^^^^^

^^^ I read that too and was very surprised. And disappointed!

quote:

Eastwood, who described himself to the outlet as a libertarian...

And he supports... Bloomberg?!?!

He can drop that "libertarian" part in describing himself. Bloomberg is the antithesis of libertarianism.

Good grief

WTF Clint!

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
WTF Clint!

I mean seriously, wtf?

^^^ Perfect!

Well, he is 89 and losing it a little.

Jim

Don't start putting down Clint just because we don't agree with him on something.

Not what I would have expected from Clint, but one has remember that he has spent much if not all of his adult life in a place that is all about appearances. He has a point I can’t argue with about President Trump’s lack of decorum. The thing is, while I wish that I could be as impressed by President Trump’s decorum as I am by his effectiveness I care so much more about his effectiveness that his lack of decorum is less than a pimple on an elephant’s rump. Apparently, Mr. Eastwood’s priorities are different and that is okay.

The thing I don't get is that Trump shows the proper decorum while at the Whitehouse and doing his job overseas. It's when he is away from his desk that he becomes the Trump we all love. The fun one, and he's been that way from the very beginning even at the convention when Clint did his chair thing. It's the one thing that I really like about the guy. He never changes his spots. He's the most consistent President I've ever seen.

Jim

The disappointment I feel with Clint Eastwood is strong. I sincerely thought he was better than this.

My Fox News feed just had a story on Trump “fact check”. Complete Hit piece, then noticed it was from AP. Since when did AP become Pravda? No attempt at balance.

Warning - link provided for forum rules, but this is infuriating.

AP Fact Check

There was a dust up out of Adam Schiff's House Intel Comm when it was leaked that an ODNI brief said the Russians were favoring President Trump in the 2020 election. Still not clear exactly what happened.

But from

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/22...nk&utm_medium=social

we learn that Shelby Pierson, the person in charge of evaluating intelligence regarding election security with the ODNI, briefed Schiff's committee.

"During the recent House briefing, she faced a series of questions from lawmakers who were trying to pin her down on whether the intelligence showed a Russian preference for Trump, and she finally relented to provide her view of what the intelligence showed , one source familiar with the matter said. It's the type of situation intelligence briefers are prepped to avoid, the source said, in part so as not to wade into partisan controversy.

that is an implied major mistake

"The answer she gave has been misconstrued because it's missing the context and nuance, the source said."

Then we find out

https://theconservativetreehou...-effort/#more-184347

Former Acting DNI Joseph Maguire did not brief the white house prior to taking Shelby Pierson, the person in charge of evaluating intelligence regarding election security, to lead the presentation to the house intel committee (HPSCI).

With NSA O’Brien confirming what many suspected it begs the question why would Shelby Pierson and Joseph Maguire intentionally blindside the White House? The briefing was obviously spun by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff and democrats on the committee; and there was no intelligence presented to support the claims made by Democrats and media.

Sending shockwaves through the intelligence community, now Acting DNI Grenell has asked the intelligence community, including Shelby Pierson to produce the underlying intelligence within her briefing.

perfectly reasonable

from NYT:

Mr. Grenell has also requested the intelligence behind the classified briefing last week before the House Intelligence Committee where officials told lawmakers that Russia was interfering in November’s presidential election and that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia favored President Trump’s re-election. The briefing later prompted Mr. Trump’s anger as he complained that Democrats would use it against him.

Joseph Maguire, the former acting director of national intelligence, and his deputy, Andrew P. Hallman, resigned on Friday. Mr. Grenell told Mr. Hallman, popular in the office’s Liberty Crossing headquarters, that his service was no longer needed

The ouster of Mr. Hallman and exit of Mr. Maguire, who also oversaw the National Counterterrorism Center, allowed Mr. Grenell to install his own leadership team.

One of his first hires was Kashyap Patel, a senior National Security Council staff member and former key aide to Representative Devin Nunes

excellent choice

Mr. Patel will have a mandate to “clean house,” CBS News reported, citing a person close to the matter.

now this is funny

Elizabeth Warren

https://twitter.com/i/status/1231082628129918976


Delusion on steroids

"I think there’s a 50/50 chance that Donald Trump looks at debating me and doesn’t even show up. He ain’t that brave."

adding:

Undercover Huber:

Added to the 1/1024 chance you’ll be the nominee, you’re probably right you won’t be debating Trump

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:

Elizabeth Warren:

"He ain’t that brave."

Warren ain't that brave either.

Squaw know brave.

article by CTH

K street - a term to refer to the lobbying industry as a whole

https://theconservativetreehou...usiness/#more-184328

Corporations (special interest group) write the legislation. Lobbyists take the law and go find politician(s) to support it. Politicians get support from their peers using tenure and status etc. Eventually, if things go according to norm, the legislation gets a vote.

Within every step of the process there are expense account lunches, dinners, trips, venue tickets and a host of other customary financial way-points to generate/leverage a successful outcome. The amount of money spent is proportional to the benefit derived from the outcome.

The important part to remember is that the origination of the entire process is EXTERNAL to congress.

