The 2020 General Election Thread

[Tombs]

He was involved in the campaign which was being investigated. If he continued, he would be presiding over his own investigation. I think if a similar situation had been repeated but with the Obama campaign, you'd most likely see the conflict in the AG presiding over investigating himself. I think he thought he would lose a challenge in court that he should be recuse. I'm not sure that's true. It was a judgement call, and his actions are justified by the circumstances. Well. Unless you want the AG to be Trump's wingman. Maybe you can justify that position but I can't having spent too much time criticizing Holder for being Obama's wing man.

Who was the last AG that didn't function as the president's wingman?

This intentional self knee-capping just comes off as ego stroking rather than actually standing up for values.
It'd be like if congressional republicans refused to use the nuclear option because of some moral conflict, while democrats pass every bill they want using the nuclear option.

Pandora's box was already opened.
You can of course dislike it, and vocally detest it, while also understanding that you didn't create the game nor the rules, you're just playing to win it.

 

[jamil]

Who was the last AG that didn't function as the president's wingman?

This intentional self knee-capping just comes off as ego stroking rather than actually standing up for values.

Probably wasn't a Democrat. If you value rule of law, that is a value and it's worth standing up for. But I recognize not everyone values that.

At least we're being honest about what was likely the case all along. The problem with sessions wasn't really that he did not have a legitimate reason to recuse himself. Maybe some of you told yourselves that. The problem was that he wasn't protecting Trump which you view was his primary job. But that's not actually in the AG's job description. He's not the president's wingman.

 

[mmpsteve]

I don't wish the man any harm or anything, but I hope some day to **** on his grave.

Upon further reflection, I believe my negative connotation of Sessions may be slightly misplaced.

1. I think my view is strongly skewed by disappointment with how things turned out. i.e.: Mueller appointment and signing off on FISA warrant by that little squirrel Rosenstein. I feel like if Sessions had not recused himself, he might have seen thru the BS that was swirling around, and put a stop to it.

2. I had originally heard he recused himself the day after he was confirmed by the Senate. That's not the case. Confirmed on Feb. 8, '17 - Recused himself March 2nd. There was a lot of stuff going on in that time frame.

With that being said, there are lots of things that many here might take issue with Sessions. For one thing, he lied, or at least misled the Senate during the confirmation hearings, regarding his contacts with Russia prior to the election. It's all a little murky what all contacts he had, and some of them were in line with his Senate committee activities, but he could have been straight up with them, and he wasn't.

Other things, having nothing to do with Russia, I find questionable: He pushed the Judiciary to apply maximum sentences for all offenses, especially drug offenses, including weed. He did his best to continue and strengthen the 'War on Drugs', I guess since it's been so productive these many years. From the Wiki article: In 1996, Sessions promoted state legislation in Alabama that sought to punish a second drug trafficking conviction, including for dealing marijuana, with a mandatory minimum death sentence.[SUP][245][/SUP] Sessions's views on drugs and crime have since softened.[SUP][246][/SUP]

I guess, in total, he was a pretty stalwart conservative, but his recusal set the stage for people like Comey, Rosenstein and Mueller to bend the President over for three years.

The Wiki article is a fairly detailed account of Session's long political career, and there's a lot of good there, but I'm glad he's done. Wish a few more like Romney would call it quits too.

Wiki on Sessions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions

.

 

[Twangbanger]

Probably wasn't a Democrat. If you value rule of law, that is a value and it's worth standing up for. But I recognize not everyone values that.

At least we're being honest about what was likely the case all along. The problem with sessions wasn't really that he did not have a legitimate reason to recuse himself. Maybe some of you told yourselves that. The problem was that he wasn't protecting Trump which you view was his primary job. But that's not actually in the AG's job description. He's not the president's wingman.

You are being selective in your response to the criticisms of Sessions:

...The Russia collusion accusations happened early enough that Sessions could have given Trump a heads up that he likely would recuse himself from the investigation before he was named as head of DOJ. Trump has said that he would not have appointed him for the position if he had known that.

Bottom line: Jeff Sessions took a job that he would likely not be able to handle an important segment of on a very thin excuse directly leading to the three year hamstringing of Trump's presidency.

That is addressing a simple matter of professional courtesy.

