Modded Mustang Forums banner

61 - 80 of 82 Posts

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Well how about that it’s been a hot minute but now there is a press conference going on in the briefing room.

And out of all locations, buildings, venues etc... here in the states I guess they have narrowed it down to hosting te G7 Summit at a Trump resort in Miami.
They are no longer going to do that. Apparently Trump had second thoughts.

I guess you all missed the news report where Trump was going to offer the resort at cost.

As a Program Manager I have worked with government contracting. The government publishes a set of requirements that go into a RFQ or RFP (Request for Quote or Request for Proposal). If a company can provide everything in the RFQ then their bid is accepted. If more than one bid is acceptable then by law the government must take the lowest bidder. This saves the government money.

If only one company can meet the requirements then the government needs a 'sole source" justification. This is sometimes done with research and development programs where one company has a unique technological capability. I cannot imagine it ever being done for a hotel.

I do not know if normal rules were followed or not but if the Trump resorts' proposal was at cost then it would have been the lowest bidder and accepted. I am really glad that the proposal was pulled. At best it showed bad judgement

---------- Post added at 07:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:29 PM ----------

I wish they were having open meetings. There are people (Republicans) who were in the closed door meeting that are saying on television that he didn't say that. He said that according to the rules he was not allowed to say what was said but he could say what was not said. They are also pointing out that the rules are changing constantly and that Republicans are not allowed to ask questions during the closed door sessions.

We might never know what was actually said.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
I wish they were having open meetings. There are people (Republicans) who were in the closed door meeting that are saying on television that he didn't say that. He said that according to the rules he was not allowed to say what was said but he could say what was not said. They are also pointing out that the rules are changing constantly and that Republicans are not allowed to ask questions during the closed door sessions.

We might never know what was actually said.
The article I posted literally says they obtained his opening statement in writing, not a third-hand comment by an anonymous source.

If Republicans on Fox News are saying the Democrats are lying about Bill Taylor, why wouldn't they also lie about Sondland's testimony?

The fact that so many of you can look at everything that's happening and every credible piece of evidence (not to mention Trump's own words) over the past three years and go "well I guess we'll just never know" is really concerning and honestly blows my mind. Especially within the context of how little evidence is required for the same people to say "Clinton is 100% guilty of [insert crime here]" or "George Soros is secretly funding groups undermining democracy for Marxism" or any other minor factual or non-factual infraction by a Democrat that's been deemed anti-American.

The cognitive dissonance is something that I will never be able to empathize with. I'll happily call out and put down Democrats who do shady **** with even half as much evidence as what has come out in regards to Trump and the people he surrounds himself with. I don't hold the Democrat party in that high of esteem. The fact that so many of you can bend into a pretzel and throw out common sense almost in its entirety to defend a politician such as Donald Trump and his administration is truly fascinating and makes me fear for what the future holds, because as I said, the next Donald Trump that y'all put up will likely not be nearly as ****ing moronic as our current one.

I mean, the dude had people in his administration go to jail almost immediately after he entered office, has a long history of shady dealings with mafia-types and other sketchy business associates, and has had a higher turnover rate than a Dairy Queen in Sabinal, Texas and y'all are like "yeah, this guy who said he was gonna drain the swamp is totally good to go". Like, ****ing what?! How do you not find that completely insane?
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
You are not willing to call out the Democrats or else you would find the investigation process suspicious.

The whistle blower went to Schiff's office before filing the report. The form at one time require direct knowledge of the incident but was changed to allow hearsay knowledge. That is something the whistle blower did not have. Many say the whistle blower wrote like a lawyer. I wonder how much help Schiff's staff gave him. We might never know. But what we do know is Schiff was caught in a lie when he said they had never met the guy. He went to Schiff's office before filing the whistle blower complaint.

There is, nor might there never be, a House vote. Against precedence set by all past inquiries, the impeachment inquiry is being conducted by Schiff's Intelligence Committee. They have always in the past been done by the House Judiciary Committee. Why the change?

