When Mueller was putting together his team of investigators and prosecutors, I knew he'd have to look out for you! Does he know that you're posting details of this seemingly airtight investigation on a basketball bbs?
I appreciate your answer, FB. Most of what I know about this was from my tenure on the board of my townhome HOA (which is also a PUD since we are also the water utility). It's in the poorest part of Austin, with a Spanish-speaking majority. I would guess that at least third of the owners in my community are immigrants from Mexico. When Trump got elected and ICE started conducting raids, I was urged to go to the Austin PD Commander's Forum (now the Community Forum) as people in my community were very concerned. Austin PD made it clear that they didn't ask for immigration status because it makes the job of policing much more difficult. They said that most crimes in Austin with witnesses, especially during the day, are largely from laborers, documented or not, and they want them to feel comfortable calling 911 and talking to police. When they took questions, there were counters from many saying that the only thing that had changed from before Trump was that ICE was now identifying as "police" when they knocked on doors, which they did not do before. And the Austin PD spokesperson agreed that deportations had been up for a while, but the new tactic of ICE identifying as "police" was causing what was causing witnesses to shy from helping APD solve property crimes, and why it was being addressed now instead of before. This was also before threats from the governor with funding and all that. When I went home to google it, it was hard to find much critical of the Obama-era deportation policies other than from immigrant advocacy groups, but at least in my community, I felt like the only person that was unaware of this. There are also more than a few Mexican Trump voters in my community, and besides the fact that they were self-employed and generally anti-tax Republicans, it doesn't seem to be a statistical anomaly nationally. I obviously don't have any scientific polls to go on, but I got the impression that at least a few voted for Trump as a response to the Obama administration's immigration policies. Why anyone would think Donald "Build the Wall" Trump would be better I wouldn't try to answer, except to say they wouldn't be the first to vote against their rational self-interest. In any case, I concede to you that it's a weak example to support my argument.
I appreciate that. My first exposure to politics in Texas after being gone for two decades was a rally for Wendy Davis when she ran for governor. While I appreciated her courage to stand up against the bad legislation that catapulted her fame, I felt the rally in general was underwhelming, (especially Leticia Van de Putte repeating her same line from the incident and talking of little else). Both I felt were a bit upstaged by what I thought was an excellent speech by Cecille Richards that I felt brought much needed gravity and wonkish detail. In 2008 Clinton went after Obama with "othering" that was later the hallmark of what would later be considered abhorrent wingnut hystera: he's not really American, not really a Christian, and so on. Birtherism, if you will, had its genesis in her primary campaign. She also alluded that she stayed in the race in June, because hey, someone might just assassinate Obama. Yet, when she was ahead in June in 2016, she and her people were saying what a terrible and divisive person Sanders was for staying in. I don't think Sanders was a perfect candidate by any means, but I found him very refreshing, especially for putting wealth equality at the front. There are many who believe that anyone that ever criticizes the Democratic Party is either a Rush Limbaugh listener or what Robinson Meyer of the Atlantic referred to as a Bernie Bro, itself used by the Clinton campaign to do something that always makes me cringe: when corporatist Democrats and their fans deflect legitimate criticism by using identity politics. I could write a book about the many reasons I think identity politics are a poisonous ideological cul-de-sac. The candidates that double down on it are a huge turn off to me -- especially since it undermines any real critique of class and the issues that keep people poor. I agree with those (and I want to say it was Cornell West) that say there is a whole kind of post-triangulation Democrat that's best represented by a rainbow flag with a Goldman Sachs logo, who can simultaneously do for Wall Street what Republicans could only dream of and call anyone who opposes them a racist or a misogynist. I cringed when I heard Trevor Noah attack those that were critical of Obama taking $400k for a speech he made for one of the banks he bailed out: Reagan was the first president to make money on the speech circuit for anything other than charity. Why would you want to defend any president doing that or worse, insinuate that someone hates