But anyway, being impartial doesn't mean you have to tolerate a partisan witch-hunt conducted by political enemies of the administration. That's not about being a wing-man. That's just professional competence and street smarts. When somebody performs a "Jussie Smollett" on the justice system, that's a travesty of justice in itself. Preventing that is in the interest of justice, regardless whether your boss benefits from it.

What I'm reading in the responses, is that Sessions' actions at least in part resulted in a whoring of justice which could have been avoided, had he been more competent, honorable, or both. I get that you're annoyed by some people's unflinching loyalty to Trump, but don't let it corrupt logic. You're arguing as if you still fear a beating if you can't prove your consistency to Kut, or something (insert purple as needed).

 

[Tombs]

Probably wasn't a Democrat. If you value rule of law, that is a value and it's worth standing up for. But I recognize not everyone values that.

At least we're being honest about what was likely the case all along. The problem with sessions wasn't really that he did not have a legitimate reason to recuse himself. Maybe some of you told yourselves that. The problem was that he wasn't protecting Trump which you view was his primary job. But that's not actually in the AG's job description. He's not the president's wingman.

You should have read more than the first 2 sentences before responding.

 

[jamil]

You should have read more than the first 2 sentences before responding.

I read it. The subject is Sessions and why you guys are pissed at him. You said it was because he didn't have a legitimate reason to recuse himself. The rest of the post only served your own tacit acknowledgement that this wasn't because he didn't have a valid reason to recuse himself. You're pissed because he didn't play the game the way you wanted him to play. You speak of him as if he's a traitor.

 

[jamil]

You are being selective in your response to the criticisms of Sessions:



That is addressing a simple matter of professional courtesy.

But anyway, being impartial doesn't mean you have to tolerate a partisan witch-hunt conducted by political enemies of the administration. That's not about being a wing-man. That's just professional competence and street smarts. When somebody performs a "Jussie Smollett" on the justice system, that's a travesty of justice in itself. Preventing that is in the interest of justice, regardless whether your boss benefits from it.

What I'm reading in the responses, is that Sessions' actions at least in part resulted in a whoring of justice which could have been avoided, had he been more competent, honorable, or both. I get that you're annoyed by some people's unflinching loyalty to Trump, but don't let it corrupt logic. You're arguing as if you still fear a beating if you can't prove your consistency to Kut, or something (insert purple as needed).

It looks to be that you've chosen to be a little more honest with your feelings and removed the veil of purple. It's a clear ad hominem with no basis. And I'll let it go. So let's get on with the discussion as if we both would like to be intellectually honest about things. So please leave your feelings out of it and stop with the bull**** jabs, and feigning that logic to led you to say that.

Okay, so let's recap. People shat on Sessions. I asked why all the Sessions hate? The reason given was because he recused himself without having a valid reason to do so. I pointed out that's untrue, that being the AG in charge of overseeing the investigation of the Trump campaign, he would indeed have a conflict of interest because being a member of the campaign staff himself, he would be charged with investigating himself. That's clearly a conflict of interest.

So then the discussion went the direction of tacit admission by Trumpers that it's really about loyal purity to Trump. You guys treat Sessions as if he betrayed Trump. You act as if you believe he is a traitor. I pointed out inconsistencies of that given what people thought of Holder during the Obama administration. You guys didn't like it when Holder acted as Obama's wingman back during the gun-running and other scandals (at least that's the position of many people who are now Trumpers). But, then you yourself chimed in and said you're being consistent because you didn't have a problem with Holder doing it. It's just part of the game. I did give you credit, taking your word for it, that you didn't express concern that Holder was abusing his office by protecting the president from prosecution. You've made other such claims that you favor the game over principles like rule of law. I'm not going to dig up your posts from the Obama era to verify your intellectual consistency in that. I'll continue to take your word for it that you don't care.

I think it's fair to say that we've established with your admission that the anger and contempt for Sessions is really about loyalty, and playing the game the same way they do. So let's get to Phase2's bottom line that you've enjoined.

"Jeff Sessions took a job that he would likely not be able to handle an important segment of on a very thin excuse directly leading to the three year hamstringing of Trump's presidency."