Also, unlike other inquiries, everything is being done in secret behind closed doors. In the past the opposing party was allowed to issue subpoenas and ask questions. Not this time. Schiff, the committee chairman, has created rules that allow the opposition party to do nothing but attend the secret hearings. They can't even ask a question of witness.

I really don't know what the truth is and, unlike you, I'm not willing to believe all that is being printed. Too much information have been proven to be lies. We may or may not find out the truth. Recent headlines say the investigation into FBI misconduct has been expanded. It may or may not find something. We will just have to wait and see.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
If Republicans on Fox News are saying the Democrats are lying about Bill Taylor, why wouldn't they also lie about Sondland's testimony?

Do you feel that you apply your same burden of proof in regards to Democrats such as Hillary Clinton as you do with Trump? If she was elected and then immediately had cabinet members going to prison would you defend her? If she was accused of even half the things that Trump has been accused of, can you honestly tell yourself that you would think all of these investigations into her were witch hunts?

Also, out of curiosity and to maybe either make things crystal clear to me or even more confusing, do you believe Richard Nixon was guilty of the crimes he committed and deserved being impeached for them?
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Of course Nixon was guilty. That is why he resigned. He didn't want to be impeached.

It was committee Republicans that are saying what is being "leaked" isn't correct. (It's a secret meeting. Nothing is supposed to be released.) And they were in the meeting. One complained that they are not allowed to ask questions. He said the testimony would have been clarified immediately if he could have. He also said the rules do not allow him to discuss what was said but that he felt he could comment on what was not said.

I don't agree with what the Republicans are doing today. Taking phones and other recording devices into a secure facility! If they had recorded classified material and released it they would have been as bad as Clinton who kept classified on an unsecured server. Actually, it would have been worse. I have heard no evidence that Clinton's classified material was compromised.

Then they shut down proceedings by staging a sit in. I understand their frustration. The process Schiff and the Democrats have created appears to be completely unfair. But recording classified information is not the answer. Holy Cow, if any of us Missileers had tried anything like that we would still be in jail.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Guess you shoulda been a politician!

/sarcasm
No. Just the truth. I could never have imagined myself as a politician. I am unable to lie with a straight face.

Have you ever served?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Of course Nixon was guilty. That is why he resigned. He didn't want to be impeached.

It was committee Republicans that are saying what is being "leaked" isn't correct. (It's a secret meeting. Nothing is supposed to be released.) And they were in the meeting. One complained that they are not allowed to ask questions. He said the testimony would have been clarified immediately if he could have. He also said the rules do not allow him to discuss what was said but that he felt he could comment on what was not said.

I don't agree with what the Republicans are doing today. Taking phones and other recording devices into a secure facility! If they had recorded classified material and released it they would have been as bad as Clinton who kept classified on an unsecured server. Actually, it would have been worse. I have heard no evidence that Clinton's classified material was compromised.

Then they shut down proceedings by staging a sit in. I understand their frustration. The process Schiff and the Democrats have created appears to be completely unfair. But recording classified information is not the answer. Holy Cow, if any of us Missileers had tried anything like that we would still be in jail.
What a joke.

Republicans have complete access to their respective committees so this BS about not having access and transparency is all a hoax and a lie. The reason they want to have a vote is so that they can call their own witnesses and turn the hearings into a circus to delegitimize it.

Benghazi had closed hearings, Clinton impeachment had closed hearings. Nixon impeachment had closed hearings. It's all a stunt.

That anyone can't see the game they're playing all in the service of someone that would throw them under the bus in an instant once he's done with them is what is most telling.

John
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
What a joke.

Republicans have complete access to their respective committees so this BS about not having access and transparency is all a hoax and a lie. The reason they want to have a vote is so that they can call their own witnesses and turn the hearings into a circus to delegitimize it.

