What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

The Sicatoka said:
He, as a civilian at the time, probably didn't have access to a secure line.

As a former DIA guy he should've known to just "happen to cross paths" outside the mens room in a (too loud to bug) posh DC restaurant. -- "Oh, excuse me. Sorry, got your back. < nod-wink > See ya around."

Is tradecraft dead?
ELINT sucks.
Click to expand...

Fair enough on the phone...you nailed it on the second part.

Or he could have just waited a few days when the transition of power happened. It isnt like the Russians were going to riot because of 2 weeks or so of Obama Sanctions. It was just stupid and if I didnt know better I would say Obama trolled them and baited them into this.
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

Kepler said:
The flimsiest of all: that 538 said he's a Scalia clone. I would feel much better reading a full treatment by say SCOTUSBlog. But even so, Supremes do change once they join The Court. Typically for the better, but that isn't an iron law.

Like marriage, we're not going to really know until, well, we know.
Click to expand...

Fair point :)
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

Handyman said:
You keep saying that but what evidence do you have to back it up. Just because he is a strict constitutionalist doesnt mean he is an activist or that he is partisan. You assume because the GOP put him up that he is some Reactionary but you also make the mistake of believing Trump vetted this guy at all. I Think This Article Is Worth a Read
Click to expand...

Uh, I live in a red state with a blue Senator* up for re-election in 2018. I'm getting constant commercials starring a former Gorsuch clerk who worked in the Obama administration and who thinks Gorsuch is sliced bread and the cure for the common cold all whipped into a turtle pecan cluster Blizzard**.


*I'm pretty sure that I'm voting for the incumbent because she'd be an R most other states and I suspect the opponent will be the current ND R congressman and he just doesn't impress me.
**Gonna dog you with Blizzard references for a while now Handy. :)
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

Handyman said:
Ah but Scooby dont you see...to the average American her having to testify PROVES she is guilty.
Click to expand...

Just like "impeach" means "gone". :rolleyes:
No, impeach basically means "to charge with misconduct". Trial to follow. "But, but, but, they were impeached!" < facepalm >
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

Handyman said:
Fair enough on the phone...you nailed it on the second part.

Or he could have just waited a few days when the transition of power happened. It isnt like the Russians were going to riot because of 2 weeks or so of Obama Sanctions. It was just stupid and if I didnt know better I would say Obama trolled them and baited them into this.
Click to expand...
See, that was part of my original point.

If all he did was call them and say don't sweat it, in a couple of weeks we'll reverse the sanctions, meh. He should have waited to make the call, but as I posted, if he made it three weeks later no big deal.

I also have no problem giving the guy the boot if he lied about it. Can't do that.

But the problem I have with the coverage is no one seems too concerned about what actually was discussed during the call, leaving the implication that it was some big, important security breach or the like, which thus far there seems to be no evidence of.
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

The Sicatoka said:
Like I said yesterday, Flynn lied to the VPOTUS. Instant DQ. <-- and that's not "Dairy Queen", no Blizzard for you!
Click to expand...

The fact that as a private citizen he was engaging in his own diplomacy with a foreign state in violation of all laws means nothing to you?
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

rufus said:
The fact that as a private citizen he was engaging in his own diplomacy with a foreign state in violation of all laws means nothing to you?
Click to expand...

Was that smart? No. But it wasn't the fatal blow either. The lie was.

However, is violation of the Logan Act unprecedented? No. Were you calling for heads for this ...

Interestingly, three years ago, Michael Ledeen – the coauthor of General Flynn’s best-selling book, Field of Fight – revealed that, before the 2008 election, then-Candidate Barack Obama sent retired Amb. William Miller to Iran “to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies.”
Click to expand...

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2017/02/13/did-barack-obama-violate-the-logan-act/
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

"I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense."

-Rand Paul
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

bronconick said:
"I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense."

-Rand Paul
Click to expand...

Translation: "We're in power now. It's time to work. When they're in power it's time to investigate."
 
Kepler said:
For costliness, Trump will never top Dubya's recession and wars.

The real cost so far has been to the reputation of America and the security of our democratic institutions. Trump has proven that the Republican party at least will tolerate anything from a president who has the same letter after his name. They've institutionalized partisanship and self-interest. Checks and balances won't work unless the officials in those slots are responsible, and this bunch at least are human garbage.

Maybe we're lucky in finding out now with such an incompetent dunce in the big chair, and we can build some more robust defenses against a dictator. Maybe we got lucky the demagogue wasn't smart and capable.

The other lesson is the right doesn't care about the Constitution. That's not news to many of us, but even the moderates should now realize that for conservatives government is just another tool they use to enrich themselves and selectively harass minorities, women, social liberals, gays, etc. It's a lesson the right teaches the world whenever and wherever it gains power, but it's always worth relearning it, and right now an entire new generation is getting a load at the reality behind conservative "small government" rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Your point is taken, and it's true that the Republican Party is doing untold damage to itself and the republic. But you can't use Trumpism to condemn "conservative small government rhetoric." It's the exact opposite thing.
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

I saw a report today that Gorsuch is a lying liar who padded his resume with a bunch of imaginary volunteer work...
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

bronconick said:
"I just don't think it's useful to be doing investigation after investigation, particularly of your own party. We'll never even get started with doing the things we need to do, like repealing Obamacare, if we're spending our whole time having Republicans investigate Republicans. I think it makes no sense."

-Rand Paul
Click to expand...

It does, however, make sense for those in the position to investigate possibly criminal acts to investigate those who committed those possibly criminal acts.
 
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

The Sicatoka said:
The motto of every Party.
Click to expand...

That equivalency doesn't come close since the battle that was declared on Bill Clinton the moment he hitched his wagon for the trip east. Well before the round cool woman in the blue dress.

But that sure is a mighty fine sig line.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.4 - What's a Battle?

Conservatives go after Labour.
Labour goes after Conservatives.

The Liberal and NDP goes after Conservative Party of Canada
The CPC goes after the Liberal and NDP.

Pick your country. It's the same tune; different (party name) lyrics, save for the People's paradises: China, North Korea, Venezuela, et al. (There the opposition just gets buried ... literally.)

The Ds went after Reagan
The Rs went after Clinton.
The Ds went after W.
The Rs went after Obama.

Lather rinse repeat.

Who're the suckers in this? Visit your local mirror.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top