black people because they care? It's a poor defense, IMHO, and a disingenuous way to silence criticism. What I really like about any politician, in any time, in any country, and of any political stripe, is when they take the role of being a public servant seriously and not spending time trying to figure out how to present themselves to media as a celebrity. I see politicians as public servants, no different than the clerk at the tax assessor's office or a public school teacher and hold them accountable as such. I certainly feel that way about my local city council and school board. Why would should people elected to higher offices be treated any differently? I prefer Sanders over Clinton in the same way I would much prefer Rand Paul over Ted Cruz. Politicians are (to me) ideally boring people that try to look after the public interest of everyone, not just to score easy political points for rich donors in their ideological base. I remember Clinton going after Sanders in the primary on gun control, largely because it was the only position Clinton had that was more "progressive" than Sanders. I'm generally very pro-hunter and pro gun ownership myself (I'm going dove hunting tomorrow near Corpus), and I realize that I don't represent the Democratic base this was designed to appeal to. Sanders (who has a "D" rating from the NRA) said in his defense something along the lines that he wouldn't be a Senator very long in a mostly rural state if he angered hunters and ranchers. Those are the kinds of answers I like politicians to say, nuanced, sincere, truthful, and ultimately accountable to the people that elected him, not to give a stump speech about how strongly they agree with (what happens to be) consensus opinion, or tell a scripted story about how much it means to them, even if the position in question is something I don't like. Before I worked for the state, I was self-employed and I had an ACA "platinum" plan with Humana that I was able to write off (and get an allergy test and treatment for my middle-aged health issues), and I appreciated that. But while I don't think it was a terrible idea, I don't think it makes you a terrible person to point out it saw its genesis in the Heritage Foundation, that it also mandates giving private companies money, nearly all of the largest beneficiaries of which were top ten donors to Obama in 2012. It was essentially Bob Dole's 1996 health care plan, which was worth voting for then, considering the alternatives. It's so bizarre that Republicans had so much success rallying the troops to oppose what was essentially, a very mainstream Republican idea. There's too much to post, really. To be honest it started before Trump -- the Weekly Standard set were talking about supporting a Clinton presidency since 2010. The Tea Party people largely kicked their people out in primary challenges and non-interventionist GOP candidates (Rand Paul in particular) were starting to poll well. That Clinton was a reliable hawk made sense for these discredited lowlifes to hook their chain up to, and when Trump happened, they hated him at least as much as anyone. I can't count how many times I heard from supposedly diehard liberals: "I never liked Lindsey Graham before, but he really makes a lot of sense, now" after Trump was elected. And that's not even touching the efforts to rehabilitate the Bush presidency in public memory. A decade later, the president and the architects of the disingenuous case for the Iraq invasion they called war criminals are suddenly OK because...President Trump. I agree. One last thing. I have a very difficult time understanding why you made this comment, "You would be hard pressed to find Democrat sponsored legislation making the front page of any newspapers." Are you kidding me? How in the heck would they get anything passed? They've been shut out of discussions about every major GOP bill. John McCain keeps "yelling," "regular order!" There hasn't been any. If you honestly think Democrats have had a chance to do anything in this Congress, I guess I have to describe myself as speechless![/QUOTE] I wish Democratic Party leaders spent more time publicly supporting new legislation rather than cover their asses. Nancy Pelosi doesn't understand why people say she should retire and wants to talk about what a good fundraiser she is, HIllary Clinton is in good company in wanting to continue to revisit the 2016 election, and everything is about Trump and I think it's very self-destructive. I think the old guard should go, there needs to be harsh "lessons learned" from the election, look for new blood, and look to regain the voters to win elections.
Mueller's job at least, depends upon knowing how the Internet works. There's no telling what he might find, considering the skeletons likely in so many closets. Maybe an indictment or two, but I doubt it will be the proof of collusion that people want to be able to justify not accepting the results of an election. It's a really tall order, IMHO.
