This can’t wait until next week’s syndicated column, so…
Back on 24th I wrote a syndicated column explaining that there is a strong chance that Donald Trump would be impeached and that House Speaker Paul Ryan would benefit as a result. This week’s developments confirm my analysis. Bear in mind, this is not a political prediction but rather a musing of how I see things going potentially. Your mileage may vary.
First: the almost certain fact that former FBI director James Comey was asked by President Trump to drop his investigation into former national security advisor General Michael Flynn sets up Trump for almost certain impeachment. Here’s why. First, moderate Republicans in the House and Senate are already peeling away and calling for a special prosecutor. Soon even right wingers will be joining them. A special prosecutor is a safe way for politicians to kick problems like Trump down the road. They can’t lose: if the prosecutor finds a lot of dirty stuff about Trump, oh well, not their fault, if anything they can take credit. If not, it’s not like even the radical right will hold them accountable for signing off on a special prosecutor. After all, there’s nothing wrong with getting down to the bottom of things. The problem for Trump is, the prosecutor is going to find out (a) that there’s a strong case for obstruction of justice and (b) all those meetings between Trump’s staff and Russian officials were corrupt quid pro quo transactions promising the elimination of sanctions over Ukraine in exchange for rubberstamping Trump-related business transactions in Russia. (Democrats should stop pushing the “Russia hacked the election” narrative because there doesn’t seem to be any thee there.)
Second, Republicans are hardly a united front. Yes, they came together to back up Trump when they thought that they would be able to push through their long awaited radical right political agenda. But now the Trump seems weak, ambitious figures like Paul Ryan can’t help but think to themselves “hey, I could become president now.” Because the Democratic Party is a total mess – this is the story no one is paying attention to you right now, but it’s absolutely key – more on that below – the Republican Party stands to benefit most from a Trump impeachment. Here’s how it plays out, perhaps.
Paul Ryan meets with vice president Mike Pence. “Mike,” he says, “let’s face it. You’ll never be elected president. You’re from Indiana, you call your wife mother, you’re creepy, probably a closeted gay. Let’s make a deal: I impeach Trump and you get to be president for the next three years. Schoolchildren have to memorize your name. You get to be on a stamp. Maybe one day on the three cent coin. In 2020, however, you step aside. You endorse me. I’m the Republican nominee.”
Pence goes along. Why wouldn’t he? Sure beats another three years of attending funerals.
After Trump, things turn calm. No more drama. This is very bad for women, gays, blacks. The Republican Congress works closely with Pence to pass a bunch of stuff that makes us look back at Ronald Reagan and wonder if that guy was really a liberal. Pence seems “normal” after Trump. The Republicans get lots of things done. Granted, all bad. But done.
In 2020, as I wrote in my column, Paul Ryan gets to present himself as the courageous man who took on a president from his own party because it was the right thing to do for the country. Powerful stuff. A true profile in BS courage.
Now, about the Democrats.
If you look back at 1976, vice president turned President Gerald Ford was hobbled by Watergate and his pardon of Richard Nixon. Everyone remembers that Jimmy Carter won. What they don’t remember is that it was a close election. Incumbency really doesn’t matter. Ford wasn’t a very exciting president and he didn’t accomplish much at all. Mostly he just used his veto stamp. Carter was charismatic, young, and incredibly hard-working. He was a great candidate yet he just barely won against forward.
To win against a Republican incumbency in 2020, Democrats need a united party. If anything, the party is even more divided now than it was last year. The big rift between the Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton wings of the Democratic Party hasn’t been addressed. It has been swept under the rug, which only makes things worse. Progressives have been denied a meaningful voice within the party. Policy belongs to the corporatist wing. Angry Hillary Clinton supporters continue to beat up Bernie Sanders people for not showing up at the polls, blaming them for electing Donald Trump. Elizabeth Warren isn’t going to run. That leaves the most likely nominees for 2020 to be people like Cory Booker, former progressives who no longer have any credibility with the left within the party.
It’s a grim scenario. And it certainly going to change. But that’s how I see things right now.
127 Comments.
“all those meetings between Trump’s staff and Russian officials were corrupt quid pro quo transactions promising the elimination of sanctions over Ukraine in exchange for rubberstamping Trump-related business transactions in Russia”
This is certainly a refreshing development, Ted. After all this time insisting there is no ‘there’ there – it’s nice to see you coming around. Seriously, Dude, you’ve spent more time trying to discredit the Russian hacking story than most RW commentators. There comes a point where you’re no longer fighting Hillary, but rather defending Trump.
“It’s been an amazing experience watching the decompensation, the unraveling [sic], the descent into downright, open, manifest incoherence, of American liberals since the November catastrophe.”
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/2017/05/gadarene-swine/
It’s also nice to see a conservative Democrat teeter on the edge of giving up the “Russians stole the election from Hillary” meme (although it has been, like a slight of hand card trick, a crowd pleaser) and come to recognize that Ted has had his eye on the ball the whole time, though the meme remains for the time being a popular, but nutritionally empty nothing burger.
Ted is taking the correct stance in advising Democrats to stop pushing the “Russia hacked the election” narrative. Why keep on antagonizing young voters, the essential ingredient to any Democratic Party future, just to please some loser, over the hill, has beens?
The sanctions were imposed on Russia for reacting in an improper way to the Almighty God of the Universe Obama’s right wing coup in Kiev. When nasty uninvited guests come knocking unnecessarily hard on one’s door at an inopportune time it’s only natural to draw a bead on them.
Removing the sanctions would seem a good thing to those of the non-conservative, anti-imperialist, anti-war persuasion.
I ran as a delegate for Kucinich in 2004 and agreed with him that amends should have been made to Iraq for Bush’s criminal preemptive strike, despite the fact that it was such a crowd pleaser among both Democratic and Republican Party “conservatives”—as they call themselves.
> Ted has had his eye on the ball the whole time
If so, then I would like to hear him say so. From where I was sitting, it sure sounded like he’d been anti-Russiagate from day one (along with many of the regular posters ;-))
c’mon Ted – how about a Komrade Trumpski cartoon?
No evidence versus evidence everywhere.
Which was/is Ted’s stance and where was/is everyone else?
> Which was/is Ted’s stance and where was/is everyone else?
There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC
There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC
There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC
There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I tried my damnedest to get everyone here excited about the “evidence everywhere.” The reception was somewhat … less than enthusiastic.
There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC
There is no proof Russia hacked …
John Adams, our second president, famously said: “Facts are stubborn things.” In a 1988 slip of the tongue [ a very charitable interpretation], Ronald Reagan said: “Facts are stupid things.”
Modern Republican and Democratic Conservatives from Reagan on: “Facts are stupid things.”
«Ted is taking the correct stance in advising Democrats to stop pushing the “Russia hacked the election” narrative. Why keep on antagonizing young voters, the essential ingredient to any Democratic Party future, just to please some loser, over the hill, has beens?» Spot on, Glenn. Of course, there will be people who are unable – whether congenitally or due to an overwhelming desire to get rid of Mr Trump – to understand the distinction between absurd claims of «Russia hacking US elections» and far more realistic claims of dodgy quid pro quo arrangements of the type «we’ll reduce/remove the sanctions if you’ll approve my business deals» – or, for that matter, of the type «we’ll reduce our military provocations near your shores if Ivanka gets her trademarks approved». This is not to say that the sanctions – not least the sanctions on 3rd parties which constitute so large a part of the US offensive arsenal – and the military provocations should not be stopped – they most definitely should – but in the event Mr Trump has personally sought to profit by proposing such measures, that certainly comes within the purview of Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution («The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.») and warrants an investigation….
Of course deals of the type «we’ll repeal the Glass-Steagall legislation if you’ll contribute to our foundation and pay us humongous sums for speeches after we leave office» also comes within the purview of that Article II, Section 4, but that’s another matter, and who cares ? – it doesn’t wake all those wonderful McCarthyite instincts that anything that has to do with those dastardly Russians manages to evoke, even in people who should know better….