Benghazi had closed hearings, Clinton impeachment had closed hearings. Nixon impeachment had closed hearings. It's all a stunt.

That anyone can't see the game they're playing all in the service of someone that would throw them under the bus in an instant once he's done with them is what is most telling.

John
It was also a law enacted by a Republican majority in January of 2015 to allow the "secret meetings" yet 2019 Republicans are complaining about it? Man, what a shocker!
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Republicans have complete access to their respective committees so this BS about not having access and transparency is all a hoax and a lie. The reason they want to have a vote is so that they can call their own witnesses and turn the hearings into a circus to delegitimize it.

John
We obviously see things differently. I watch interviews of Republicans leaving those secret meetings. They complain that witnesses are told by Schiff to not answer their questions, that Schiff actually coaches them while they are answering, etc. I have no idea if that is true or not.

It appears to be a fact that Schiff is protecting the whistle blower. It also appears to be a fact that Schiff's staff (or even Schiff himself) met with the whistle blower before the complaint was filed and that the form was changed so that the whistle blower could lodge a complaint. Before it took direct knowledge of an incident. Now it appears that hearsay evidence is permissible. One Republican suggested that Schiff is protecting himself during these hearings.

I would think that if the whistle blower had no direct knowledge then he/she would be a poor witness with nothing important to say except the names of the people who talked to him/her.

As far as I know they are holding the meetings in Secret but they are not discussing classified information. If that is true then the hearings need to be public so that everyone knows whats true and whats false. But, the way things are being run, it appears on the surface to be a hatchet job.

Then again I don't know much because I'm having a hard time separating the facts from the bull.

By the way, I know they like the spotlight but the House of Representatives does not have the power to remove a President. They levy the charges. The Senate conducts the trial.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
I watched the Daily Show clip. While Fox and Friends did not explain it well secret servers do exist for storing classified information. Most are technologically the same as any other server. A few are very advanced liquid nitrogen cooled super computers. The biggest difference is that access is strictly controlled. Some have special access components. Others, that hold very sensitive information, are air gapped from any network and physically secured so that any unauthorized access is impossible. (Air gap means no physical connection outside the facility.) Even when access is granted it is never to a single individual. Typically armed two man teams guard the information (and each other).

I realize the Daily Show wanted to make this humorous. I assure you, those that actually deal with classified take it all very serious (except perhaps Hillary Clinton).
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
I watched the Daily Show clip. While Fox and Friends did not explain it well secret servers do exist for storing classified information. Most are technologically the same as any other server. A few are very advanced liquid nitrogen cooled super computers. The biggest difference is that access is strictly controlled. Some have special access components. Others, that hold very sensitive information, are air gapped from any network and physically secured so that any unauthorized access is impossible. (Air gap means no physical connection outside the facility.) Even when access is granted it is never to a single individual. Typically armed two man teams guard the information (and each other).

I realize the Daily Show wanted to make this humorous. I assure you, those that actually deal with classified take it all very serious (except perhaps Hillary Clinton).
I think the joke is that they've used the word "server" so many times in regards to Clinton, that using the same word to describe something related to Trump would make them seem like they know they're blatant shills.

Also, don't let your bias get ya:
(except perhaps Donald Trump)
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,539 Posts
Absolutely not.

As always, I'm simply trying to hold up a mirror to show that a lot of the time, y'all's moral barometers for politicians and their alleged corruption is about as rigid as a wacky inflatable arm flailing tube man.
It is a fact that she stored classified on her private server. I think you might somehow be relating this to Trump but the connection is so ambiguous that I don't see it. But then again when it comes to the Democrats accusing him I've already said I'm having trouble separating the facts from the bull.
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,171 Posts
Discussion Starter #78 (Edited)

When this show is finished, and all the performers have taken their bow, the common sense interpretation of this will endure.

