The Swamp

The fact that republicans can still win general elections in this country is a miserable sign no matter where it happens.

mister d wrote: ↑Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:36 pm The fact that republicans can still win general elections in this country is a miserable sign no matter where it happens.

We are a nation of morons.

85% reporting, 49.7%-49.7%; dem holding a 155 vote lead.

Yup.

Apparently it's tied with 15% of the voters left to decide it.

Naturally, everyone is blaming the Green Party candidate.

BREAKING FUCKING NEWS, YOU GUYS.

This was a big win for organized labor in an increasingly GOP-dominated state. I’m happy, but not surprised, as the organizing campaign put on by the labor movement here was impressive. They have been out in force in St. Louis for weeks, and I’ve also seen a lot of their signs when I’ve driven through rural Missouri. For all the theories about what the Dems need to do to win in the fall and in 2020, it seems to me that reinvigorating their historic base of organized labor will be crucial.

ETA: Damn, the labor unions kicked some serious ass in Missouri. This is an absolute rout.

Labor organizing is the only reason Nevada is a purple state. The unions here can kick some ass and they get people to the polls by any means necessary.

Right to Work might be the best deceptively titled concept the GOP has ever come up with. It's basically waiving all employee rights so employers can fuck you over.

Yeah, no.

You wanna know what might possibly be the #1 thing that bothers me about right-wingers in this country, it's right here. Most of them haven't even seen all of the United States and fewer still have visited a foreign country outside of a Caribbean cruise or maybe Canada.

I can't take your critiques of European socialism or "dictatorships" seriously unless you've actually traveled to a country in Europe or with a military dictatorship.

ETA: And don't fuckin' get me started on guys who served in Vietnam or the Gulf War or XYZ War, but have never been anywhere else. You saw those places at their worst -- don't use that as a hobby horse to explain how much better the US is than any other country.

brian wrote: ↑Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:15 am ETA: And don't fuckin' get me started on guys who served in Vietnam or the Gulf War or XYZ War, but have never been anywhere else. You saw those places at their worst -- don't use that as a hobby horse to explain how much better the US is than any other country.

Even worse. The active duty member who lives in Germany for a few years and travels NOWHERE. Then leaves and is like "Europe was terrible."

I get Condescending Wonka on Americans with that attitude. Oh America is the undisputed greatest country in the world? Tell me all the countries you've traveled to.

I hesitate to dip my toe in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for many reasons -- the biggest of which is that it is a conflict with no "good guys", but this is worthy of a read, mainly because I think it also has something to say about American foreign policy and the danger of our growing police state apparatus.

I just learned like five minutes ago that Beto O'Rourke went to my high school. He apparently was three years behind me, but I don't think we overlapped. I think he came as a sophomore, the year after I left. I'm sure he heard all about me though.

Even if he wasn’t awesome I’d vote for him because of being a (very brief) member of At The Drive-In.

Someone I follow on Twitter posted a link yesterday to AtDI's Conan appearance where they played One Armed Scissor. An anarchic messterpiece.

Shirley wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:06 pm I just learned like five minutes ago that Beto O'Rourke went to my high school. He apparently was three years behind me, but I don't think we overlapped. I think he came as a sophomore, the year after I left. I'm sure he heard all about me though.

"Some day I shall hurdle a fascist for the Senate like that guy who just graduated hurdled actual hurdles in those pics all the girls keep showing me. He shall be my northstar."

tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:59 am

Shirley wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:06 pm I just learned like five minutes ago that Beto O'Rourke went to my high school. He apparently was three years behind me, but I don't think we overlapped. I think he came as a sophomore, the year after I left. I'm sure he heard all about me though.

"Some day I shall hurdle a fascist for the Senate like that guy who just graduated hurdled actual hurdles in those pics all the girls keep showing me. He shall be my northstar."

Like.

tennbengal wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:59 am

Shirley wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:06 pm I just learned like five minutes ago that Beto O'Rourke went to my high school. He apparently was three years behind me, but I don't think we overlapped. I think he came as a sophomore, the year after I left. I'm sure he heard all about me though.

"Some day I shall hurdle a fascist for the Senate like that guy who just graduated hurdled actual hurdles in those pics all the girls keep showing me. He shall be my northstar."

All anyone wants in this world is to make a difference in a young person's life.

This is a really nice story about the lifestyle Jimmy Carter lives.

I know I say a variation of this every week or so, but this is fucking unbelievable.