Congress does not write laws or legislation special interest groups do. Lobbyists are paid, some very well paid, to get politicians to go along with the need of the legislative group.

When you are voting for a Congressional Rep or a U.S. Senator you are not voting for a person who will write laws. Your rep only votes on legislation to approve or disapprove of constructs that are written by outside groups and sold to them through lobbyists who work for those outside groups.

While all of this is happening the same outside groups who write the laws are providing money for the campaigns of the politicians they need to pass them. This construct sets up the quid-pro-quo of influence, although much of it is fraught with plausible deniability.

This is the way legislation is created.

If your frame of reference is not established in this basic understanding you can often fall into the trap of viewing a politician, or political vote, through a false prism. The modern origin of all legislative constructs is not within congress.

“we’ll have to pass the bill to, well, find out what is in the bill” etc. ~ Nancy Pelosi 2009

“We rely upon the stupidity of the American voter” ~ Johnathan Gruber 2011, 2012.

Once you understand this process you can understand how politicians get rich.

When a House or Senate member becomes educated on the intent of the legislation, they have attended the sales pitch; and when they find out the likelihood of support for that legislation; they can then position their own (or their families) financial interests to benefit from the consequence of passage. It is a process similar to insider trading on Wall Street, except the trading is based on knowing who will benefit from a legislative passage.

The legislative construct passes from K-Street into the halls of congress through congressional committees. The law originates from the committee to the full House or Senate. Committee seats which vote on these bills are therefore more valuable to the lobbyists. Chairs of these committees are exponentially more valuable.

Now, think about this reality against the backdrop of the 2016 Presidential Election. Legislation is passed based on ideology. In the aftermath of the 2016 election the system within DC was not structurally set-up to receive a Donald Trump presidency.

If Hillary Clinton had won the election, her Oval Office desk would be filled with legislation passed by congress which she would have been signing. Heck, she’d have writer’s cramp from all of the special interest legislation, driven by special interest groups that supported her campaign, that would be flowing to her desk.

Why?

Simply because the authors of the legislation, the originating special interest and lobbying groups, were spending millions to fund her campaign. Hillary Clinton would be signing K-Street constructed special interest legislation to repay all of those donors/investors.

Congress would be fast-tracking the passage because the same interest groups also fund the members of congress.

President Donald Trump winning the election threw a monkey wrench into the entire DC system …. In early 2017 the modern legislative machine was frozen in place.

The “America First” policies represented by candidate Donald Trump were not within the legislative constructs coming from the K-Street authors of the legislation. There were no MAGA lobbyists waiting on Trump ideology to advance legislation based on America First objectives.

As a result of an empty feeder system, in early 2017 congress had no bills to advance because all of the myriad of bills and briefs written were not in line with President Trump policy. There was simply no entity within DC writing legislation that was in-line with President Trump’s America-First’ economic and foreign policy agenda.

Exactly the opposite was true. All of the DC legislative briefs and constructs were/are antithetical to Trump policy. There were hundreds of file boxes filled with thousands of legislative constructs that became worthless when Donald Trump won the election.

Those legislative constructs (briefs) representing tens of millions of dollars worth of time and influence were just sitting there piled up in boxes under desks and in closets amid K-Street and the congressional offices. Legislation needed to be in-line with an entire new political perspective, and there was no-one, no special interest or lobbying group, currently occupying DC office space with any interest in synergy with Trump policy.

Think about the larger ramifications within that truism. That is also why there was/is so much opposition.

No legislation provided by outside interests means no work for lobbyists who sell it. No work means no money. No money means no expense accounts. No expenses means politicians paying for their own indulgences etc.

Politicians were not happy without their indulgences, but the issue was actually bigger. No K-Street expenditures also means no personal benefit; and no opportunity to advance financial benefit from the insider trading system.

Without the ability to position personal wealth for benefit, why would a politician stay in office? The income of many long-term politicians on both Republican and Democrat sides of the aisle was completely disrupted by President Trump winning the election. That is one of the key reason why so many politicians retired immediately thereafter.

When we understand the business of DC, we understand the difference between legislation with a traditional purpose and modern legislation with a financial and political agenda.

Lastly, this is why -when signing legislation- President Trump often says “they’ve been trying to get this through for a long time” etc. Most of the legislation passed by congress and signed by President Trump in his first term is older legislative proposals, with little indulgent value, that were shelved in years past.

^^^ Interesting article. Thanks, sdy.

quote:

Without the ability to position personal wealth for benefit, why would a politician stay in office? The income of many long-term politicians on both Republican and Democrat sides of the aisle was completely disrupted by President Trump winning the election. That is one of the key reason why so many politicians retired immediately thereafter.

That's the first explanation for a reason why I think 50 republican house members retired before the 2018 mid term election. This was a key reason why the dems retook the house resulting in the shit show impeachment.

Rush talked about the mass retirements costing republicans the house, but he didn't speculate the reason why, just posed that it was mysterious. I figured all of them were bought by soros and his ilk. That was part of my worry during the impeachment trial in the senate. If they could buy those 50 congresspersons, they could buy 20 senators to vote to remove.

Always be trolling.