Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:

::shrug::

Is Kissinger like 110 years old at this point?

Simple Torture wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

::shrug::

Is Kissinger like 110 years old at this point?

93....94 later this month! Happy early birthday, Hank!

Definitely the biggest question of the morning: how old is Kissinger

Another prediction: stupid, toothless SNL skit about Spicer hiding in the bushes earns praise in spite of not really requiring any writing and helping the administration by making them seem less scary.

McParadigm wrote:Another prediction: stupid, toothless SNL skit about Spicer hiding in the bushes earns praise in spite of not really requiring any writing and helping the administration by making them seem less scary.

Sad but true.

McParadigm wrote:Definitely the biggest question of the morning: how old is Kissinger

someone shoot me

Here are the options for an independent Russia inquiry
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/ ... story.html

Meanwhile, a shit show

Still waiting for someone to tell me that I'm on "The Self Show" and, unbeknownst to me, this whole thing has been televised for the rest of America's enjoyment.

digster wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

digster wrote:There's a slight difference between resigning and being fired by the guy you're investigating because you're investigating him.

Comey was investigating individuals related to Gen. Flynn, Flynn himself, and other Trump campaign staffers. I don't recall anyone saying Trump was under investigation by the FBI. I think we all just assume its happening.

In terms of the legal ramifications, this is an important designation. In terms of potential political fallout, I'm not sure Trump is making that differentiation, nor, honestly, should he. My argument isn't about Trump being culpable or not; there's been no evidence made public as of yet to suggest he colluded. My argument's more for anyone who would say this is not about the investigation, which I just think is beyond rational.

Many on the Left were calling for his firing because of his continuing investigation of Hillary, and they would have had no problem with her replacing him if she won (there would never be any hyperbolic "BUT MUH DEMOCRACY!!!" headlines), even if he continued to investigate her. The hypocrisy is blindingly obvious.

Death of democracy... Lol... This is democracy. Horrible, horrible democracy. Of course he's covering his ass.

BurtReynolds wrote:

digster wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

digster wrote:There's a slight difference between resigning and being fired by the guy you're investigating because you're investigating him.

Comey was investigating individuals related to Gen. Flynn, Flynn himself, and other Trump campaign staffers. I don't recall anyone saying Trump was under investigation by the FBI. I think we all just assume its happening.

In terms of the legal ramifications, this is an important designation. In terms of potential political fallout, I'm not sure Trump is making that differentiation, nor, honestly, should he. My argument isn't about Trump being culpable or not; there's been no evidence made public as of yet to suggest he colluded. My argument's more for anyone who would say this is not about the investigation, which I just think is beyond rational.

Many on the Left were calling for his firing because of his continuing investigation of Hillary,

Misrepresentation.

Many were calling for him to resign months ago, as a result of his impacting the election in a baffling, last minute manner, but not because of an investigation. Only because he allowed his actions to distort public perception during an election.

A minority on the left were angry to the point of wanting his removal recently, but not nearly to the extent you’re implying. For example, when I looked into a list of “fire Comey” articles by the Liberal Media ™ that was circling on my family’s social media, many turned out to be opinion articles in said publications, often from right wing contributors.

and they would have had no problem with her replacing him if she won (there would never be any hyperbolic "BUT MUH DEMOCRACY!!!" headlines), even if he continued to investigate her. The hypocrisy is blindingly obvious.

Improvable assumption. It’s an easy argument to make, because speculation can’t be disproven, but I don’t believe it for a minute. If Clinton were president, and if evidence of direct foreign influence was constantly coming out, and if she fired the people leading those efforts while also doing photo ops with members of that foreign influence that only allowed that foreign influences press into the room? If you think Democrats would be supporting her the way the right is supporting Trump, you’re beyond logic. They couldn’t even find it in themselves to support her when the alternative was a President Trump.

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote: Many on the Left were calling for his firing because of his continuing investigation of Hillary,

Misrepresentation.

Many were calling for him to resign months ago, as a result of his impacting the election in a baffling, last minute manner, but not because of an investigation. Only because he allowed his actions to distort public perception during an election.

Even if true, that somehow makes it worse. Accidentally doing his job without political awareness should hardly be a fireable offense. They didn't change their mind until, surprise, Trump agreed with them.

A minority on the left were angry to the point of wanting his removal recently, but not nearly to the extent you’re implying. For example, when I looked into a list of “fire Comey” articles by the Liberal Media ™ that was circling on my family’s social media, many turned out to be opinion articles in said publications, often from right wing contributors.

I don't know about false flag right wing contributors secretly posing as liberal media, but there were plenty of calls for his firing from prominent liberals, or at least calls for his resignation (as if that's a meaningful distinction). Tweets don't go away.