Henri
” absurd claims of «Russia hacking US elections»”
:rolls eyes:
So multiple US and foreign intelligence agencies and private cybersecurity firms have publicly stated their conclusions that Russia **TRIED** to do so, ‘cuz Hillary?
Seriously?
(I got twenty bucks says henri replies with six screenfuls of babble, none of which directly addresses the above)
@ CrazyH –
“(I got twenty bucks says henri replies with six screenfuls of babble, none of which directly addresses the above)”
*****
I call. Mon ami has respect for my strictures.
😀
Deal. Assuming you win, it’ll be twenty bucks well spent.
🙂
«(I got twenty bucks says henri replies with six screenfuls of babble, none of which directly addresses the above)» «Babble», of course, being defined as arguments which dear CrazyH is not disposed to understand. But unless whatever device he uses to reach this forum has a very small screen indeed, he still owes unser verehtret Lehrer twenty bucks…. 😉
Henri
Hmmm, what do you say, derlehrer? The “reply” is blessedly short – but it completely avoids addressing the issue as predicted.
«The “reply” is blessedly short – but it completely avoids addressing the issue as predicted.» Alas, CrazyH, when I address the issues you complain that my replies are too long for you. When I address the odd way you deal with my replies, you complain that I don’t deal with the issues. Those who wish to decide for themselves which of us is the more serious about these issues, will simply have to take the time and trouble of reading the exchange ; let my say that for my part, I find your self-righteousness (what others write is «babble», etc, etc, both amusing and characteristic….
Henri
PS : Mein verehrtrer Lehrer, if you feel that the above is deserving of censure, please advise….
You’re well on your way, henri. Given that the quandary I posed is actually a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question you *could* reply with a single word.
But every time I ask you a simple, yes or no question I get hundreds of words in response – none of which are ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (i.e. “babble”)
«But every time I ask you a simple, yes or no question I get hundreds of words in response – none of which are ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (i.e. “babble”)» If one has a simple mind, CrazyH, one tends to regard even complex questions which require a detailed analysis as a «simple, yes or no question». But of course, given the great intelligence and experience that you, unlike others, can bring to bear on the issues, you are no doubt in a unique position to decide what is «babble» and what is not….
I call bullshit….
Henri
derlehrer – you may deposit your losses into Ted’s assistance fund.
@ mhenriday / @ CrazyH –
The exchanges between you two have caused my wife to check in on me, trying to ascertain whether I’ve lost my mind, sitting here with my laptop and laughing my butt off!
While I could have been “hammered” while reading your previous posts, I might be able to condense them, and I have come up with the following:
1) “CrazyH” believes there is sufficient reason to accuse Number 45 and his staff of collusion with the Russians and committing “high crimes and misdemeanors” that would be sufficient to impeach Number 45, based upon reports from the intelligence community and some other reliable organizations.
2) The position of “mhenriday” is that these reports are mere allegations (thus distractions), for there has been no real evidence submitted.
Do I have that right? Please correct me if I’m wrong.
If that is the case, then I have to agree with BOTH of you, which is why I have signed petitions calling for an independent investigation by a bi-partisan commission.
That being said, I think I’m owed twenty bucks, since the basic premise was: “I got twenty bucks says henri replies with six screenfuls of babble….”
😀
@ CrazyH –
I was working on my response and missed your suggestion concerning Ted’s Assistance Fund.
Good idea!
https://www.gofundme.com/9w3cezxg?utm_source=sys&utm_medium=email&utm_term=quickaction&utm_content=read_update&utm_campaign=updates
«1) “CrazyH” believes there is sufficient reason to accuse Number 45 and his staff of collusion with the Russians and committing “high crimes and misdemeanors” that would be sufficient to impeach Number 45, based upon reports from the intelligence community and some other reliable organizations.
2) The position of “mhenriday” is that these reports are mere allegations (thus distractions), for there has been no real evidence submitted.»
Not quite, mein verehrter Lehrer ; to my mind, there are two questions here that must be held apart : 1) the issue of Russia «hacking the {US presidential] elections [of 2016]», for which, I understand, no evidence whatever has been presented and which I find absurd (CrazyH rolls his eye-s I hope he’ll see an ophthalmologist about that persistent nystagmus !) and 2) the suggestion made by Ted above, that there may have been attempts by members of the Trump administration, to effect a quid pro quo with the Russians, i e, reduction or removal of US anti-Russian sanctions in return for positive Russian regulatory decisions on matters affecting the business interests of Mr Trump and friends (Mr Tillerson ?) in that country, which I find entirely within the realm of possibility (as would, to take another example, a positive decision on Ivanka Trump patent disputes in China in return for Mr Trump turning down the Sinophobic rhetoric). These, to my mind, are two very distinct issues and should, as noted above, be handled separately….
In the event that investigations into matters of the second type are indeed performed, I’d suggest that their scope be widened to include, over and above deals with Russia (and China, as mentioned above), also those with Saudi Arabia and Israel. Then, I suspect, the shit would really hit the fan….
Henri
derlherer –
The operative part of the bet had to do with
‘directly addressing the issue’ – which henri has not done.
We have four replies so far which are essentially repeats of each other, providing no new information whatsoever – simply reiterating his belief that I would not understand a reply he either cannot or will not provide. I call that ‘babble,’ and a fifth which *still* does not address the issue I raised.
As I see it, the only way you can win is if henri *does* answer the question with his sixth reply. At which point I will humbly pay my debt, providing the shock doesn’t kill me first.
@ CrazyH –
The wager was stated by you: “I got twenty bucks says henri replies with six screenfuls of babble, none of which directly addresses the above”
You state “The operative part of the bet had to do with‘directly addressing the issue’….”; that is incorrect. As a retired instructor in the learning of languages (Engish, French, and German), I feel I must call your attention to sentence structure: subject / verb / modifiers — which constitute the “operative part” of the wager.
Subject: I
Verb: got [sic]
Direct object: bucks
Following clause, “henri replies with six screenfuls of babble” –
Subject: henri
Verb: replies
Prepositional phrase: with six screenfuls [of babble]
Those are the “operational” portions of the wager.
His “reply” did not meet your own criteria. Subsequent posts in response to your follow-up taunts are not relevant.
You lose.
Donate to Ted’s “GoFundMe” account (above link), and we can lay it to rest.
😀
derlehrer, I cannot claim to be a language expert – I’ll leave that to you and henri. Well, you anyway. 😉
But as the one who wrote the challenge, I can assure you that the very mostest importantest part is the part about actually answering the question, which he most assuredly has not. Nor did he answer the same question in multiple screens the other day. It has been my ongoing complaint that it is impossible to get a straight answer from the man. quod erat demonstrandum
I’m happy to kick some bucks Ted’s way anyhow – but there’s no way I’m conceding the bet.
However, you could settle another one. In your capacity as a language expert. Are these two sentences equivalent?
“Russia hacked the election”
“There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC”
@ CrazyH –
Well, as you can determine from the post I sent to “mhenriday” just a couple of minutes ago, there is room for doubt concerning the equivalency of those two statements, even if the latter be sarcastic.
Hacking the DNC and hacking the election are two different things. There is still doubt that “Russia” hacked the DNC, because the source of those hacked emails is still not clear.
I hope you notice that I *do* make an attempt to remain objective.
😉
«Languages are limited by the comprehension of those who use them.» Indeed, mein verehrter Lehrer, indeed. I’d settle for twenty bucks to Ted’s defence fund, but I deem that dénouement quite as unlikely as one in which CrazyH pays the whole of the forty bucks he owes…
Ἧθος ἀνθρώπῳ δαίμων….
