Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

LOL.

[CGVT]

Haha (Onion)
NEWS IN BRIEF Fox News Debuts Premium Channel For 24-Hour Coverage Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Yesterday 2:38pm
SEE MORE: FOX NEWSAOC Tonight With Tucker Carlson

[iam416]

Boy does CGVT love Cortez.

[iam416]

BTW, for anyone interested in treason under US law, please read Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution and 18 USC 2381 and, if you're really curious, Cramer v. United States, 325 US 1 (1945). Under US law, of course, you're guilty if you wage war against the US or if you "adhere[] to [US] enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere." And, of course, "enemies" under US law are nations with which the US is in an open and declared war. I'm not aware of an open and declared war with Russia -- perhaps I missed something. But as that is the case, then there is no treason.

That's the problem with using words with actual legal significance and meaning. That's why "collusion" was the choice.

[crashcourse]

Wait til you see how it all ends up. You watch. McCabe, Lisa Page, Strzok.

[iam416]

LOL. Yeah, he's not winning in 2020.

[froot loops]

I"ll have to find the article, but the first utterance of collusion was not from a publication that would be labelled gentryprog by talent. I don't think there was any obvious intent in the early days it was just used.

[Kapture1]

I told you in the immediate aftermath of the public request for Russia to come up with Hillary's missing emails. It was clear then, and, for those of you that needed help, it grows more clear by the day.

Actually, it was a fucking joke then, and it is literally scary that the left can't tell the difference.

[froot loops]

Here's the article, the Washington Examiner first used the term.

[iam416]

Sure. I mean, I'm sure there were a lot of labels used. One stuck and was up-selected. And no matter where it came from, I think it stuck for a reason -- it was adequately descriptive with sufficiently inadequate precision. YMMV.

[iam416]

Hey, that Washington Times article opines as I! Good link, Froot!

The term caught on, I think, because it captured the general suspicion that the campaign was somehow in on the hack or knowingly benefiting from it while carefully eliding the fact that no tangible evidence had yet emerged tying the Trump campaign to the Kremlin.

And...

I think I said it better. F the Washington Times!

[iam416]

BTW, Froot, this little arcane discussion on the public discourse etymology of "collusion" is straight up Gorsuchian. Welcome to Team Textualist!

[crashcourse]

LOL. Yeah, he's not winning in 2020.

yeah I heard the same thing 2016

big difference between a approval poll and polls between candidates

congresses approval rate is 20% yet 80% of the incumbents get reelected

dems if smart pick a woman not named Hillary or Elizabeth--personally I still think harris has the best chance --close enuf to the middle to be palatable but has enuf loon in her to appeal to the fringe.

[iam416]

I get all that, Crash. And you're right, polls really only matter when it's a direct choice. But PDJT is entrenched with a hard ceiling of roughly 43. He's down a bit now, but he'll surely be back up again at some point, but he won't ever really get above 43. There are no undecideds wrt him. The Ds, I suppose, could always nominate an even worse option. I guess they sort of did that in 2016. But, in 2016 PDJT wasn't quite as known electorate-wise. I think for him to win the Ds would have go considerably worse than HRC, and that's going to be goddamn hard to do.

I personally think Harris wins, too, but that's throwing darts. I can't see the Ds going white male unless it's Beto. But, in any event, if the proceed with even a hint of rationality they should nominate someone that is virtually incapable of losing to PDJT.

[hack]

"LOL" and semantics are all you're left with at this point. You used to have more in that tool kit, but facts are facts here.

In reality, if we choose threat deflation now, after decades of the consistent choice of threat inflation in our security choices, then the next step is either to acknowledge that most security spending is unnecessary and amounts to political patronage at most. My sense of it is that the first will happen -- we'll opt for threat deflation -- and the latter will not. We'll keep spending on security, to an extent far greater than is necessary. If Trump and associates are made to pay, they'll pay for stuff other than the most important thing.