-
Posts
2500 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by notre dame joe
-
-
2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:
it’s always been full blown political warfare and strategic deception.
FYP
-
Still 1 more day to take my bet: that the MR hedges with weasel words that doesn't change anyone's opinion. How about winner picks loser's avatar for the rest of the year?
-
8 hours ago, GRHorn said:
Yep this is definitely one angle that contributes to it. You could also throw in investigators/bureaucrats who are involved in similar entanglements or something else they’d like to remain in the dark. Or perhaps they owe a favor or would like to curry favor. Or just any connection coming from the revolving door between government and lobbyists and on and on.
At this point, you could just throw in that there’s a standing precedent that some people are above the law. In short, corruption top to bottom is probably the biggest issue with our government and financial system specifically. It’s reached the level that changing the person at the top doesn’t even matter. I’m not sure what is the best way to tackle it.
I really don't know either. For context last night the biographer of Texas' on LBJ was on NPR. This guy moved to the hill country (from NYC) for 3 years to become acclimated with his childhood. He also found buried in the papers a scorecard of the money Johnson funneled in Congress; a classic graft in which his pet construction company landed big government contracts and kicked it back to their politician. Johnson rose up the ranks by dictating which of his colleagues could wet their beaks too.
LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, Great Society, and Vietnam escalation. See, maybe America does have the best system? (hire lobbyists, hire someone who understands the campaign finance laws, keep quid pro quo down to reasonable levels).
-
11 hours ago, GRHorn said:
I’m basing it off the cynical view that powerful people and the people closely connected to them are almost never held accountable. Even if they did something illegal.
The powerful have lackeys to handle the shit and create deniability. For example Hilary buying the dossier through a law firm Perkins Cole which thus owes a duty of confidentiality. It's no wonder every outsider is met with yells of CRIMINAL, because the insiders know the legal way to do the same thing.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, David Dennison said:
We won't know until the full report is released.
Russian meddling in the Master's.
-
5 hours ago, Mach 1 said:
My older brother tells a story that Switzer was shit faced the night before the '78 Orange Bowl, literally swinging from a chandelier in the hotel bar screaming "National Champions!"
Urban legend, but that's how I'll always see him, a drunk monkey.
* 78 when they got their shit pushed in by Arky *
St Lou talks about that bowl more than any other in his speaking engagements. He's quite popular in retirement too.
-
10 hours ago, Longhornfan1024 said:
I'd ask TTom if he understands what a false equivalency is, but given the quality of his previous posting I'm going to go ahead and just assume that's a no.
Is it the one that says spying = surveillance?
-
2 hours ago, Beau Vine said:
I assume you had a raincoat on if you enjoyed listening to him.
You close your eyes and imagine a cool ocean spray.
But seriously, who are two former CFB HCs I would wait in line for their keynote address?
-
Barr to investigate XingRubicon?
-
8 hours ago, David Dennison said:
Polls don't predict who is going to win. They predict who voters are likely to vote for. The polls leading up to 2016 predicted more voters would vote for Hillary Clinton.
They were right.
This is just plain wrong. Polls are taken to determine who gets the most votes and they account for a popular-electoral divergence. You have to go back to Dewey defeats Truman to find polls that got it so wrong.
-
1 hour ago, triplehorn said:
seriously, Barr kind of stepped in it. Trump's probably happy, but Barr ??? damn.
Obama laid it, Barr can clean it up. That's democracy folks.
Say the oddsmakers were not always as wrong as we remember https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/alabama-vs-clemson-predictions-picks-odds-line-for-college-football-national-championship-2019/
Bama was just under a td favorite in Vegas IIRC.
-
The goose is gandered?
-
On 4/4/2019 at 6:44 AM, David Dennison said:8 hours ago, Harvard Man said:
I want an impeachment. I don't care how the Senate ultimately votes -- I want the truth.
You can't handle the truth.
8 hours ago, lemonlime said:What do you think's going to happen when these cases get to the Kavanaugh SCOTUS?
The one Trump pledged to pack with more judges? Depends how many of the 14 get confirmed
-
2 hours ago, David Dennison said:
Yes, they are supposed to.
Donald Trump did not.
Trump assets are in a trust controlled by someone else, but it is just not blind. While we might prefer the traditional blind trust, someone who's going to be unethical is not going to be stopped by a document they drew up themselves.
If Homelessness is a death sentence in America then shouldn't the San Francisco street problem solve itself?
-
1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:
If he were to ban Russians from staying at his hotels, that would be discrimination on the basis of nationality. Correct counselor? Not the first time I've had to explain the law to you.
By the way, does he even own the hotels? He mainly leases his name is my understanding, though I expect he owns some personally.
Emoluments is a dead letter. But good luck with that. Russians were going to stay at his hotels if he won or lost. All I'm advocating for is don't miss.
The daily drivel around inauguration was the Trump had to put his assets in a blind trust so he wouldn't know how his executive decisions affect the bottom line. Actually all Presidents are supposed to do that with their assets. Maybe President AOC will be the first not to on the grounds she has no money.