Henri
I do! And I appreciate it. As I’ve said (and done) many times, I have no problem having a polite discussion with those with whom I disagree. There is really no call for insulting language when two people have what are – in reality – small differences of opinion.
But if someone prefers an insult-fest, I can do that too. At least mine are creative and amusing.
@derlehrer – oops, the previous reply was to you, not henri.
@henri – yo mamma so fat last time I fucked her I had to roll over twice to get off the bitch.
If your intent, as you claim, was to emphasize the latter part of your challenge, it would have been far better to write “I got twenty bucks says henri will not directly address the above, more likely replying with six screenfuls of babble.”
You see how that changes the focus?
(I’d feel much better if you conceded.)
😀
@derlehrer, I accept your critique.
How’s this for a compromise?
I will ignore the multiple screens of babble and childish insults if henri would simply answer the question. That wouldn’t seem to be such an odious burden and would wrap this up nicely.
«But if someone prefers an insult-fest, I can do that too. At least mine are creative and amusing.» Pitiful, CrazyH, pitiful – both your attempt to suggest that you were not the one to start the «insult-fest» and your self-serving claims that your insults are creative and amusing. The fact of the matter is that you have shown yourself to be a weasel, who, despite his braggadocio, won’t even pay forty bucks out to Ted’s defence fund. Sad, but hardly surprising…
Henri
«@henri – yo mamma so fat last time I fucked her I had to roll over twice to get off the bitch.» And this from the poster who offers to ignore «childish insults» !…
For ’tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard: …
As I noted above, pitiful – and it doesn’t seem to get any better….
Henri
no henri, that is an adult insult. An example of a childish one might be, “You’re a big smelly poopyhead.”
I hereby assert for the record that you ARE a big smelly poopyhead.
… so we’re up to what? Seven screens by now and *still* no answer. None, nada, nil, zip.
«no henri, that is an adult insult. An example of a childish one might be, “You’re a big smelly poopyhead.”»
No, my intellectually deprived friend, that is hardly an «adult» insult – rather it is an extremely childish one, whether or not the person offering it has reached puberty. But given your limitations, it’s perhaps unfair to expect your to understand that….
«I hereby assert for the record that you ARE a big smelly poopyhead.»
Projecting again, CrazyH ? And all because of a lousy forty bucks, which you’re attempting to weasel out of paying to Ted’s defence fund ? Or are there other, more fundamental reasons which lie behind your choice of vocabulary ?…
Henri
: using sign language while speaking slowly and carefully :
Answer.
The.
Question.
@ CrazyH –
“I will ignore the multiple screens of babble and childish insults if henri would simply answer the question.”
In an attempt to play mediator, let me ask you to post the question(s) in a simple form for which you wish an answer.
My ground rule: There must be mutual respect and nothing more like has been recently posted. Those insults are counter-productive. (Says the Teacher)
I agree with the teacher on that as well. At this point, it’s merely self-amusement, but I’d actually prefer a more interesting discussion.
To rephrase the question (with preamble to avoid a convoluted sentence.)
Multiple intelligence agencies – both US and foreign – private cybersecurity firms, and investigative journalists have weighed in with the opinion that Russian hackers tried to interfere with the recent US election.
Question: What is their motivation?
«Donate to Ted’s “GoFundMe” account (above link), and we can lay it to rest.» It’s going to be forty bucks now, mein verehreter Lehrer – twenty owed you and twenty owed me – but if I’m an adequate judge of CrazyH’s character, he’ll weasel out rather than pay up….
Henri
@ mhrenriday –
Give him the benefit of the doubt. He knows he’s lost the bet with me, and I’ll look forward to sending him a “Thank You” from that GoFundMe account that I opened for Ted.
The second wager is somewhat questionable, however. Languages are limited by the comprehension of those who use them.
😀
> He knows he’s lost the bet with me
derlehrer – could you please post a link to wherever it was that henri answered the question?
@ CrazyH –
“derlehrer – could you please post a link to wherever it was that henri answered the question?”
*
Unfortunately for you, that was not the “operative part” of the wager, as I’ve explained before.
However, if you insist upon consideration of posts subsequent to your offer to bet twenty bucks, he answered your question(s) in a response to my post attempting to clarify the differences between the two of you.
It’s somewhere here in this thread, and if you insist, I will make an attempt to find it and link to it. Trust me, it’s here.
derlehrer – I believe I found the post, and the sorta kinda relevant portion is:
” : 1) the issue of Russia «hacking the {US presidential] elections [of 2016]», for which, I understand, no evidence whatever has been presented and which I find absurd (CrazyH rolls his eye-s I hope he’ll see an ophthalmologist about that persistent nystagmus ”
Which once again evades the question of the various agency’s motivations.
@henri – you’ve wasted far more bandwidth insisting that I’ve lost the bet than it would take to simply answer said question. I absolutely, positively, guarantee payment if you would only do so. Just think – you’d win for once, I’d have to pay money to a good cause, and who knows – you might even give me something to think about. Everybody wins!
«@henri – you’ve wasted far more bandwidth insisting that I’ve lost the bet …» You did lose the bet, CrazyH, but if you’re having bandwidth problems, I suggest you turn off your computer – after all, you must take the responsibility (a foreign concept to you, I know) for your waste of bandwidth, while I must take responsibility for mine…. 😉
Henri
The scenario depicted here — “After Trump, things turn calm. No more drama. This is very bad for women, gays, blacks. The Republican Congress works closely with Pence to pass a bunch of stuff that makes us look back at Ronald Reagan and wonder if that guy was really a liberal. Pence seems “normal” after Trump. The Republicans get lots of things done. Granted, all bad. But done” — is precisely why I was a little relieved (but a lot worried) when Herr Trumpf was elected: He’s a buffoon, a blowhard, and a narcissistic bully with no hope of suppressing any of it (why should he? isn’t that how he got to where he is?) that he can’t help but fuck things up and piss people off. Thus far it seems to be playing out as expected, but sadly I think Ted’s prediction is so spot-on that now I can’t decide which is worse, Trump’s leaving or Trump’s staying in office. Name your poison. I had hoped he would be ousted before he did too much damage, but I’m not so sure I wish that anymore. I’ll be under my bed if anyone’s looking for me….
“Carter was charismatic, young, and incredibly hard-working. He was a great candidate yet he just barely won against forward [Ford].”
*
That’s why the future is not predictable.
There are factors yet unrevealed that can’t be entered into the equation.
Keep an eye on Joe Kennedy III.
🙂
Jimmy was quite possibly the most decent man to be president in living memory. (which he why he had to be run out of town. 😉
You got that right!
Plus, anybody with half a brain saw what Reagan’s team pulled to humiliate and defeat Carter.
Unfortunately, those with less than only half a brain outnumbered the rest of us.
Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski funded the Mujahideen , giving Osama bin Laden the founding basis for Al-Qaeda.
Brzezinski: It was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents [the Mujahideen] of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.
http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/
Those of my age are saying, ‘I like Ike.’
In ’60s TV shows, old fogies were still wearing their Coolidge pins. Ike is the best us old fogies can come up with today.
Ike was rabidly anti-mercantile Empires (he wanted mercantile neo-Empires). When Britain, France, and Israel invaded Egypt, he said, if they didn’t withdraw, the US military would come in on the side of Egypt. So he slew that invasion with just a jawbone.
✍
Carter made the same mistake we dems always make: being obsessed with bullshit to the exclusion of everything else. In that case, it was the hostages—the oinly thing Carter ever thought about.
We played right into Iran’s hands. If we just assumed thery would die like smart, realpolitik countries do, nobody would take any US hostages, just like nobody takes Israeli or Russian hostages.
Today, we’re arrogantly forcing irrelevant aspects of our own superior culture down their unwilling throats. We make the rednecks tear down their ridiculous flags and statues—as if those things were dangerous.