Republican Senate nominee posts photo of Tim Kaine greeting Stalin



Kaine was born in 1958.

Corey Stewart is going to lose by 20 points and deserves it. That seat could have been won or at least close but conservatives voters are going to stay home.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:39 pm Corey Stewart is going to lose by 20 points and deserves it. That seat could have been won or at least close but conservatives voters are going to stay home.

Stewart providing more evidence that anger at NFL players protesting is about patriotism and respect for the ticketpaying fans, and has nothing at all to do with anti-black racism:

That's one loud dog whistle!

Phil Mudd is my spirit animal. That's literally me in how I'd react to a schmuck like Paris Dennard.



Dude was a director of black outreach under GWB? From where? The sunken place? Why is this dude on TV? And placed across from Phil Mudd? A dude with 25+ years in the CIA and FBI?

This is why I hate the media. None of them have the balls to blacklist/blackball Trump surrogates and have the truth on and direct. I don't need Paris's spun opinion on a topic like having a clearance. He's lying to America about a topic with established guidelines and precedence.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:57 am Phil Mudd is my spirit animal. That's literally me in how I'd react to a schmuck like Paris Dennard.



Dude was a director of black outreach under GWB? From where? The sunken place? Why is this dude on TV? And placed across from Phil Mudd? A dude with 25+ years in the CIA and FBI?

This is why I hate the media. None of them have the balls to blacklist/blackball Trump surrogates and have the truth on and direct. I don't need Paris's spun opinion on a topic like having a clearance. He's lying to America about a topic with established guidelines and precedence.

Wish they'd been in the same studio. That would have been fun.

And to your point about blacklisting Trump surrogates, these idiots are their for entertainment value. They don;t convince a single viewer to change their opinions. They are there to take the hits from guys like Phil Mudd. Just like that weasel-faced schmuck who used to perform with Hannity, or any avowed liberal who appears on Fox. They are there to take the shots and keep the viewers entertained.

Thanks, Jerry Springer.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:57 am Phil Mudd is my spirit animal. That's literally me in how I'd react to a schmuck like Paris Dennard.



Dude was a director of black outreach under GWB? From where? The sunken place? Why is this dude on TV? And placed across from Phil Mudd? A dude with 25+ years in the CIA and FBI?

This is why I hate the media. None of them have the balls to blacklist/blackball Trump surrogates and have the truth on and direct. I don't need Paris's spun opinion on a topic like having a clearance. He's lying to America about a topic with established guidelines and precedence.

I interpreted that exchange completely differently. Dennard made a claim, a perfectly reasonable one to me, that these guys use the fact that they still have top security clearances to bolster their private consulting fees. There's NO WAY they don't. Why wouldn't they?

And this guy Phil Mudd got all red-faced and angrily attacked something Dennard did NOT say - they they are paid for meeting with the government. He never said that. Once Mudd did, I'm pretty much discounting anything else he has to say, because he's either intentionally attacking a strawman, or he's too dumb to know the difference. They went back and forth on that several times, and then the moderator jumped in and calmly said THE SAME THING.

I don't know how Dennard didn't lose his shit.

(FWIW, I don't know who any of these three people are.)

Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:36 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:57 am Phil Mudd is my spirit animal. That's literally me in how I'd react to a schmuck like Paris Dennard.



Dude was a director of black outreach under GWB? From where? The sunken place? Why is this dude on TV? And placed across from Phil Mudd? A dude with 25+ years in the CIA and FBI?

This is why I hate the media. None of them have the balls to blacklist/blackball Trump surrogates and have the truth on and direct. I don't need Paris's spun opinion on a topic like having a clearance. He's lying to America about a topic with established guidelines and precedence.

I interpreted that exchange completely differently. Dennard made a claim, a perfectly reasonable one to me, that these guys use the fact that they still have top security clearances to bolster their private consulting fees. There's NO WAY they don't. Why wouldn't they?

And this guy Phil Mudd got all red-faced and angrily attacked something Dennard did NOT say - they they are paid for meeting with the government. He never said that. Once Mudd did, I'm pretty much discounting anything else he has to say, because he's either intentionally attacking a strawman, or he's too dumb to know the difference. They went back and forth on that several times, and then the moderator jumped in and calmly said THE SAME THING.

I don't know how Dennard didn't lose his shit.

(FWIW, I don't know who any of these three people are.)

I interpreted the exchange the same way.

Your interpretation is very interesting - and I sincerely mean that.