Did Bill Clinton pork a young White House intern and then lie about it? YEP! Did he fail to cooperate fully with the investigation? YEP. Is any of that sufficient for a conviction in the Senate and removal from office. NOPE. Did any of that make Clinton a “bad” president? NOPE, but the fiasco certainly cost Dems the 2000 election. Mission accomplished!

Did Donald Trump nudge a foreign leader to help stir-up some **** against a political opponent? YEP. Will he fail to cooperate fully with the investigation? YEP. Is any of that sufficient for a conviction in the Senate and removal from office. NOPE. Will any of this make Trump a “bad” president? NOPE, but the fiasco might cost Republicans the 2020 election.

I don't think we need to get too far into the weeds here. Just like in 1998, this is theater for the electorate – that's all. Nobody really cared if Clinton got a blowie from a chubby intern (I thought she was kind'a cute actually). The whole scandal was just a convenient political opportunity for Republicans. It's the same today. People don't care. Most Americans think a quid pro quo is a kind of sushi, and less than 5% of the electorate could even find Ukraine on a map. This is just another inconsequential scandal that presents a political opportunity – this time for Democrats.

We can go through the motions of pretending to debate what the “definition of is is,” but we all (should) know we're only watching political theater. It's just another show – just as meaningless at face-value as whose jizz was on the dress. The only question that really matters is … will the scandal cost Republicans at the ballot box? Will Democrats successfuly repay Republicans for their “witch hunt” in 1998? That's all this is about ...
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
Clinton was rightfully impeached for lying under oath.

It does not absolve Trump of his alleged wrongdoings and the evidence continues to mount that he has committed much more heinous impeachable offenses than lying under oath about a sexual affair with a consenting adult.

Unfortunately, the new reality is that the laws and the Constitution that establishes them does not matter anymore, only ensuring that the power of your political party has priority over the good of the country.

Checks and balances are accelerating towards non-existence.
 

·
He of Long Wind
Joined
·
2,171 Posts
Discussion Starter #80 (Edited)
Clinton was rightfully impeached for lying under oath.

It does not absolve Trump of his alleged wrongdoings and the evidence continues to mount that he has committed much more heinous impeachable offenses than lying under oath about a sexual affair with a consenting adult.

Unfortunately, the new reality is that the laws and the Constitution that establishes them does not matter anymore, only ensuring that the power of your political party has priority over the good of the country.

Checks and balances are accelerating towards non-existence.
I disagree. Clinton shouldn't have been impeached. From the first moment the scandal broke, he should have told everyone who asked about it to go **** themselves. The scandal was of no benefit to the country. It distracted lawmakers from meaningful work and it cost the taxpayers millions. It was a total waste for our country. If the president gets horny, I say, let's chip-in for a real professional and get it over with ... so he can get his mind back on his work.

You may be right about party over country, and your comment about checks-and-balances reminded me of something. I don't think partisanship is a new phenomenon, but increasingly, centrist viewpoints are becoming unacceptable in politics. Ironically, centrist viewpoints tend to be the source of most workable common-sense solutions. Nevertheless, the only way to counterbalance a hard-right or hard-left philosophy is to take the opposite extreme – even if that makes all arguments ridiculous.

The gun debate might be a good example. To counter hard-left arguments for repeal/confiscation, the hard-right must argue for virtually unrestricted access. Both arguments are ridiculous. We can't forcibly disarm 42% of American households, and we can't let 10 year-old's buy an Uzi from a vending machine. We all understand the “right” thing to do is something in the middle, but those centrist views offend both extremes. And since the people at the extremes are the ones shouting the loudest, the bell-curve of reasonable voices get silenced. That leaves the unworkable dumbell effect on virtually every issue – heavy weights at opposing ends and no center mass.

Of course, I don't think the general public sees the world with such blue and red extremes. Most of us are at least some shade of purple. But when we have to pick a side, we are generally forced to choose the least ridiculous red or least ridiculous blue … because purple politicians are seemingly out-of-style.
 
61 - 80 of 82 Posts
Top