A Lee statue in the park is not lynching, or even back of the bus segregation. Making that kind of ridiculous stuff a HUGE, militant, non-negotiable priority only pisses off our natural base. They’re the very people we desperately need to see that we—and only we—will help them.
Instead, we feed them to Faux and Limbaugh by spitting in their faces, hauling their cultural icons to the landfill, and calling them a basket of deplorables.
We have met the new boss, same as the old boss, and he is us.
We don’t run a candidate that respects those backward Jethros. We run a cynical, rich old woman who insults them to their face. She also openly takes million-dollar bribes from big banks and smugly refuses to tell even her own supporters what she promised the rich in her speech on Wall Street. That’s the nominee we present to the trailer trash.
And to top it all off, we force the ‘necks to let homosexual men use the ladies’ room if they dress up like women.
Is that a worthy goal? Yeah, I guess so, once the repiglicans are extinct. Then we can teach manners to the stupid people. Even then, we should use education, not brute force.
But while the country is still infested with pig lickin’s, gay men will have to use the men’s room.
The right is so evil that they act crazy, and the left is so crazy that we act stupid.
“… we act stupid.”
*
That’s the one and only thing you’ve written, with which I agree.
«In that case, it was the hostages—the oinly [sic !] thing Carter ever thought about.» Alas, LuxiTurner, Mr Carter, who by the way, seems to be one of the few decent men to have held the office of US president in recent times, thought about other things as well, not least signing an order presented him by dear Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzeziński dated 3 July 1979 to provide the Pashtun forces fighting the then Afghan government. From little acorns mighty oaks grow….
Henri
I don’t think Trump would go quietly into the night with an impeachment. He has the temperament and personality where if he is going to certainly lose, he will adopt scorched Earth tactics. I know people with his personality and they are dangerous when they perceive themselves as cornered. The whole power structure knows this about him from the House to the Senate to the media to the spooks to the globalist policy makers behind the scenes. He must have some of the key secrets that those folks would rather keep hidden forever. He would spill all the beans if he were in “wounded animal” mode. I think that will give his enemies pause on the impeachment issue. The last president who made this many enemies at the FBI and CIA had a run-in with a loner in a book depository building. I foresee a similar, definitive fate for him.
> if he is going to certainly lose, he will adopt scorched Earth tactics.
Yes, and it will involve starting a nuclear war.
Sure, the Pentagon will stop the nuking of London (which I wouldn’t put past him). But what about Iran? It might seem nominally legitimate if North Korea tested an ICBM that splashed a mile off the Hawaii beach.
In the last days of the Nixon administration, the military were told NOT to accept an order to nuke anyone from Nixon.
Nixon was told the House had a majority to impeach, and the Senate (mostly Democrat, but not 2/3) had enough Republicans to convict. So he left.
Kennedy had a convertible with a bullet-proof top, but (so I’ve been told) it was Kennedy’s decision (against the recommendation of the Secret Service) to take the top off so he could wave at Oswald.
While Trump may eventually be impeached (just give him enough rope), the longer he continues with his shenanigans, the worse he makes the Repugs look. Pence would find himself assaulted on many fronts because of the huge stick he has up his ass, and would provide a good amount of fodder for the same people who are feeding off Trump’s man-baby narcissism, although he probably wouldn’t be a serial tweeter like Trump. It’s difficult to say how much reform (damage) he might enable, but like Ted said, he may not really want the job, and could defer to Eddie Munster. If only the Democrats could grow a pair or choose someone like Elizabeth Warren, etc. that can really pull the Hilarites, Progressives and Independents together…. Duh-oh!
@ CrazyH – remember, that only works if you are clicking the heels of your “magic slippers” together while you repeat it! 🙂
We have had two impeachments. Both Democrats, both facing a solid Republican Congress.
Trump ain’t like that. Yet.
The New York Times wants rid of Trump, but several columnists say it can’t happen until after ’18 (and then only if the voters get mad enough to vote in a yuge Democrat majority). Others want an Article 25 removal.
Bookies say it’s odds on Trump will be removed from office, but only sometime before 2024. Lots of ways he could be removed in 8 years: he’s had his three-score and ten, he said he never exercises, he doesn’t have a healthy lifestyle; he could be impeached after ’18 if the Congress ever becomes yugely Democrat; or he could just get bored and quit.
It’s sad – getting Democrats, Independents, and other more liberal minded people to rally against an overwhelming number of Trumpanzees is like corralling cats…….
Aye there’s the rub. The problem with independent thinkers is that they
Think.
Independently.
It’s far easier to get conservatives to march in lock-step, which is why they are more powerful politically.
«unser verehtret Lehrer» → «unser verehrter Lehrer»
«unser verehtret Lehrer» → «unser verehrter Lehrer» Ted’s website drive me nuts….
Henri
And here I thought that *I* was the one “hammered”!
😀 😀 😀
«derlehrer – you may deposit your losses into Ted’s assistance fund.» It’s embarrassing obvious, CrazyH, that your reading comprehension is so poor that you don’t even understand the conditions that you yourself proposed ; viz, that ««(I got twenty bucks says henri replies with six screenfuls of babble, none of which directly addresses the above)». Nothing I’ve sent in reply to your bullshit – I use the term advisedly, so that your attention span is not exhausted and you have a chance to understand what is meant – is either «babble» or requires one to scroll down six screens. Thus you still owe unser verehrter Lehrer twenty bucks – but I suspect, given the character traits you’ve revealed on this forum, that you’ll never pay up….
Henri
henri – perhaps you could take over John Cleese’s old job?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
«henri – perhaps you could take over John Cleese’s old job?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y» Say what one will about you, CrazyH, but you do possess a talent for projection….
Henri
Six.
«The operative part of the bet had to do with‘directly addressing the issue’ – which henri has not done.» I fear, mein verehrter Lehrer, that our dear CrazyH is bullshitting us again – when I addressed the «issue[s]», which, as I noted above, are essentially two, CrazyH accused me of writing a novel (or «six screenfuls of babble»), which obviously exceeded his (admittedly limited) attention span – and then expected me to reply in detail when he posts a link to a Wikipedia article (many of which can be useful, but it has distinct limitations when it comes to contemporary US politics – try learning about Ronald Wilson Reagan and the October Surprise of 1980 from the English-language version’s Reagan biography).
As I noted earlier, those who wish to decide for themselves which of us addressed the issues and which did not, will have to take the trouble to read through the exchange….
Henri
Unser verehrter Lehrer has obviously won the wager offered by CrazyH, but it is equally obvious that the latter is too cheap to pay up. Why am I not surprised ?… 😉
Henri
Seven replies without addressing the issue … why am I not surprised?
Make that nine – counting both the above.
«Seven replies without addressing the issue … why am I not surprised?» Alas, CrazyH, you seem to lack that «theory of mind» which even other Hominidae species that ours often possess to some degree – you don’t seem to realise that others may be keeping track of the discussion. I realise that suggesting that you scroll up or down in this very thread to find my discussion of the issues would be to tax your limited capabilities too far, so I’ve taken the liberty of copying the relevant response (one of several) as follows :
««Ted is taking the correct stance in advising Democrats to stop pushing the “Russia hacked the election” narrative. Why keep on antagonizing young voters, the essential ingredient to any Democratic Party future, just to please some loser, over the hill, has beens?» Spot on, Glenn. Of course, there will be people who are unable – whether congenitally or due to an overwhelming desire to get rid of Mr Trump – to understand the distinction between absurd claims of «Russia hacking US elections» and far more realistic claims of dodgy quid pro quo arrangements of the type «we’ll reduce/remove the sanctions if you’ll approve my business deals» – or, for that matter, of the type «we’ll reduce our military provocations near your shores if Ivanka gets her trademarks approved». This is not to say that the sanctions – not least the sanctions on 3rd parties which constitute so large a part of the US offensive arsenal – and the military provocations should not be stopped – they most definitely should – but in the event Mr Trump has personally sought to profit by proposing such measures, that certainly comes within the purview of Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution («The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.») and warrants an investigation….