1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:It's a hypothetical. If we're OK with Clinton taking money, we're fine with Trump doing it too, right?
It's very simple. It's Kant's Categorical Imperative. It's the litmus test for determining if you are acting like a partisan douchebag.
If the other guy did it, would you be OK with it?
Good God you majored in communications? And do you really think Trump Derangers will discover logic on Surly?-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:
You don't know that. It's not a fact. The money did not go to Hillary Clinton. Stop lying. Negged for same.
If donations to the Clinton foundation are irellevant than visits to Trump resorts are too.
-
1
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, CowboyFred said:
Nope. So long as its a FISA warrant, I'm fine with it. They don't just hand those out for everything. Next question.
Oh from the long catalogue of denied FISA applications?
2 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:Instead of silly theories that we exchange around here all the time, we got actual court documents, vetted, filed, and shared with the world, that showed that Russia wanted anyone but Hillary as president and that the Russian government spent millions of dollars and scores of agents working to prevent her presidency from happening. So you have read the cards and inferred that it was actually Hillary that is under the control of the Russians. The Russians that stood in fear of her presidency.
the silliest theory would be that the Russians backed the front runner to make America stronger.
-
13 hours ago, David Dennison said:
What more do you want her to do?
Close her trap and drop the top.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, triplehorn said:
What is going on with this situation ? Michael Cohen's attorneys released a memo at the end of the week with two potentially devastating revelations:
1) "Michael Cohen's legal team has released a 12-page memo it provided to House Democrats Thursday. The memo outlines evidence of what his team describes as "Trump's involvement in a conspiracy to collude with Russian government intervention in his favor during the 2016 presidential campaign" and "other felony crimes committed by Trump before and after he became president."
2) "According to the memo, by Cohen attorneys Lanny Davis, Michael Monico, and Carly Chocron, this trove of evidence indicates “possible federal campaign finance violations by the Republican National Committee, including possibly illegal conduiting of illegal substantial donations to the RNC by foreign nationals, including from China.”
But here's the catch. The evidence Cohen purportedly has, which he recently "found" and is willing to share with Congress, appears to be contained in a trove of 14 million documents prosecutors returned to him after he got raided:
So you've got federal prosecutors on one hand, and the Congressional House investigations in the other. Feds have the Cohen evidence but Congress doesn't. My question is, would federal prosecutors possibly incentivize Cohen to hand over his evidence to Congress in exchange for not pursuing further indictments on these matters ? The feds won't just hand over the spoils of their Cohen search warrant to Congress, right ? And there are systemic rules and mechanisms that prevent the feds from disclosing that evidence in the short term. The feds conceivably could take Cohen and a lot of others down (Trump/involved GOP) with that evidence but it'd take awhile and feds won't indict Trump. So for something as potentially huge as 1) and 2) above, the most direct line to ensure it's both public and actionable is to convince Cohen to take it to Congress, correct ?
Since when does Congress have a say in criminal sentencing?
-
18 hours ago, Hank Chinaski said:
Seriously...isn't this completely played out at this point? Apparently, It wasn't enough to let the Saints, Ravens, Steelers, 49ers, Cardinals, and Eagles wear all-black unis (all of which are shitty)...now the Jets get them too. Very original.
Alas, even the new design using their actual colors are bad. "New York" on the chest? Never borrow anything from the hideousness that is the Cleveland Browns unis. And the pointy stripes on the pants? Dear god, what is this, 2004?
Is there a just so story on how the football pants got its stripe?
-
8 hours ago, Captainant said:
I'm ready to conclude that flathead trumpsters like yourself are going to continue to invoke the clintons until the heat death of the universe, while excusing every terrible thing that the trump admin does
Hey! half an intelligent response. Someday we won't have Clintons to kick around anymore and will join metoo in the historical footnotes.
-
1 hour ago, retread said:
Previous Presidents probably would have been impeached for information that is currently available to the public -- obstruction and collusion/conspiracy to defaud. But nothing matters.
I'm ready to conclude that jaded Hilary voters don't cast reflections in the mirror. Everything imagined about Trump has a worse known in their 2016 candidate.
-
3
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, EvilCaseMcCoy said:
They just look like the eagles
+2
and I admit to liking Jets sleek 80s helmet.
-
1 hour ago, Horn Dog said:
As a layman it seems incredibly contradictory for the Justice Department to argue on one hand that a sitting president can not be formally charged with a crime and the only recourse available is impeachment via the Congress, and on the other hand state that Congress is not entitled to review all evidence with respect to the president in an official government investigation.
Not when you remember that the President is the Chief Executive in charge of all the non-chiefs in that branch. Congress can impeach without the help of the Executive Branch. IMO the Constution doesn't even say they need "proof" of anything to exercise their impeachment power.
They tried to workaround the ancient problem of Who polices the police? with a statutory independent counsel. Nobody liked it.
The Robert Mueller Investigation
in Cloak Room
Posted
Just for the record I was shouted down when I said this the first day I waded into this ex-cloakroom.