The investigation started because Trump fired the FBI director and publicly stated his reasoning. Obstruction of justice is already pretty clear with just public record. If Mueller has clear sufficient evidences, it should be enough. Probably won't fly given the GOP Congress and how low of a standard we seem to be at this point. But Watergate was basically that. Was Watergate about not accepting the results or "law and order"? Colluding would be way above anything we ever experienced. If that's your standard, you are one of those that have a low bar.
No, it makes sense to you, and I've heard from law enforcement the same things that you heard. My post was speaking in generalities. I think it's a matter of degrees. Obama absolutely cracked down on illegal immigration. He did prioritize deporting those that committed other crimes. But for those that are hardcore immigrant rights people, they weren't in favor of his increase in deportations. At the same time, others were in favor of DACA, and I think there was probably every type of reaction depending where on the spectrum people fell as far as one's individual feelings towards immigration. The super lenient thought Obama cracked down to hard. The super rigid didn't think he did enough.
It's hilarious listening to some of you know-it-alls be shocked that many hispanics supported Trump in 2016. Newsflash - "the wall" isn't the only thing hispanics care about! Many don't even care about the wall!
And 1980s voting machines!!!! How is Putin helping you achieve your goal of ending multiculturalism? Jailing the dissidents? Asking because the Japanese because asked.... how's that thread going?
It's hilarious so many folks who didn't vote for Trump are so interested in how Trump is going to get outta collusion.....
I will say, the level of understanding Russia has of our dumb, entrenched politics is impressive. They really know how to rile up my uncle with memes.
As I say to you every single time you post in this thread: wait for the end of Robert Mueller's investigation. I'm doing the same and will accept whatever independent findings he presents. Why must you constantly jump to conclusions that you don't have evidence to support? It's tiring. What in my post that you quoted betrayed how I feel about this? I noted that Russians using social media seem to have a very good understanding of American politics and the narratives that rustle our jimmies. That's it. In no way did I reference their release of John Podesta's emails. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Your obstinance in this thread, and your desperate desire to prove that there's no there there in spite of a tight-lipped, ongoing independent investigation by a former Republican FBI director, is frustrating because, at the end of the day, we all should care if a sitting president colluded with a hostile foreign power to impact our elections. I don't care if that president is conservative or liberal, I care that they may have undermined our independence as a nation. I'll repeat it to you because you never seem to get it: I don't care about an alleged pee-pee tape or sexual impropriety on the part of President Trump as alluded to in the Steele dossier. I don't care what any president does sexually if it doesn't affect their ability to do the job of governing on behalf of us. What I care about is the remotest possibility that a president's loyalties do not entirely lie with the American people or our Constitution. If President Trump colluded with Russia (again: that's the entire point of Robert Mueller's investigation. If he says there was no collusion, I'll believe him and drop the issue. There's plenty more to disagree with President Trump and his agenda than innuendo alone) then he undercut our democracy and made all of his voters look like fools. If he has used his position as president to advance Russian interests (the weakening of NATO, the removal of sanctions, tacitly encouraging the dissolution of the EU, etc.) instead of promoting long-standing American interests, I want to know why. Again: that is the point of the investigation. What's so unfortunate with your snark and whataboutism in this thread is that a larger, and more interesting/terrifying, question looms: the Balkanization of how/where we read self-reinforcing media and how hostile actors (ie, Russians) are using platforms like Facebook and Twitter to influence how we perceive our fellow citizens. This article from The Atlantic - What Facebook Did to American Democracy - is really interesting and its implications are downright scary. Unfortunately, I'm not sure you care about that more than you do scoring points for your side.
The results of the election are not at stake in the Russia probe. If some smoking gun is found and Trump is impeached, Pence becomes president, not Clinton. Trump would still be #45 and Pence would be #46. Trump's election cannot be undone, and the will of the people is not denied.