Of course deals of the type «we’ll repeal the Glass-Steagall legislation if you’ll contribute to our foundation and pay us humongous sums for speeches after we leave office» also comes within the purview of that Article II, Section 4, but that’s another matter, and who cares ? – it doesn’t wake all those wonderful McCarthyite instincts that anything that has to do with those dastardly Russians manages to evoke, even in people who should know better….»
I shan’t be surprised when you attempt to claim that I still haven’t «addressed the issue[s]» – but I am encouraged by the fact that you do seem to have grasped the concept of «successor to» in elementary number theory.. Alas, despite this achievement, you remain what you have always demonstrated yourself to be on this forum – a sore loser. Perhaps you and dear Mr Trump have more in common than either of you know ?… 😉
Henri
The issue – which you have either forgotten or were unable to comprehend in the first place – is WHY do multiple US and foreign intelligence agencies as well as private cybersecurity firms say that there *is* evidence the Russian hackers ATTEMPTED to interfere with US elections?
What you pasted below appears to be some sort of confused stream-of-consciousness covering a wide variety of subjects. The only halfway relevant phrase I find is, “absurd claims of «Russia hacking US elections» ”
Please help me improve my reading skills by telling me how that addresses the motivations of various intelligence agencies and
cybersecurity firms.
«The issue – which you have either forgotten or were unable to comprehend in the first place – is WHY do multiple US and foreign intelligence agencies as well as private cybersecurity firms say that there *is* evidence the Russian hackers ATTEMPTED to interfere with US elections?» No, the issues, as I noted above are twofold – 1) whether or not, as you have repeated ad nauseam «the Russian hacked the US elections». The question as to why certain organisations claim that this is the case, while not uninteresting in the context of political life in the United States, is secondary to the primary interest above, for which no evidence has been presented, but which very much tastes of Tail Gunner Joe in a new, but not particularly updated, version. You seem either too stupid or too bullheaded – I suspect a combination of both – to grasp this fact. 2) the other issue, which Ted took up – and which you in that mendacious manner which seems to be your hallmark when you are pressed, attempt to conflate with the first issue above, is whether there has been a quid pro quo between persons in the Trump administration and Russian officials (and, I suggest those of other countries as well) which would certainly come under the purview of Article II, Section 4 («The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.») of the US Constitution and constitute ground for impeachment and removal from office….
Those, CrazyH, are the issues we have been discussing on this and other threads, while you have been rolling your eyes in the best DNC-approved manner. Please continue to do so ; if a person is determined to persist in making an arse of himself, it is probably unwise to interfere unless lives are in danger, which is not the case here….
Henri
Here is your reading comprehension quiz for today:
http://rall.com/2017/05/18/heres-my-current-working-theory-of-how-republicans-will-ride-trumps-impeachment-to-victory-in-2020/comment-page-1#comment-41291
derlehrer – I’m pretty sure he’s over six screens by now. Concede?
” whether or not, as you have repeated ad nauseam «the Russian hacked the US elections».”
Twenty bucks says you can’t find a single post of mine saying that.
«Here is your reading comprehension quiz for today: http://rall.com/2017/05/18/heres-my-current-working-theory-of-how-republicans-will-ride-trumps-impeachment-to-victory-in-2020/comment-page-1#comment-41291» And here, my illiterate friend, from the very same source, is yours : «The problem for Trump is, the prosecutor is going to find out (a) that there’s a strong case for obstruction of justice and (b) all those meetings between Trump’s staff and Russian officials were corrupt quid pro quo transactions promising the elimination of sanctions over Ukraine in exchange for rubberstamping Trump-related business transactions in Russia. (Democrats should stop pushing the “Russia hacked the election” narrative because there doesn’t seem to be any thee there.)» But of course, since the last sentence cited above wasn’t in the first paragraph, you, with your limited attention span, never go so far….
I suggest that the wager you wanted to make and which, hardly surprisingly, you now are attempting to weasel out of – viz, «(I got twenty bucks says henri replies with six screenfuls of babble, none of which directly addresses the above)» can only be interpreted as referring to a single reply – after all, if you respond to my reply and I, in courtesy, to yours, etc, etc, than the amount of text has no limit (a countable infinity, like that produced by that «successor to» law you seem to have learned, even if you got tired after nine – have you lost a finger ?). I suggest you either pay up to unser verehrter Lehrer or shut up ; attempting to renege on a 20 dollar bet should be below even your standards….
Henri
«Twenty bucks says you can’t find a single post of mine saying that.» I do believe, CrazyH, that if you get some help to scroll through this thread, you will come to the following «contribution», posted under the sobriquet «CrazyH» (do you claim it was not you ?), in response to a post by Glenn :
«> Which was/is Ted’s stance and where was/is everyone else?
There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC
There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC
There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC
There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC
Lather, rinse, repeat.
I tried my damnedest to get everyone here excited about the “evidence everywhere.” The reception was somewhat … less than enthusiastic.
There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC
There is no proof Russia hacked …»
After you finish lathering , rinsing and repeating – that bullshit is hard to wash off – you can post the twenty bucks you owe me to Ted’s defence fund….
Henri
Neither did I state your babble had to be contiguous, and you STILL haven’t replied to my query. (which is the same query Master failed to reply to in multiple babbilishous posts the other day.)
Here’s another query for you to evade:
Are you seriously proposing that the sentences “Russia hacked the election” is equivalent to “There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC” (the latter being obvious sarcasm about what other people say)
‘cuz that’s absurd.
«Are you seriously proposing that the sentences “Russia hacked the election” is equivalent to “There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC” (the latter being obvious sarcasm about what other people say)
‘cuz that’s absurd.»
Your really are a sad case, CrazyH – your repeated comment to the effect that «There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC» was your attempt to portray others‘ remarks, in particular Ted’s and Glenn’s, as just that, «absurd», in contrast to your own views, which were just the opposite and in your judgement, the only correct analysis of the situation…
Just pay the forty bucks to Ted’s defence fund and let us all forget this awkward incident. (My bet, as noted above, is that you won’t, that you’re too much of a weasel. Hope you prove me wrong !…)
Henri
«I dunno [perhaps teh first comment you’ve made, the veracity of which is assured – pity you didn’t stop there !], henri, the fact that you are unable to grasp the difference between two quite dissimilar statements doesn’t exactly qualify you to judge others’ intelligence.
Fortunately, in your particular case, CrazyH, I’m not judging others intelligence, but rather your lack of intelligence, for which your comments on this thread have provided us with incontrovertible evidence….
Luckily – according to you – I’ve repeated that other statement ‘Ad nauseam’ – all you have to do is go find another example.» Six nauseous examples in one post, CrazyH, why should I search for others ?…
Henri
others intelligence → others’ intelligence
Henri
> why should I search for others ?…
for twenty bucks …duh?
You neither posted the statement you asserted I made, nor explained how you can possibly coerce my statement into the one you did quote. If Boolean algebra is over your head, you might try Venn Diagrams.
Perhaps a syllogism?
CrazyH said sarcastically, “There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC”
[proposition 2]
Therefore, CrazyH said “The Russians hacked the election”
What is proposition 2?
I’ll note that this is quite in keeping with my theme today – you will evade, prevaricate, ambiguate and weasel rather than provide a direct answer.
«I’ll note that this is quite in keeping with my theme today – you will evade, prevaricate, ambiguate and weasel rather than provide a direct answer.» You really are a sad case, CrazyH ; I provided not merely one but six examples in which you contrast others’- to your mind (I use the term loosely) erroneous statement with your own opinion, and now you claim that you never said any such thing !…
Pitiful….