McParadigm wrote: Improvable assumption. It’s an easy argument to make, because speculation can’t be disproven, but I don’t believe it for a minute. If Clinton were president, and if evidence of direct foreign influence was constantly coming out, and if she fired the people leading those efforts while also doing photo ops with members of that foreign influence that only allowed that foreign influences press into the room? If you think Democrats would be supporting her the way the right is supporting Trump, you’re beyond logic. They couldn’t even find it in themselves to support her when the alternative was a President Trump.

Sure, it's an assumption, like it's an assumption that the sun will rise tomorrow. There is no more predictable thing in the universe than the vast majority of blue and red sheep lining up behind their respective team's narrative, and sticking to it beyond all reason. Like, for instance, right now. Russia didn't install a puppet leader on the US throne for christ's sake.

BurtReynolds wrote:Russia didn't install a puppet leader on the US throne for christ's sake.

I think Russia's goals were far bigger than this. They wanted to sow distrust in our very institutions and undermine American democracy. They seem to be succeeding.

meatwad wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Russia didn't install a puppet leader on the US throne for christ's sake.

I think Russia's goals were far bigger than this. They wanted to sow distrust in our very institutions and undermine American democracy. They seem to be succeeding.

Damn foreigners taking our jobs. We can distrust our corrupt institutions and undermine democracy by ourselves.

BurtReynolds wrote: Many on the Left were calling for his firing because of his continuing investigation of Hillary, and they would have had no problem with her replacing him if she won (there would never be any hyperbolic "BUT MUH DEMOCRACY!!!" headlines), even if he continued to investigate her. The hypocrisy is blindingly obvious.

Death of democracy... Lol... This is democracy. Horrible, horrible democracy. Of course he's covering his ass.

Or, in other words:
As bowled over as I may be by the notion that politicians might be hypocritical, we can go back and forth on whether Clinton would have; you're probably right.

The reality, however, is that Trump did do that. With everything that's happened in the past day, someone who thinks the big takeaway is that liberals are hypocritical is either missing the plot entirely or regurgitating a talking point. Is that really the big thing going on here?

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

digster wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

digster wrote:There's a slight difference between resigning and being fired by the guy you're investigating because you're investigating him.

Comey was investigating individuals related to Gen. Flynn, Flynn himself, and other Trump campaign staffers. I don't recall anyone saying Trump was under investigation by the FBI. I think we all just assume its happening.

In terms of the legal ramifications, this is an important designation. In terms of potential political fallout, I'm not sure Trump is making that differentiation, nor, honestly, should he. My argument isn't about Trump being culpable or not; there's been no evidence made public as of yet to suggest he colluded. My argument's more for anyone who would say this is not about the investigation, which I just think is beyond rational.

Many on the Left were calling for his firing because of his continuing investigation of Hillary,

Misrepresentation.

Many were calling for him to resign months ago, as a result of his impacting the election in a baffling, last minute manner, but not because of an investigation. Only because he allowed his actions to distort public perception during an election.

A minority on the left were angry to the point of wanting his removal recently, but not nearly to the extent you’re implying. For example, when I looked into a list of “fire Comey” articles by the Liberal Media ™ that was circling on my family’s social media, many turned out to be opinion articles in said publications, often from right wing contributors.

and they would have had no problem with her replacing him if she won (there would never be any hyperbolic "BUT MUH DEMOCRACY!!!" headlines), even if he continued to investigate her. The hypocrisy is blindingly obvious.

Improvable assumption. It’s an easy argument to make, because speculation can’t be disproven, but I don’t believe it for a minute. If Clinton were president, and if evidence of direct foreign influence was constantly coming out, and if she fired the people leading those efforts while also doing photo ops with members of that foreign influence that only allowed that foreign influences press into the room? If you think Democrats would be supporting her the way the right is supporting Trump, you’re beyond logic. They couldn’t even find it in themselves to support her when the alternative was a President Trump.

god you're sexy

digster wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote: Many on the Left were calling for his firing because of his continuing investigation of Hillary, and they would have had no problem with her replacing him if she won (there would never be any hyperbolic "BUT MUH DEMOCRACY!!!" headlines), even if he continued to investigate her. The hypocrisy is blindingly obvious.

Death of democracy... Lol... This is democracy. Horrible, horrible democracy. Of course he's covering his ass.

Or, in other words:

As bowled over as I may be by the notion that politicians might be hypocritical, we can go back and forth on whether Clinton would have; you're probably right.

The reality, however, is that Trump did do that. With everything that's happened in the past day, someone who thinks the big takeaway is that liberals are hypocritical is either missing the plot entirely or regurgitating a talking point. Is that really the big thing going on here?

Sure. I'm not saying the big takeaway should be that the liberals are hypocrites, only that it should be a minor takeaway.

One post among dozens of posts parroting the same hysterical shit is hardly distorting things. Twenty posts consisting mostly of tweets from random liberal talking heads is.

Its also worth noting that his firing is perfectly legal. One has to ask, who gave the president this power, and will our benevolent establishment correct this problem when herr Trump is deposed?

Lol of course not.

Who's arguing that the President should't have this power?