You know, my loathing for Trump and his followers is so complete that it really colours how I view things like this.

I know it's verboten here, but there's really only one response that fits...LOL.

Pruitt wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 10:27 am Your interpretation is very interesting - and I sincerely mean that.

You know, my loathing for Trump and his followers is so complete that it really colours how I view things like this.

I hate Trump and his administration as much as anyone else but I do try and look at things objectively at all times. Maybe Dennard is smart enough to say-something-without-saying-it-directly but I can't assume. Dennard never called out or mentioned Mudd specifically...the conversation was clearly about Brennan. Instead of Mudd flying off the handle he could have asked Dennard for specific names or evidence. I also believe what Dennard said about ex military profiting off of their military clearance is a true statement. I guess I can't say for sure if that is correct...I'll leave that to Johnnie or someone with military experience...but I do know, having done HR work, that specific levels of security clearance are sought after for defense contractors or other government related civilian work.

Yeah, I don't really understand what Mudd got so upset about. People absolutely use their clearances to get jobs and make money. Like, that's not up for debate.

Ummm, a career CIA man just got his clearance yanked because he'll have less access to his classified notes and documents and a pissant like Dennard just used the "well he we need to change some norms because people make money off their clearances" argument to sidestep the issue on a show where he's head to head with another career CIA/FBI guy.

I'll still have a clearance for 5 years after I'm done with the military. I won't have access to anything classified and I won't have a need to know. But if I get another defense job, having my clearance being recent and in good standing means that they won't have to pay the money to do a background investigation.

It's a patsy argument that means nothing. I linked the Slate article and Maddow breakdown here.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:06 pm Yeah, I don't really understand what Mudd got so upset about. People absolutely use their clearances to get jobs and make money. Like, that's not up for debate.

So Trump should be allowed to just yank people's clearances because they criticize him?

I read today that he wanted to pull Obama's clearance a few months ago, but was talked out of it.

Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:36 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:57 am Phil Mudd is my spirit animal. That's literally me in how I'd react to a schmuck like Paris Dennard.



Dude was a director of black outreach under GWB? From where? The sunken place? Why is this dude on TV? And placed across from Phil Mudd? A dude with 25+ years in the CIA and FBI?

This is why I hate the media. None of them have the balls to blacklist/blackball Trump surrogates and have the truth on and direct. I don't need Paris's spun opinion on a topic like having a clearance. He's lying to America about a topic with established guidelines and precedence.

I interpreted that exchange completely differently. Dennard made a claim, a perfectly reasonable one to me, that these guys use the fact that they still have top security clearances to bolster their private consulting fees. There's NO WAY they don't. Why wouldn't they?

And this guy Phil Mudd got all red-faced and angrily attacked something Dennard did NOT say - they they are paid for meeting with the government. He never said that. Once Mudd did, I'm pretty much discounting anything else he has to say, because he's either intentionally attacking a strawman, or he's too dumb to know the difference. They went back and forth on that several times, and then the moderator jumped in and calmly said THE SAME THING.

I don't know how Dennard didn't lose his shit.

(FWIW, I don't know who any of these three people are.)

And Dennard intentionally misled you here. I was confused by this when Trump first mentioned pulling clearance, so I did some research and talked to some people, and Dennard is intentionally giving the impression that the value of retaining clearance is for the former employee. The host tried to explain this, but I don't think I would have understood the point if I didn't have it explained to me in person.

1.) There is a huge difference between clearance and access to classified documents. The former government employees who retain clearance HAVE NO ACCESS to classified information, unless they are specifically requested to review documents. Mudd can't ask to see anything, and can't get any classified documents. What it means is, if the CIA needs to ask Mudd about a case he worked on, the CIA can show Mudd his own notes in order to help the CIA understand what he wrote, or they can consult him about a terrorist he surveilled for 20 years and ask for his help. Pull Mudd's (or Brennan's) clearance, and the CIA can no longer ask Brennan or Mudd about their own notes, and can't ask them for advice or help.

2.) The value of former operatives maintaining clearance is entirely for the government and for our security. By removing clearance for subject matter experts, we are removing them from sharing their expertise, or helping the guy who is now handling the cases they worked on when they were with the CIA. Their clearance has no value to them as consultants, because they have no access to classified documents. And if they are shown classified documents, they can't use that info to pass along to whoever hires them to consult. Trump pulling clearance is the most egregious act of cutting your nose to spite your face. Trump is pissed Brennan "said very bad things" about him, so he is lashing out by revoking clearance (clear 1st Amendment Right violation, President punishing someone for criticizing him). These guys aren't losing value as consultants, it only hurts the Intel Community's ability to defend our security, but Trump can feel like he is punishing dissenters, and he can make his base believe criticism against him isn't credible, because it came from a guy so unhinged he had his security clearance revoked.