But I must admit it was nice to see a latter-day Aristoteles like yourself employing a term like «syllogism» ; perhaps you will get beyond the stage of «smelly poophead» and sexual slurs. I’d not bet on it – especially not with a weasel like yourself, who fails to pay his debts – however…. 😉
Henri
“you will evade, prevaricate, ambiguate and weasel rather than provide a direct answer.”
(he said while evading, prevaricating, ambiguating, weaseling and failing to provide a direct answer)
I gotta admit though, that is your most amusing post today.
> your repeated comment to the effect that «There is no proof Russia hacked the DNC» was your attempt to portray others‘ remarks.
Congratulations, henri, that’s the smartest thing you’ve said all day. But it still doesn’t qualify, weasel.
«Congratulations, henri, that’s the smartest thing you’ve said all day. But it still doesn’t qualify, weasel.» Alas, CrazyH, you’ve clearly demonstrated here that you are neither qualified to judge what is «smart» nor who is a weasel. You really cut a pitiful figure – that forty bucks must mean a lot to you….
Henri
I dunno, henri, the fact that you are unable to grasp the difference between two quite dissimilar statements doesn’t exactly qualify you to judge others’ intelligence. (As a one who is ‘trained in logic’ I’m sure you can do the Boolean algebra to discover that they are, indeed, different.)
Luckily – according to you – I’ve repeated that other statement ‘Ad nauseam’ – all you have to do is go find another example.
@henri –
You, sir, are a pompous buffoon with delusions of mediocrity. A pseudointellectual bubblehead whose vacuous “contributions” are typed with a single undersized finger on a keyboard sodden with un mélange de semi-fluides inidentifiables; second-hand thésaurus precariously balanced auf der rechten Knie, book of foreign words & phrases auf der linken Seite. You were conceived on the same dim street corner where your parents réndèzvöüsẻd for the first and only time. The solitary positive outcome of that brief encounter was that your mother learned to steal only the name brand ondums-cay
Now that we have dispensed with the formalities – and assuming it’s not too much to ask – could you answer the fucking question?
«You, sir, are a pompous buffoon with delusions of mediocrity. A pseudointellectual bubblehead …» Alas, mein verehrter Lehrer, the above response by our friend CrazyH to my latest would seem that to indicate that I am indeed a fairly adequate judge of character. Sad in this case, but on the other hand, good to know that I did learn something from all those years practicing forensic psychiatry….
Unfortunately, it is most unlikely that Ted will ever see those forty bucks….
Henri
PAGING DOCTOR FRAUD. Doctor Sigmund Fraud please report to the chat room.
Dear Doctor Fraud;
I am writing to you in your capacity as an alleged psychiatrist. In your opinion, is a pseudointellectual:
A) A stupid person who overcompensates by claiming proficiency in scholarly or artistic activities while lacking in-depth knowledge or critical understanding.
B) A smart person but woefully insecure person who overcompensates by claiming proficiency in scholarly or artistic activities while lacking in-depth knowledge or critical understanding.
C) An asshole.
Thank you,
Curious in Quahog
«I am writing to you in your capacity as an alleged psychiatrist. In your opinion, is a pseudointellectual:
A) A stupid person who overcompensates by claiming proficiency in scholarly or artistic activities while lacking in-depth knowledge or critical understanding.
B) A smart person but woefully insecure person who overcompensates by claiming proficiency in scholarly or artistic activities while lacking in-depth knowledge or critical understanding.
C) An asshole.»
A) and C) would seem to describe you well, CrazyH (the insecurity part of B would also apply, but «smart person» immediately disqualifies it from consideration). Anyone who feels compelled to make fatuous slurs about another interlocutor’s mother on a forum like the present in order to relieve his frustrations has demonstrated both his character and his intelligence in a manner which requires no further elucidation….
Henri
Anyone who uses “interlocutor” instead of “poster” is indeed a pseudointellectual.
Anyone who complains about being insulted in response to insults they themselves have tendered is a hypocrite.
Anyone who takes you seriously is a fool.
«Anyone who uses “interlocutor” instead of “poster” is indeed a pseudointellectual.» Yes, I can understand that someone who feels that «smelly poophead» prides its place on a forum like the present would feel that way….
«Anyone who complains about being insulted in response to insults they themselves have tendered is a hypocrite.» Alas, this thread is not always easy to follow, but anyone who takes the trouble to do so will see that it was your kind self, «CrazyH» who began the use of derogatory terms. My own use of them to characterise you has been confined to remarks about intelligence or its lack, mendacity, miserliness, and attempts to weasel out of a wager (in my time such debts were referred to as «debts of honour», as they were not enforceable i the courts), all of which are matters on which an opinion can reasonably be based from what is posted to this forum. Sexual slurs, in particular with respect to an interlocutor’s (did it again !) parents, are an entirely different matter. I’d say you should be ashamed, but from your manner of argumentation, it seems rather unlikely that you have any shame….
Henri
@ CrazyH –
“Anyone who takes you seriously is a fool.”
*
I’m sorry, Friend. I take exception to that.
🙁
In that case I apologize, derlehrer. I was searching for an appropriate third phrase, I was not consciously trying to insult anyone but henri.
«I was not consciously trying to insult anyone but henri» Concious ?Oops, there went the somnambulant defence !… 😉
Henri
henri – Might I point out that you’ve used both ‘defence’ and ‘defense’ today? Do you use a lot of Windex in that glass house of yours?
@ CrazyH –
“In that case I apologize, derlehrer.”
*
I accept your apology, Sir.
I do wish that you two could cool down and address the issues that separate you. Sometimes I get confused with all the verbiage, and all the insults are really unnecessary for intellectual discussion.
> I do wish that you two could cool down and address the issues that separate you. Sometimes I get confused with all the verbiage, and all the insults are really unnecessary for intellectual discussion.
I wholeheartedly agree.
@ CrazyH –
“I wholeheartedly agree.”
*
Okay, that’s progress.
Let’s go back to Square One: What is (are) your question(s) for “mhenriday”?
Multiple intelligence agencies – both US and foreign – private cybersecurity firms, and investigative journalists have weighed in with the opinion that Russian hackers tried to interfere with the recent US election.
Question: What is their motivation?
@ mhenriday –
“CrazyH” asks “Question: What is their motivation?”
Your response?
(Although I might rephrase the question with “might be,” since it is conjecture.)
NP, I accept the edit.
I do wish that you two could cool down and address the issues that separate you. Sometimes I get confused with all the verbiage, and all the insults are really unnecessary for intellectual discussion. Indeed. I attempted to do just that – i e, lay out the differences between my point of view and that of CrazyH, in my response, which you will find below, to your own description of them. Alas, the opportunity to discuss these differences in a calm and reasonable manner (without reference to allegations about sexual congress with female parents with weight problems or «smelly poophead[s]» was spurned….
So it goes…
Henri
… and in pursuit of that worthy goal, I asked you to clarify your position by asking a question you have yet to answer.
The first time I asked – several days ago – it was without the sarcasm.
@ mhenriday –
“Alas, the opportunity to discuss these differences in a calm and reasonable manner … was spurned…”
*
We are at a new starting point.
It is not necessary to proceed further down the previous path, since there is now an alternative. Please respond to the question (and thus avoid the perception that CrazyH is being more reasonable).
@ CrazyH –
“… and in pursuit of that worthy goal, I asked you to clarify your position by asking a question you have yet to answer.
The first time I asked – several days ago – it was without the sarcasm.”
*
With all due respect, if I am to mediate I respectfully request that exchanges between the two of you cease, including references to previous posts.
A new starting point should be just that. Disregard what has transpired before and take it forward. Okay?
«“CrazyH” asks “Question: What is their motivation?”
Your response?
(Although I might rephrase the question with “might be,” since it is conjecture.)»
