Let me know when he gets convicted then.
If he doesn’t get convicted it’s because of corruption.
Nonsense. There are lots of reasons people don’t get convicted aside from corruption.
There’s ignoring it because he’s on your side.
If he’s not been actually convicted, then clearly, his actions were perfectly fine. Fantastic, even.
Anyway, he probably had a good reason, right? And also, let’s slam the reporting by the evil media. They’re all out to get him. Finally, it’s OK, because he’s a Republican, right?
Not my claim. If he really did divulge classified information, that’s bad, but also not what I’d call “treason”. Would you label Flynn’s actions with the word “treason”?
Let’s be fair-maybe HD isn’t fine with it.
Are you o.k. with the appointment of Flynn, an man who deliberately passed on government secrets to foreign governments, HurricaneDitka?
Essentially, Democrats, when presented with a situation, try to improve it. Republicans refuse to be of any real help, and, indeed, generally try to make it worse to prove how terrible Government is. That mistakes are sometimes made is the result of actively trying to do something good. When Republicans nominate and elect a complete asswipe such as Trump, that is about as clear an example you can find of Republicans acting…and screwing things up so badly they may never be fixed.
BTW, I think Fast and Furious started under BushII
Trump’s choice for Education Secretary once ran a school choice advocacy group that violated election law and has owed over 5 million dollars in fines for over ten years.
Interestingly the group is called All Children Matter, which managed to be a non-controversial name, despite clearly (by logic applied to the opponents of the BLM movement) implying that adults do not matter.
A version of it, yes.
Let’s remove the word “if” from that statement. He *did *divulge classified information. To foreign governments. Without permission. Those are the accepted facts.
The question is whether divulging classified information to foreign governments without permission is treason.
I agree that Democrats, as a general rule, have good intentions. They want to help people. They prefer to do that through the tools of government. They sometimes screw up.
Republicans, as a general rule, also have good intentions. They also want to help people, but they’d prefer to do that outside of the framework of government whenever possible (for philosophical reasons that they believe will help more people lead better lives). They also sometimes screw up.
Can we agree with these statements, or is there something in there you find objectionable?
When Trump led chants of “lock her up,” was that an example of helping people outside the framework of government?
Reminder: here’s what I was responding to.
So have you significantly mildened your position, or what? 
“Government always does a bad job” is more than a stone’s throw from “Occasionally the government screws up”.
Example case study one: FEMA. They’re still looking for “Obama’s Katrina”, by the way. Couldn’t find it.
Example case study two: compare the Iraq war, and the absolute clusterfuck that was our military intelligence going into it, with literally any military engagement put forward by Clinton or Obama. We’re talking about a case where the president thought we’d be going in as liberators, and didn’t even know there were different sects of muslims. We probably shouldn’t have gotten involved in Libya, but we did what we meant to do, kept our goals reasonable, and succeeded.
Example case study three: Trump’s entire cabinet is filled to the brim with people who think their position shouldn’t exist, or who oppose the job it is meant to do, or who have clearly stated that they are unqualified for cabinet positions (and yet were still willing to run for President). Obama’s cabinet was packed with policy wonks and people who understand the jobs they had to do.
I dunno, are there metrics for how efficient or effective the government is? It’s hard to argue in any way, shape, or form, that the government “worked better” under Bush, or that the actions of the republican congresspeople from 2010 to 2016 was anything short of disturbing (“Let’s use potentially defaulting on our debts as a bargaining chip in negotiations!”).
Yeah. The behavior of the entire republican party for at least the last 8 years falls firmly outside of this framework. What “good intentions” were behind the government shutdown and the debt ceiling standoff? Do you honestly believe they were stupid enough to think that the potential of lowering the deficit (which they seem to have stopped caring about completely right now) was worth the strife caused by those issues? Is it “good intentions” to hold 50 protest votes and do nothing else?
“always” wasn’t part of my original position and “occasionally” isn’t part of it now.
While the situations aren’t directly comparable, I think Obama has fucked up Libya and Syria pretty damn badly, like, comparable-to-Bush-in-Iraq badly. And I think Obama has some blame for failing to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement in Iraq, which contributed to the current situation with ISIS. But, I don’t see of an accurate way to measure the totality of either circumstance, so I accept that opinions differ here as well, and I’m not interested in trying to persuade you to my opinion so much as noting that opinions differ here.
I think you answered your own question here. The good intention was to lower the deficit, which Republicans see as a good thing. Perhaps that should read “have seen as a good thing in the past” though, because, you are partially correct that it’ll probably drop a ways down their priority list with Trump in charge. I think you go to far to say “stopped caring about completely right now” (see here for example), but the general gist of your point is relevant.
I literally quoted exactly where it was.
So what is the correct term? Sometimes? Every once in a while? Semi-frequently? Is it more or less often than you would expect from an organization of this size and scope?
We didn’t do anything in Syria! We decided to keep our damn noses out. In Libya, we stepped in to back a rebellious uprising against a brutal dictator. We accomplished that mission beautifully, and let a seemingly capable rebel force take over the government. And by “we” I mean the US, the UN, NATO, and the African Union. How could that mission have gone better? By not stepping in? Maybe. Maybe we should have just let Qaddafi massacre his own people. Maybe then you’d be complaining that we didn’t step in, like in Syria. But if you want to compare that to Iraq, where we went in with no plan, no understanding, and proceeded to dick around for almost a decade as a result, then George Bush has a bridge he wants to sell you.
Seriously, this bears repeating.
On one hand, you’re attacking Obama for not stepping in in Syria.
On the other hand, you’re attacking Obama for stepping in in Libya.
Can you maybe pick one, so that it isn’t quite as blatantly obvious that no matter what Obama does, he can’t get it right in your eyes?
…You mean making good on his campaign promise to pull our troops out of Iraq at a time when it was unclear that having more troops there would accomplish anything? Yeah, Obama isn’t psychic. He didn’t predict the rise of ISIS. Who did?
How about lives lost? How about money lost? How about negative influence on public opinion of the US? The fact that we can’t pick out a single “awfulness metric” and compare it doesn’t mean you can’t make a reasonable assessment here.
Then they are fucking retarded and shouldn’t be given power over a daycare, let alone the country. The hypocrisy is absolutely palpable.
I think** HurricaneDitka** and **Evil Economist **should get together and have a “Love Child” over some brewski’s. Er, maybe this post should go into The Pit… My bad.
In lighter news, IT HAPPENED AGAIN: Yahoo says a billion user accounts were stolen in possibly the biggest hack of all time".