else concerned?

We only have to get to the next Dem president and then the GOP will rediscover deficit religion.

He has to be the dumbest criminal alive.

So true.

The pain we are going thru with Trump may have been worth it if the deficit was solved and debt going the other way.

Which it obviously isn't and apparently won't so now what?

I imagine their argument will be that next year the trickle down will be in full force and revenues willl be so robust they will pay this back?

It does provide a very nice “little” experiment- all the chips are put on this theory and there will be data to prove it or not.

A booming economy and increased tax revenue?

After he gets infrastructure/wall and some sort of immigration bill thru, a more focused Trump on deficit reduction?

A more bi-partianship congress after the 2018 elections and House goes to Dems?

A 2020 second term Trump who is more mature, realistic and a legacy to worry about, catch-up on?

Continue to kick the can down the road until it really comes to a head ... say 2030'ish ?

This isn't hard.

As soon as the Dems get back in power, the GOP will talk about deficits again.

The media will take them seriously, and the people will follow.

They pay zero price for flip-flopping on the issue, so it would actually be stupid of them to play it any differently than they are.

I'm sorry, but why on earth would you think anything is going to change about a 71 year old man who has never had to be responsible?

What you see is what you get.

Someone tried to tell me today that the FBI had been bought off by the Democratic party and was now a corrupted tool of the political left.

If it was so obvious and corrupt why is it taking so long for all the dirt to come out on Trump? How did he even win in the first place?

Seriously though, I am getting very worried about the direction that the country is taking in regards to our political system. the entire system is being torn down right in front of us to the point that I wonder if we'll ever have another 'normal' election. And what would that mean for the government, and the country? Will we slide toward a single party, 'we rule because we know what's best for the country' Jonotopia? Or since trump has changed the nature of the oval office, if a Democrat takes charge who is the trump equivalent of the left, will the R's share in the blame for all of it? Will they accept it as the new normal?

What is normal going forward? Or is it just a weird blip in history?

I hope it is just a bug in the simulation code and that it gets fixed soon.

There were several big events that led to this:

1) 2000 Election - The way that was handled was ridiculous. The issue I had with it was it seemed the recounts would only end once Al Gore got enough to take Florida. The way the Democrats acted after that paved the way for what came later (stolen election, etc.).

2) Obama ramming through Obamacare - The way this was rammed through Congress left a sour taste in a lot of mouths. It caused the Tea Party movement which the Religious Right hijacked. I think this completely polarized the party.

3) Obama's 2008 election - Not for the reasons everyone would point to, but his was the first campaign where social media was a major factor. This is the same idea Trump tapped into in 2016.

4) The rise of social media - Our attention spans have the life span of a gnat. The media cycle has exacerbated this, and now people do not look at what anyone says in a speech. It's too long. Instead, everything is about getting in your sound bites.

5) Polarization - Social media has led to both sides to retreat to their echo chambers. The result, either extreme will no longer listen to the other side. There are several posters here that if one side or the other said exactly what they wanted to hear, the letter next to their name would lead them to still vote against that side.

6) The lack of other options - This has been around a while, but due to polarization, I do not see a third party truly gaining ground. Any vote outside of the 2 major parties is a wasted vote. The other side is such an abomination in the eyes of many voters, they do not necessarily vote for who they want, they vote against the other candidate. I am a good example of this, there was no way I wanted Hillary to win. I would rather take my chance that Trump would be different, than help put her in office. For the record, if Bernie had been the nominee, I probably would have voted for him, or Johnson.

EDIT: I got on a roll, I am not sure if we will see another normal election because it is not important to the people in power. If they can keep getting their side riled up without actually effecting change, why should they?

I don't disagree with you. It is unlikely he will change significantly.

However, to his credit (or John Kelly's), I do think the amount of stupidity (?) has decreased, more restraint, his handlers seem to be doing a better job etc.

I'm so old I remember when it was nearly an American crisis when Dan Quayle misspelled potato.

Where do we go when the bar for the president is "eh, he's doing pretty good, right now. The amount of stupid things he's been saying is down some. Great job mr trump!"

Strangely enough, I agree with both you and Edward.

Edward is somewhat right--the open asshattery of POTUS has dropped a bit from what it was previously, as far as I have seen. Or he has gotten smarter about what to let out. Or his handlers take his phone from him. Whatever. Since we're stuck with the jackass, maybe he's slightly improving and that's better than where we were.