It would indeed be conjecture, as I possess no pipeline to the innermost workings of these agencies. That they readily lie for political motives I think we all know from history – suffice it to recall the «Tonkin Gulf incident», or Colin Luther Powell’s address to the UNO Security Council on 5 February 2003, or James Robert Clapper’s testimony to the Senate Select Committee on 12 March 2013. I submit that CrazyH is being disingenuous when he proposes the above question as the issue dividing us – what he is attempting to say is that since these agencies and various «private» (how private is another matter) either explicitly state or, as in the case of the NSA, intimate that there was such collusion, that must have been the case. I submit that instead, the issue is that no evidence has been presented that the Russians attempted, in fact, to hack the recent US presidential election or to influence its outcome and that the responsibility for presenting such evidence rests with those who claim that such was the case and not with persons like myself, who are skeptical to these claims – quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur….
Given that this thread is a discussion of Ted’s essay above, his comment on the matter, which I have taken the liberty of earlier citing on the thread, is not irrelevant :
«The problem for Trump is, the prosecutor is going to find out (a) that there’s a strong case for obstruction of justice and (b) all those meetings between Trump’s staff and Russian officials were corrupt quid pro quo transactions promising the elimination of sanctions over Ukraine in exchange for rubberstamping Trump-related business transactions in Russia. (Democrats should stop pushing the “Russia hacked the election” narrative because there doesn’t seem to be any thee [sic ! – anything ?] there.)»
I find myself in agreement with Ted here – which of course, should not be construed to mean that he or I are necessarily right. The question to be posed is thus, as stated above, whether any evidence for the «hacking the elections» meme has been presented and if so, just what is the nature of such evidence, rather than why certain agencies of the US government and certain so-called «private» security firms would choose to make certain statements about the matter, which as you point out is a matter of conjecture…..
CrazyH and I could have agreed to disagree on the relevance of his query, which neither of us are in a position to answer, and then gone on to Ted’s other point, which was that of possible quid pro quo deals between the Trump administration and Russian officials, which, to my mind, should then be widened to include other countries (and also look back in time to previous US administrations). There we should have been able to find common ground, but that was not to be ; instead the discussion took other paths….
So it goes….
Henri
«We are at a new starting point.
It is not necessary to proceed further down the previous path, since there is now an alternative. Please respond to the question (and thus avoid the perception that CrazyH is being more reasonable).»
Mein verehrter Lehrer, I have immediately above – in the event this reply ends up where I want it to – responded to «the question» as best I could and with the hope that my response would prove satisfactory. If, indeed, that be not the case, I can only regret my inadequacies, while pointing out that I, too, should like to have answers to my question : what evidence nota bene – not assertions, has been presented to substantiate the charge that «Russia hacked the elections». I’ve not seen any….
It’s quite late here in Stockholm, so I shall have to bid you all a fond adieu….
Henri
@derlehrer – I sincerely appreciate your attempt at mediation. I’d say you’re doing a damn fine job but it might be construed as an attempt to sway the jury. Hypothetically speaking, would $20 sway the jury? 😉
“cease including references to previous posts.”
Okay, that sounds reasonable, I’ll try. There might be some history here, doncha no?
@henri –
I understand that you see no evidence. I agree that the quid-pro-quo does sound possible or even probable. I’m perfectly happy to address your questions … as soon as you address mine.
What is their motivation?
@ CrazyH / @ mhenriday –
1) “It would indeed be conjecture, as I possess no pipeline to the innermost workings of these agencies. That they readily lie for political motives I think we all know from history….”
*
I suggest that you have apparently overlooked sources other than [U.S. governmental] “agencies,” (i.e., private cybersecurity firms and investigative journalists) and in calling into question their motivations have prejudiced your conclusion. To quote the post from “CrazyH”:
“Multiple intelligence agencies – both US and foreign – private cybersecurity firms, and investigative journalists have weighed in with the opinion that Russian hackers tried to interfere with the recent US election.” [N.B. “tried to”]
—
2) “I submit that instead, the issue is that no evidence has been presented that the Russians attempted, in fact, to hack the recent US presidential election or to influence its outcome and that the responsibility for presenting such evidence rests with those who claim that such was the case and not with persons like myself, who are skeptical to these claims….”
*
And I concur. “No evidence” does not equate with “no attempt,” however. Some of the information obtained by various sources has not yet been made public, but it does not render fallacious the conclusions of those in possession of that information.
—
3) The question of “quid pro quo” is another matter altogether, and not insignificant.
@ CrazyH –
“@henri –
I understand that you see no evidence. I agree that the quid-pro-quo does sound possible or even probable. I’m perfectly happy to address your questions … as soon as you address mine.
What is their motivation?”
*
Dammit, “CrazyH”!
Don’t you understand “mediation”? Literally, it means that I’m in the middle. I’m trying to guide the discussion by addressing BOTH of your concerns. If you prefer to cut me out of the middle, I can play that game, too. I will gladly bow out and let you two go about fucking each other’s mother, if that’s what you prefer.
I believe I have already relayed your legitimate concern, so let’s take it from there — unless you two would rather go back to gutter-talk.
@derleher – I humbly request your forgiveness. It was absolutely not my intention to cut you out of the discussion.
Rather, I did not understand the rules. Please continue.
@ CrazyH –
“@derleher – I humbly request your forgiveness. It was absolutely not my intention to cut you out of the discussion.
Rather, I did not understand the rules. Please continue.”
*
Well, I probably should have known better than to thrust myself into the middle, between you two. Honestly, I don’t think you are so far apart in your convictions; it is just a matter of definition of terms.
Actually, I enjoy reading comments from the both of you, even though sometimes I have to use a dictionary or thesaurus. 😀
Thank you for your understanding. Let us proceed.
«2) “I submit that instead, the issue is that no evidence has been presented that the Russians attempted, in fact, to hack the recent US presidential election or to influence its outcome and that the responsibility for presenting such evidence rests with those who claim that such was the case and not with persons like myself, who are skeptical to these claims….” * And I concur. “No evidence” does not equate with “no attempt,” however. Some of the information obtained by various sources has not yet been made public, but it does not render fallacious the conclusions of those in possession of that information.» Good to see, mein verehrter Lehrer, that we are agreed on the fact that, as I note above, «no evidence has been presented that the Russians attempted, in fact, to hack the recent US presidential election or to influence its outcome and that the responsibility for presenting such evidence rests with those who claim that such was the case and not with persons like myself, who are skeptical to these claims». While again, neither of us (I presume in your case – in mine I am certain) possess knowledge of the inner workings of these various agencies, among them those like the NSA which know more about us than we know about ourselves, I think it safe to assume that had there been any concrete evidence about «Russia hacking the elections» it would have been revealed by now (cf, all the leaks from official sources these last weeks, which have embarrassed the Trump administration), not least given that these agencies play an important role in the «Resist Trump» movement (not the popular, grass-roots one, but that at the highest levels of government, the military, the so-called «intelligence community» and business leaders. They, as Ted notes above, don’t seem to have anything concrete – but of course, that doesn’t prevent them from using what they don’t have to insinuate that those dastardly Russians did, in fact, hack the US elections». (In the event you are interested, I have earlier analysed just what «hacking the US elections» could mean in practice and come to the conclusion that there is no way the Russians could have meaningfully «intervened» in those elections in order to support Mr Trump ; that is, unless Mr Putin had publicly declared his support for Mr Trump’s opponent, Ms Clinton. I shan’t repeat myself here, but you are welcome to check it out ; my post is available on this forum….)
I am sufficiently familiar with McCarthyism in the United States to recognise it now that it once again is raising its ugly head ; my thoughts on the witch hunt we are now witnessing and the dangers it presents to the body politic are well expressed in https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/18/the-did-you-talk-to-russians-witch-hunt/this article by Robert Parry on Consortiumnews….
Alas, I have nothing further to offer on this topic ; if you find my arguments persuasive, well and good, if not, I shall simply have to accept that fact….
