US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[TimT]

Come out of your Hannity box and try to be objective. If you are going to use that someone is a D as a negative then it is fair for the other side to use that he is a R as a positive.

This might’ve been true in the past but not anymore. Was there ever such a large & loud coordinated group that hated their candidate that much that they’d rather their party loses ?

[aygart]

Interesting take by Ben. He is definitely right that the Dems don't want any deal at all about immigration. That would be why they did everything they possibly could to avoid dealing with it when they had a full fillibuster proof majority even though Obama promised that it would be his first legislative priority.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/26376/betrayal-trump-unveils-immigration-plan-republican-ben-shapiro

But there’s another possibility. That possibility is simple: Trump already knows Democrats aren’t going to negotiate. He’s therefore posturing for public consumption by demonstrating how much “love” he can show illegal immigrants; the next step will be to tell the public that Democrats care so little about illegal immigrants and border security that they’re willing to forego amnesty for 1.8 million illegal immigrants in order to leave the border wide open. It’s not a bad public argument, so long as you know that Trump isn’t actually attempting to cut a deal here.
As I’ve been writing for weeks, it’s highly unlikely there’s a deal here to be made. Democrats don’t want a deal; they would rather posture and use the immigration issue as a club against Republicans. Republicans only want a deal that includes border security. So that means an impasse. This kabuki theater may be designed only to allow Trump to reluctantly announce a reinstatement of DACA, then claim that Democrats were so intransigent they wouldn’t protect the very people with whom they say they stand.

/

This tweet looks like it is playing into that strategy.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/956938973326098432

[aygart]

Only in politics....

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/25/top-senate-democrat-house-intel-memo-sloppy-baseless-also-ive-not-read/

“I have not seen the memo,” Warner said, according to CNN. “But I think it is sloppy, careless, and again, I think has no grounding in fact.”

[aygart]

https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/956610772318253056
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/370717-as-walls-close-in-on-fbi-the-bureau-lashes-out-at-its-antagonists

What happens when federal agencies accused of possible wrongdoing also control the alleged evidence against them? What happens when they’re the ones in charge of who inside their agencies — or connected to them — ultimately gets investigated and possibly charged?

....
There are two overarching issues.

First, there’s the alleged improper use of politically funded opposition research to justify secret warrants to spy on U.S. citizens for political purposes.

 

Second, if corruption is ultimately identified at high levels in our intel agencies, it would necessitate a re-examination of every case and issue the officials touched over the past decade — or two — under administrations of both parties.

This is why I think the concerns transcend typical party politics.

It touches everybody. It’s potentially monumental.

.....
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has officially warned the House Intelligence Committee not to release its memo. It's like the possible defendant in a criminal trial threatening prosecutors for having the audacity to reveal alleged evidence to the judge and jury.

This is the first time I can recall open government groups and many reporters joining in the argument to keep the information secret. They are strangely uncurious about alleged improprieties with implications of the worst kind: Stasi-like tactics used against Americans. “Don’t be irresponsible and reveal sources and methods,” they plead.

As for me? I don’t care what political stripes the alleged offenders wear or whose side they’re on. If their sources and methods are inappropriate, they should be fully exposed and stopped.

[aygart]

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas2/status/956861590577582081

[aygart]

THIS is a major major major point. I didn't even think of it this way.

https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/956347671756902400
https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/956347766065811456

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Trump saying #fakenews = #Realnews that shows I (Trump) am a liar!!!

[aygart]

[aygart]

[ChaimMoskowitz]

No fan of Tucker because he is condescending but Schiff is a hack.

[aygart]

No fan of Tucker because he is condescending but Schiff is a hack.

+1

The point is McGurn

[aygart]

The great politicians of California. Alan Schiff's training ground.

https://twitter.com/kmanguward/status/956548590582759424

[ilherman]

Ben Shapiro does not know what he is talking about.
What don't you address the issue at hand? He tried to fire Mueller, was told no and then he denies he did it. WHY?

Because he has the right to defend himself from fake news?

WASHINGTON: CBS: Trump never issued direct “order” to fire Special Counsel Mueller. WH lawyer threatened to resign but wasn’t related to Mueller

[ilherman]

From the beginning Trump has tried to impede/stop this investigation. The Mueller firing (attempt) was just another piece of the puzzle. Now when he is caught red handed he still denies it. Any unbiased person would look at this as he has something to hide.

No. Any unbiased person would first confirm facts.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

No. Any unbiased person would first confirm facts.

Take that up with your idol #fakenews Hannity and FOX who confirmed the story. 

[ilherman]

Take that up with your idol #fakenews Hannity and FOX who confirmed the story.

Now it's Trump's fault that FOX confirmed it?

I quoted your comments bashung the president for TRYING to defend himself about something what turns out to be again fake news.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Now it's Trump's fault that FOX confirmed it?

I quoted your comments bashung the president for TRYING to defend himself about something what turns out to be again fake news.

You call everything Trump disagrees with #fakenews. Why would FOX confirm a story against Trump. They are more pro-trump than the white
supremacist.

You also ignore the fact that he lied several times about this and now got caught red handed.

August 10, 2017 -- Trump himself tells reporters in Bedminster, New Jersey, that he hasn't considered firing Mueller.

"I haven't given it any thought. I mean, I've been reading about it from you people. You say, oh, I'm going to dismiss him. No, I'm not dismissing anybody. I mean, I want them to get on with the task. But I also want the Senate and the House to come out with their findings. You know, judging from the people leaving the meetings -- leaks -- but they leave the meetings all the time, and they say, 'No, we haven't found any collusion.' There's no -- there is no collusion. You know why? Because I don't speak to Russians."

[Yammer]

Hannity Twitter account.

A conspiracy or or real?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Hannity Twitter account.

A conspiracy or or real?

Probably the "secret society" getting back at him. @ilherman should have all the details. If not his back up @TimT should be able to tell us. 

[TimT]

Hannity Twitter account.

A conspiracy or or real?

Don't forget what happened to Trump’s account.