But you are also very correct. It is devastatingly sad that we should need to look for slight improvement and cheer it on from such a lowly set bar. That Trump has been so terrible at just about everything, that we end up having to look for the glimmers of faint silver linings in the dark clouds.

Nearly a year of negotiations with the GOP. Committee hearings and a majority vote out of committee. A majority vote in the House. Committee hearings and a majority vote out of committee. A 60 vote in the Senate. Another majority vote in the House.

How exactly was anything rammed through Congress? And if that process wasn't good enough, what process would have been legitimate in your eyes?

The Tea Party Movement was actually launched due to opposition of the Obama stimulus and housing bailout. Concern about government spending to support those hurt in the housing crisis and the decision to spend money on projects to get people working again in early 2009. ACA wasn't signed in until 2010.

Too many facts. Let’s go back to conjecture please.

The degradation of our society that led to the election of this president has been led by the extremely left leaning Hollywood crowd.
We are reaping what they sowed.

And now you guys are complaining. Clean up the direction of your own party and you will once again get your chance. But if the dems dont put up someone that will rouse the independents or get out a large turnout. You will see Trump until 2024.

Im not sure Oprah is the one that is going to get it down. But she would sure give it a go.

So somehow the Republicans could not find someone, anyone to run for the Illinois 3rd Congressional District against this guy, so somehow their nominee is

Holocaust denier running for Congress has no opponents in Republican primary

There's certainly an element of truth here, but when isn't there? It wasn't long that the death of the R's was being announced. Now, it's not exactly healthy, but they aren't exactly dead are they? Point being that the failures of the D party were evident months after Obama's election in '08. His failure to reign in Congress and letting them run the show, instead of dictating his vision and trusting the career politicians cost him his entire first year in office. I think if he comes in and really goes for his message right away things might have been different.

One area that does show progress on this front is the amount of low level organization the D party is showing in my red state of KY. The Dems have lost both state houses for the first time in decades, but now you're seeing some good local organization for the party where before I really didn't see any.

The party does need a new voice. I hoped that the new leadership of the DNC would find it, and maybe they are responsible for the energy that is just getting underway at the local level, but either way, they really need to find the right message to get out there, right now, it's still not hitting the way it should be.

It's always the fault of the people that didn't vote for him.

Are we seriously back to blaming Dems for Trump being in the white house?

Maybe Dems should have put forth a better candidate, but maybe Republicans and the independants that voted for Trump shouldn't have voted for a guy they hoped wouldn't do exactly what he said he would do.

You don't like what's going on in Washington with democrats in office. Blame the Dems. You don't like what's going on with Republicans in office. Blame the democrats.

It's honestly the fault of everyone.

This.

But the true Trump supporters are loving what is going on. The people that came out in droves and won him the election are not upset by any means.

But what spurred on this outpouring of voters that elected Trump was the BS that Hollywood and NYC is spewing. That stuff pisses off the "fly over" people. They do not like where this country was heading. And a man appeared with a populist message that seemed anti-extreme leftist. And they came out and voted.

The Dems need to find another Obama-type candidate. But, as pilotman said,
work with him/her and get their message to results.

You can't make that argument without acknowledging that more people voted for Hillary.

Actually it's not. It's the fault of people who voted for Trump

They voted on what was available. You have to understand that.

Po White Trash in a handful of key states (Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan) controlled this entire election. And Trump is in office not because they are (entirely) racist but because:

A) We elect using an Electoral College
B) Obama ignored them
C) Hillary was Obama, Part 2 (to them)

A large portion of the blame goes to those who think “Voting” only means voting in the presidential elections. Want better candidates? vote in the primaries. Want better senators and representatives? Vote in the midterms.

Tea Partiers realized this a long time ago and the rest of us are stuck with their BS now.

In the wrong places.

I didnt say more people voted for Trump. But more people than normal in places that they didnt before did come out and vote. And they voted fro Trump.

Obama ignored them, boo-fucking-hoo. It's still the Trump voters who put Trump into office, not the people who voted for other candidates.

Assessing blame is a losing game, and leads us nowhere.

Regardless of blame, we're in this spot because of multiple issues, on both sides of the aisle.

Fewer people voted for the GOP candidate and in aggregate in WI than in 2012, and fewer voted for Trump than did Obama in 2012 in MI and PA.

Where is the outpouring of voters that elected Trump?

Clinton had pretty significant declines in votes in the Midwest compared to Obama, and that's a much more data driven story.

Agreed. Hopefully the Dems got that message and are working on fixing the issue.