It's not a "thin excuse". It's only a thin excuse to people who think Sessions was disloyal. If you're a rule of law kind of thinker like Sessions apparently is, it's not really about loyalty at all because that's not the AG's charter. The proper execution of that office does not require undying loyalty to the Khan of Khans. We don't live by rule of a man, or at least that's not the design of the constitution. We have a constitutional republic. So let's stick with that. Sessions was never responsible for protecting Trump from investigation or prosecution. Possibly he could have done something to prevent things from turning so partisan against Trump. But that's really an indictment of Democrats more than it was for Sessions. His office serves the people. He's not Trump's personal attorney. He's not Trump's wing-man. He's required by the position to be a player in the game you want played.

I get the frustration that the other side is waging asymmetrical warfare. You want to play by their rules. I think doing that voids the constitution. This is really about a purity test of loyalty that Sessions failed, because you guys act like Sessions is a traitor. If that's not the case, you're free to argue that point, that it's really something else. I'm open to hearing that. But as you guys have reacted, this about justifying the rule of your man over the rule of the other side, but also against the rule of law. And I get it. Rule of law to you is just a whim. It's unimportant as long as you get it your way. Some of you will pay lipservice to it when the other guy has the stick and the wingman. Winning by any means necessary is the important thing.

That's a fringe viewpoint though. And the other fringe agrees with you wholeheartedly. They just want an outcome that favors them.

 

[Alpo]

TLDR.

Didja all see that hot naked lady at the Portland protest?

Law enforcement was ... subdued.

 

[jamil]

TLDR.

Didja all see that hot naked lady at the Portland protest?

Law enforcement was ... subdued.

Oh, come on. They're NEVER hot. Links?

 

[Alpo]

https://news.yahoo.com/portland-tear-gas-apparition-emerges-020522608.html

Bite yer tongue, laddie.

 

[jamil]

https://news.yahoo.com/portland-tear-gas-apparition-emerges-020522608.html

Bite yer tongue, laddie.

I dunno. I only see one angle. It could easily be the same person I posted a photo of the other day. Please don’t make me repost it.

 

[printcraft]

I dunno. I only see one angle. It could easily be the same person I posted a photo of the other day. Please don’t make me repost it.

caution naked stuff at the link... I mean, yeah, at least it's not the typical 350 lb.'er with a pink p hat on...

https://twitter.com/DonovanFarley/s...mind-strips-naked-to-protest-portland-police/

I think she was inviting them to wrestle... greek style.

 

[Twangbanger]

caution naked stuff at the link... I mean, yeah, at least it's not the typical 350 lb.'er with a pink p hat on...

https://twitter.com/DonovanFarley/s...mind-strips-naked-to-protest-portland-police/

I think she was inviting them to wrestle... greek style.

Knowing what I do of the Portland-type crowd, I'm suspecting that "skinny but nasty" is a distinct possibility.

 

[Twangbanger]

...Okay, so let's recap. People shat on Sessions. I asked why all the Sessions hate? The reason given was because he recused himself without having a valid reason to do so....
...So let's get to Phase2's bottom line that you've enjoined.

"Jeff Sessions took a job that he would likely not be able to handle an important segment of on a very thin excuse directly leading to the three year hamstringing of Trump's presidency."

It's not a "thin excuse". It's only a thin excuse to people who think Sessions was disloyal. If you're a rule of law kind of thinker like Sessions apparently is, it's not really about loyalty at all because that's not the AG's charter. The proper execution of that office does not require undying loyalty to the Khan of Khans. We don't live by rule of a man, or at least that's not the design of the constitution. We have a constitutional republic. So let's stick with that. Sessions was never responsible for protecting Trump from investigation or prosecution. Possibly he could have done something to prevent things from turning so partisan against Trump. But that's really an indictment of Democrats more than it was for Sessions. His office serves the people. He's not Trump's personal attorney. He's not Trump's wing-man. He's required by the position to be a player in the game you want played.

...

My point was, and still is, that you're being selective in the points you're addressing. The first misgiving you referenced was admittedly a little "soft" on the side of the Trumpers. But you don't get to conduct the entire discussion based on that, just because you like it better. Phase2's misgiving is solid, and you've chosen to either pretend it didn't exist, or to the extent that you do, not address it substantively.