Let me say here that I greatly appreciate your efforts to take us out of a destructive spiral which was harming this forum as a venue for serious discussion….
Best
Henri
derlehrer – Obviously adult supervision was required.
Ted’s site is mostly unmoderated – and I believe that’s intentional given his belief in free speech.
But perhaps a moderator could be useful in such situations, if only to delete the offending thread. I wonder if someone with the time and inclination might volunteer …
@ CrazyH –
“I wonder if someone with the time and inclination might volunteer …”
*
Ted was having some technical problems with his previous website, and I connected him with an expert personally known to me, who was able to remedy those problems and to delete posts as he deemed fit (some of my own included).
Since then, though, I have not been able to get the “webmaster” to address certain problems with the site, and my pleas go unanswered. Maybe Ted has to make those decisions himself, but I have no clue how to get operational defects corrected, nor how to get posts deleted. I do, however, know that Ted is adamantly opposed to allowing edits to one’s posts, for reasons he has explained to me.
@derlehrer – I was trying to hint that you might want the job. You’re retired, spend a lot of time on the site already, and show a keen interest in keeping the conversation on a mature level.
I understand why Ted doesn’t allow re-editing. Your arguments stand as you make them – you can’t go back and remove previous statements once they’ve been shown to be false or just plain silly.
I am, in fact, a serial abuser. When I was posting on Alternet, I knew to the minute when discussion would be closed.
So I’d ask a RWNJ a series of questions, like:
1) Are you going to vote for Trump?
2) Are in favor of gay marriage?
3) What do you think of Obama?
Then, just before the cutoff, I’d re-word the questions.
1) Are you really stupid enough to vote for Trump?
2) Do you like girls?
3) What do you think of Trump?
@ CrazyH –
“I was trying to hint that you might want the job.”
*
That did not escape me. Of course, I would jump at the chance, but Ted is the decision-maker here.
[BTW, have you donated the $20.00? Make sure it goes to the one I initiated, since it is far short of the goal. 🙂 ]
http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2017/5/25
@derlehrer –
“BTW, have you donated the $20.00?”
No.
I have, however, just donated $19.00 as a show of good faith; and also to falsify a certain professional forensic psychiatric misdiagnosis.
I had intended it to be $19.95, but GoFundMe only takes whole dollar amounts. I propose another change to the rules, (and will explain my reasoning below.)
I will give you 400 to 1 odds on a bet you will never have to pay off on. That missing nickel vs. twenty dollars. If henri will supply a direct answer to the question he has so far evaded, I will chuck another $20 Ted’s direction. To sweeten the pot, I will happily answer any of the questions he keeps claiming I haven’t answered before. But you, my friend, cannot lose because a thorough hair-splitting of my original statement did not specify a time limit. In order to determine whether henri never answers, we’d have to wait until the end of eternity. Frankly I have other plans.
Best I can do – but I shall try to explain my reasoning in as objective a manner as I can.
My problem with henri’s behavior is not with the repetitious insults; I consider them to be part of what I referred to as ‘babble’ before. Noise, rather than data. I actually enjoy playing a few rounds of “Yo mamma…” against a good player, but henri provides no real challenge.
No, my problem is the endless, circuitous evasion. Consider my second $20 bet:
You said X.
Where did I say X?
Right here where you said Y.
That’s X, it’s Y.
You’re stupid.
The frustrating thing is, that’s pretty much the script for every one of our endless slappy fights. Within one or two exchanges I ask a pointed question, or offer a rebuttal to which he completely refuses to reply. Instead he goes off on some tangent concerning multiple subjects which may or may not have some vague relationship with the matter at hand.
Over & over & over again. THAT’s what I find so frustrating. You attempted mediation on this very column, you were cool, calm, and polite. You stated my question unequivocally, his first reply was to state that he had already done so. His second response covered Colin Powell and the Gulf of Tonkin, attempts to redefine the question, claims I have submitted no evidence (on the same page where he earlier had complained about a wikileaks article laying out precisely what that evidence is) circles back through quid-pro-quo and never actually *answers* the question. Even with twenty dollars on the table, cool mediation, and a chance to thoroughly humiliate me.
He. Won’t. Answer.
The subject in my bet wasn’t chosen at random – it was the *starting* point for the last slappy fight. He made the same statement about supposed absurdity. I asked him to explain why the agencies, et al said otherwise. He clicked the reply button and typed several paragraphs that were only vaguely related. I politely pointed out he hadn’t answered the question and it went downhill from there. You may recall that my final post was to the effect that I would meditate on the mystery of why I had not received an answer.
I wouldn’t care so much about the length of the reply if it actually *was* a reply. The problem is that I have to sort through so much noise to determine whether he actually answered me. (hasn’t happened yet, but it could)
So *that* is why I must insist on henri’s answer being part of the deal. It was the whole point I brought it up in the first place.
At this point, I’m sorry you covered the bet – it could become a pain point between us. You know I’ve already committed far more than $20 to Ted’s cause. I know it’s trite, but “It’s not the money, it’s the principle of the thing.”
This is intended to be my last post on the subject, unless henri surprises us all with an actual answer.
Shit.
You said X.
Where did I say X?
Right here where you said Y.
That’s not X, it’s Y.
You’re stupid.
@ CrazyH –
I saw your donation of $19.00 and sent a couple of “Thank You” notes, before I got back to this thread. I have been chuckling for the last few minutes over this situation. (I confess, I don’t know if “GoFundMe” sends the “Thank You” to you directly, or if you must view it on Facebook. If you are a Facebook subscriber, you can find me as “Donald Wayne Williams” — same as the originator of the campaign for Ted.)
I tried at one point to express the argumentation as I saw it, but apparently I failed to sum it up correctly. At any rate, I am so confused at this point that I must ask for a “reboot,” okay? Let’s eradicate all previous verbiage and begin again. Reiterate the question(s) for which you would like response(s) and await what comes. Try to make it simple, because I have a limited attention span and lack comprehension skills.
I have great respect for the two of you and have confidence that we can reach common ground (having stated previously that there is not much that separates you).
Go!
I’m relieved you’re chuckling, I too see the humor in the situation. Sometimes I laugh. Other times I bang my head on my keyboard.
Hopefully this isn’t prohibited by the rules: I agree that h & I aren’t all the far apart, which leaves me wondering why he makes such a BFD over such small things. We got differences? Fine – let’s discuss them.
———————————
The Question:
Multiple intelligence agencies – both US and foreign – private cybersecurity firms, and investigative journalists have weighed in with the opinion that Russian hackers tried to interfere with the recent US election.
Question: What is their motivation?
———————————
That which I believe to be henri’s “response:”
“It would indeed be conjecture, as I possess no pipeline to the innermost workings of these agencies.”
That is not an answer to the question, it is a comment about the question. If you take that entire post, remove the excess baggage, character evaluations, and references to historical events you are left with:
1) That’s a hard question
2) I don’t want to answer the hard question
3) I want to answer a different question
I posit that all of the above are true, self evident, and utterly irrelevant. AKA: evasion.
———————————–
We now return to the mediator’s control.
No, THIS is my last reply 😉
> but apparently I failed to sum it up correctly
Not at all, you did so quite succinctly. The problem – as I see it – is that I am *trying* to work out those differences, while henri is doing his usual song & dance which prevents any sort of meaningful discussion. (couldn’t find a polite way to phrase that last part)
I’ve seen facilitators and mediators complete with law degrees: you’re doing a damn fine job. The process does, however, require complete cooperation from all concerned.
@ CrazyH –
Stay with me here. Let’s let the mediator do his job.
The ball is in the court of “mhenriday” to respond, and your interpretation of what went before is not relevant at this time. Understand? As I said before, let’s “reboot” and start from scratch.
To my recollection, the question was edited to “What might be their motivation?” Correct?
It’s your turn, “mhenriday”; go!
Understood.
Also, “Correct”