+1
Nothing to add, I just think these facts are lost on a lot of people, shifting the narrative and all... so if posting this 3 Times in a row helps, I’m glad to help.

Voting isn't cool anymore, remember liberal icon Colin Kaepernick telling everyone it was a waste of time and didn't make a difference? Social media memes and protests are the way now.

As pointed out by PilotMan, this is revisionist horseshit. The Affordable Care Act took well over a year between the unveiling of the original legislation, markup in committee, and the final vote.

By comparison: Republicans unveiled their first repeal bill in the Trump era on March 6; it was passed out of committee a week later, and by March 24, they were pulling it from the House floor due to the backlash.

April 26, the House tries again, and sends the Senate a bill just 9 days later.

The Senate's attempt at reconciliation lasted ~36 days.

September 13, Republicans try one more time to beat the clock before their ability to use reconciliation ends; Graham-Cassidy never comes up for a vote as three Republicans say 'nope.'

Three separate attempts on a party-line vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act in a six-month span.

By comparison, ACA was first approved in committee in the House in July of '09, a full five months after President Obama first said 'let's do this.' It was another eight months after THAT before a bill emerged from reconciliation to become law.

Republicans completely ceded the 'rammed it down our throats' argument with their legislative actions in the first, like, three months of the Trump Administration, even ignoring their attempts to blow up ACA.

Try again.

Yeah, how dare someone blame Trump being president on Trump voters :rolleyes:

If you truly think the GOP alone was responsible for Trump being elected, please send me your mailing address. That way, I.can send you your pink tiara for your next fantasy birthday celebration.

So I shouldn't blame those who promoted and pushed for Trump?

ETA:

You think I should blame those who pushed for the opposite result?

Ah, I see we perhaps have a reading comprehensipn issue. Never fear. I will provide you with the key portion, bolded below, so you don't have to waste time looking for it yourself.


Forgive me for unwisely neglecting to embolden this part before. I am entirely at fault for presuming you would not need help locating it on your own.

Yes, the GOP alone is responsible for Trump. They supported him. They elected him. They pushed him. They still support him. Without Trump supporters there would be no Trump. For good or ill Trump voters are responsible for Trump.

All right then. PM me your address and your hat size so I can send you your tiara.

Pretty much. There was no dearth of choices in the primaries. Trump voters went WOO SOMEONE WHO TELLS IT LIKE IT IS about a guy who insulted everybody he could at every turn....'cept Putin.

I mean, you MIGHT be able to make the argument that his primary opponents enabled his nomination by insisting on splitting the #NeverTrump vote for long enough for him to ride his plurality to Cleveland, but that's still entirely on Republicans.

There's levels of blame, but a registered Republican who voted for someone besides Trump is less responsible than a Democrat who didn't bother to vote.

It's always been hard to get the young and minorities out to vote, but turnout is up for both in the post-2000 presidential elections compared to the 1980-1996 timeframe.

Look at the vote, did anyone from the right vote for the bill? No, it was rammed through largely on party lines. Some a Democrats in the House voted against it. So no need to try again as that was my point.

Regarding Trump, the exodus of voters in the Midwest (Central and Western PA across to MN), was due in large part to the Democrats turning a deaf ear to the needs of traditional Democrat voters in the area. The blue collar workers I talked to there (working in industrial sales), shocked me by their support for Trump. Many said they did not trust Hillary and thought she would say whatever it took to get elected. Trump’s rhetoric about bringing jobs back, etc., resonated with them. The other big issue with the Democrats was their support for illegals when there are plenty of Americans that need help.

On a flight from Las Vegas to Minneapolis, I blew the mind of a Republican Party consultant. We were discussing candidates and how Trump got the nomination, etc. He was having issues reconciling the poll data, what voters wanted with the messaging of the candidates. Based upon the data, all signs had pointed to Rubio getting the nod. What scared me the most in all this, was the candidates are largely public personas that are led by handlers. His stories about the campaign trail was chilling to me. I expect the people we elect to be leaders, but it looks like they are just figureheads for the people behind their candidacy. I always felt it was the other way around, they were leaders that won support, rather than guys that were tapped to be the one.

EDIT: Went off topic in the last paragraph, I blew his mind that while I am very conservative socially, I do not believe in legislating those beliefs. I am very libertarian in that regard in that people. My bigger concern was financial and that I felt the Republicans had lost their way.

'Rammed through' has a meaning that there was no debate, and it was passed in a short period of time.

So you feel the same way about the tax cuts?