So let me break out the crayons: the reason Sessions taking the position in the first place was unprofessional, was _not_, as you allege, because he (my quotes) "knew deep-down he couldn't fulfill the charter of being Trump's undyingly-loyal lackey." It was, simply, because he knew or should have known, that he would be required by logic to recuse himself from an investigation which he knew or should have known would be one of, if not "the," defining issue of his tenure. One which would suck a disproportionately-large amount of oxygen out of both the legal and political spheres for months to come, and in which his inability to constructively participate would constitute a major (*not minor*) diminution of his duties.

Trump is not a lawyer. He trusted Sessions to apply for that job in confidence he could carry out its full complement of duties. You could argue all day long whether or not "undying personal loyalty" is part of that job description. But it's irrelevant. There was a large issue on the horizon which would require _his_ recusal, and that would still be true whether the observer considered "unquestioning loyalty" to be one of the job duties, or not.

That's all this is about. I think you're smart enough to understand that when a weak and strong argument are offered, you can't just pick off the first and ignore the second.

 

[KLB]

My point was, and still is, that you're being selective in the points you're addressing. The first misgiving you referenced was admittedly a little "soft" on the side of the Trumpers. But you don't get to conduct the entire discussion based on that, just because you like it better. Phase2's misgiving is solid, and you've chosen to either pretend it didn't exist, or to the extent that you do, not address it substantively.

So let me break out the crayons: the reason Sessions taking the position in the first place was unprofessional, was _not_, as you allege, because he (my quotes) "knew deep-down he couldn't fulfill the charter of being Trump's undyingly-loyal lackey." It was, simply, because he knew or should have known, that he would be required by logic to recuse himself from an investigation which he knew or should have known would be one of, if not "the," defining issue of his tenure. One which would suck a disproportionately-large amount of oxygen out of both the legal and political spheres for months to come, and in which his inability to constructively participate would constitute a major (*not minor*) diminution of his duties.

Trump is not a lawyer. He trusted Sessions to apply for that job in confidence he could carry out its full complement of duties. You could argue all day long whether or not "undying personal loyalty" is part of that job description. But it's irrelevant. There was a large issue on the horizon which would require _his_ recusal, and that would still be true whether the observer considered "unquestioning loyalty" to be one of the job duties, or not.

That's all this is about. I think you're smart enough to understand that when a weak and strong argument are offered, you can't just pick off the first and ignore the second.

Trump and company should have known full well that Sessions would have to recuse himself from that investigation. If it was to be an issue, they never should have chosen him for the job.

 

[Leadeye]

The little Cuomo is out traveling, wonder if the DNC is evaluating him for the ticket as either president or VP.

 

[jamil]

My point was, and still is, that you're being selective in the points you're addressing. The first misgiving you referenced was admittedly a little "soft" on the side of the Trumpers. But you don't get to conduct the entire discussion based on that, just because you like it better. Phase2's misgiving is solid, and you've chosen to either pretend it didn't exist, or to the extent that you do, not address it substantively.

So let me break out the crayons: the reason Sessions taking the position in the first place was unprofessional, was _not_, as you allege, because he (my quotes) "knew deep-down he couldn't fulfill the charter of being Trump's undyingly-loyal lackey." It was, simply, because he knew or should have known, that he would be required by logic to recuse himself from an investigation which he knew or should have known would be one of, if not "the," defining issue of his tenure. One which would suck a disproportionately-large amount of oxygen out of both the legal and political spheres for months to come, and in which his inability to constructively participate would constitute a major (*not minor*) diminution of his duties.

Trump is not a lawyer. He trusted Sessions to apply for that job in confidence he could carry out its full complement of duties. You could argue all day long whether or not "undying personal loyalty" is part of that job description. But it's irrelevant. There was a large issue on the horizon which would require _his_ recusal, and that would still be true whether the observer considered "unquestioning loyalty" to be one of the job duties, or not.

That's all this is about. I think you're smart enough to understand that when a weak and strong argument are offered, you can't just pick off the first and ignore the second.

I asked you not to act like an ass. I've been respectful in this conversation. Crayons? Because I don't agree with you, you think you need to treat me like a 3 year old? I mean. I can be a an ass too. I could treat you like you don't agree with me simply because you're too immature to comprehend what I'm saying to you. I'd rather have an adult conversation with you.