Paris Dennard might be the dumbest Trump talking head, and he is certainly one of the weasliest. If a tape comes out of Trump calling Dennard the N-word in the most demeaning way possible, Paris Dennard will be the first guy out there defending Trump, and doing so in the least effective way possible. Mudd is a very passionate defender of the CIA and FBI. He spent his entire career working in those agencies, and he believes Trump is shitting on both agencies, and the people he devoted his career to working with. He holds both agencies and their employees in the highest regard, and he doesn't hide his anger when Trump shits on them.

Congressman Duncan Hunter, wife charged with spending campaign money on personal expenses

Good day for the G.O.P.

As I wrote above, I (blissfully) had no idea who Paris Dennard is. Phil Mudd either, for that matter. I think because of that, I was merely going off the video shown. It sounds like the rest of you are judging the exchange - fairly or not - by what you already knew of Dennard.

I still stand by my observation. The guy made a reasonable note about the economic value of having high security clearance and occasional access to top secret information. I never thought those guys profited off of the actual secret information - that would be a serious crime - but they very likely do profit off of the idea that they are privy to that information. And if someone is looking to them for consulting, their having access to secret information would certainly be a valuable asset, even if the actual secret information isn't directly shared.

That doesn't mean that Dennard isn't a tool, but it also doesn't excuse the behavior of Mudd in that interview.

Shirley wrote: ↑Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:01 pm As I wrote above, I (blissfully) had no idea who Paris Dennard is. Phil Mudd either, for that matter. I think because of that, I was merely going off the video shown. It sounds like the rest of you are judging the exchange - fairly or not - by what you already knew of Dennard.

I still stand by my observation. The guy made a reasonable note about the economic value of having high security clearance and occasional access to top secret information. I never thought those guys profited off of the actual secret information - that would be a serious crime - but they very likely do profit off of the idea that they are privy to that information. And if someone is looking to them for consulting, their having access to secret information would certainly be a valuable asset, even if the actual secret information isn't directly shared.

That doesn't mean that Dennard isn't a tool, but it also doesn't excuse the behavior of Mudd in that interview.

Count yourself lucky for not knowing Dennard. I totally understand your observation, and setting aside my bias against Dennard, his point is a complete fallacy, and straight of the GOP talking points memo. I've heard the identical argument parrotted by numerous mouth pieces, and it's intentionally deceitful. High level retired CIA operatives are absolutely earning money off of their experience in the CIA, but I really don't think they are getting paid for their retained security clearance, but for their expertise and experience. They have no access to classified info other than what current government officials request they read. Mudd has every right to be pissed, because the President has committed an enormously blatant violation of the 1st Amendment, and did so in a belligerent fit of toddler rage, against the former CIA Director for having the audacity to criticize the Fuhrer. Trump is acting like a despotic dictator and threatening all who dare speak out against him. Add to it Dennard directly accusing Mudd and his peers of lacking integrity, and defending Brennen out of greed and wanting to cash in on their security clearance out of greed. Throw in the history of the two of them debating numerous times, and Dennard being a lying weasel attacking the integrity of retired CIA and FBI operatives, and yeah, he snapped.

I'm not attacking you at all here, my first instinct when I heard all of this was, "why does Brennen need to keep his security clearance?" After it was all explained (see my post above), I realized it's vital for security to keep retired high-level intel operatives clued in, and maintaining clearance to review classified docs when necessary.

An interesting angle I've seen, is that Trump is really trying to preempt incriminating testimony against him and his family. While it appears he is attacking those who criticize him, the real motive could be that he is attacking the credibility of those who can incriminate him, and prevent them from having access to their own notes when they witnessed Trump committing crimes. The argument is that Trump is taking security clearance from everyone who knows he fired Mueller to obstruct justice, so they can't testify to their contemporaneous notes. Interesting thought, but I think it's much more likely he is acting like a spoiled toddler and lashing out, not playing a brilliant long game.

Missed this gem the other day:



Meaning when Republicans state the truth, Democrats say it's hate speech....riiiight.