My contention was never that you don't have a reason to be pissed at Sessions. After asking why you guys are so pissed at Sessions, you act like you regard him as a traitor. My contention after being told that it was because Sessions recused himself when he had no valid reason or whatever, was that he absolutely DID have a valid reason, that you're really pissed because you wanted a wing-man like Obama had and you didn't get one. Why else would you act like he's a traitor?

Okay, so then the reasoning changes, well, but he was unprofessional. Okay. He took the job knowing that he would have to recuse himself. Well, so? Why not lead with that? I kinda don't buy it. It smells a lot like you guys just want to make the "traitor" thing stick as something rationally not just wanting a wing-man and not getting one. Because if Sessions should have been so savvy that he knew he'd have to recuse himself, why was Trump NOT so savvy to know that Sessions had to recuse himself? I think I know the answer to that. I think Trump was savvy enough, but misread Sessions and thought that because of his devotion and loyalty to him in the campaign, that would extend to protecting him with the power of the AG's office.

We're still left with you guys expecting a wing-man, and not getting one. You guys treat Sessions as if he's a traitor. I think it's reasonable for me to logically conclude that you think he's a traitor. Being unprofessional isn't something that creates a feeling of broken loyalty. No, he earned that from you guys because he did not live up to your expectation that he would protect the president. You (collectively you) act like he betrayed you because you think he betrayed his loyalty to Trump. And that's nonsense. Or shall I break out the crayons and pout because you don't agree with me?

 

[jamil]

caution naked stuff at the link... I mean, yeah, at least it's not the typical 350 lb.'er with a pink p hat on...

https://twitter.com/DonovanFarley/s...mind-strips-naked-to-protest-portland-police/

I think she was inviting them to wrestle... greek style.

That **** was not a protest. It was a statement about possessing sensual power. I think the correct response from the cops would have been to cat-call and throw dollars at her. Act like a ho. Treated like a ho.

 

[Twangbanger]

I asked you not to act like an ass. I've been respectful in this conversation. Crayons? Because I don't agree with you, you think you need to treat me like a 3 year old? I mean. I can be a an ass too. I could treat you like you don't agree with me simply because you're too immature to comprehend what I'm saying to you. I'd rather have an adult conversation with you.

My contention was never that you don't have a reason to be pissed at Sessions. After asking why you guys are so pissed at Sessions, you act like you regard him as a traitor. My contention after being told that it was because Sessions recused himself when he had no valid reason or whatever, was that he absolutely DID have a valid reason, that you're really pissed because you wanted a wing-man like Obama had and you didn't get one. Why else would you act like he's a traitor?

Okay, so then the reasoning changes, well, but he was unprofessional. Okay. He took the job knowing that he would have to recuse himself. Well, so? Why not lead with that? I kinda don't buy it. It smells a lot like you guys just want to make the "traitor" thing stick as something rationally not just wanting a wing-man and not getting one. Because if Sessions should have been so savvy that he knew he'd have to recuse himself, why was Trump NOT so savvy to know that Sessions had to recuse himself? I think I know the answer to that. I think Trump was savvy enough, but misread Sessions and thought that because of his devotion and loyalty to him in the campaign, that would extend to protecting him with the power of the AG's office.

We're still left with you guys expecting a wing-man, and not getting one. You guys treat Sessions as if he's a traitor. I think it's reasonable for me to logically conclude that you think he's a traitor. Being unprofessional isn't something that creates a feeling of broken loyalty. No, he earned that from you guys because he did not live up to your expectation that he would protect the president. You (collectively you) act like he betrayed you because you think he betrayed his loyalty to Trump. And that's nonsense. Or shall I break out the crayons and pout because you don't agree with me?

Ok, so: you _do_ get the more relevant argument presented; you're just choosing to ignore/discount it, because it doesn't square with the less-charitable narrative you've selected to assign to your "opponent."

Of course I knew you were smart enough to understand what you were sidestepping. Apparently you just needed a little encouragement to fully own it.

Now that it appears his pathway back to a government moneymaking position is (at least temporarily) blocked, I guess we'll have to wait for "The Book" to see who was right about him.

 

[d.kaufman]

https://theusawire.com/2020/07/25257-cnn-trump-doing-better-with-black-voters-than-in-2016/