DonLever

Donald J. Trump, Accepts GOP Renomination for President

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Chicken. said:

He seems to be drumming up local support for his callout … police department claims to be 500 officers short.. no wonder. pretty damning open letter.

 

 

Sounds like this is a reaction letter to a speech by the police commissioner rather than an indictment of Cummings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

‘Moscow Mitch’ Tag Enrages McConnell and Squeezes G.O.P. on Election Security

 
Carl Hulse
2 hrs ago
 
WASHINGTON — Senator Mitch McConnell is usually impervious to criticism, even celebrating the nasty nicknames that have been bestowed on him by critics. But Mr. McConnell, the Senate majority leader, is incensed with his new moniker, “Moscow Mitch,” and even more miffed that he has been called a “Russian asset” by critics who accuse him of single-handedly blocking stronger election security measures after Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

Democrats had been making the case for months, but it was supercharged last week by the testimony of Robert S. Mueller III, the former special counsel, who told the House Intelligence Committee that the Russians were back at it “as we sit here.”

 

Mr. McConnell cites several reasons for his opposition — a longstanding resistance to federal control over state elections, newly enacted security improvements that were shown to have worked in the 2018 voting and his suspicion that Democrats are trying to gain partisan advantage with a host of proposals. Republican colleagues say that Mr. McConnell, a longtime foe of tougher campaign finance restrictions and disclosure requirements, is leery of even entering into legislative negotiation that could touch on fund-raising and campaign spending.

 

But whatever Mr. McConnell’s reasoning, criticism of him for impeding a number of election proposals has taken hold — even back home in Kentucky, where the majority leader faces re-election next year.

 

“Democrats want more aggressive legislation to protect America’s elections after Robert Mueller’s stark warning about Russian interference,” began one report aired on a Louisville television station last week. “Mitch McConnell blocked it.”

 

Even President Trump felt compelled to come to his defense — as only he could.

 

“Mitch McConnell is a man that knows less about Russia and Russian influence than even Donald Trump,” the president told reporters Tuesday as he was leaving for a speech in Jamestown, Va. “And I know nothing.”

 

That did not relieve the heat on the majority leader, who on Monday had appeared to open the door ever so slightly to doing more on election preparedness.

 

“I’m sure all of us will be open to discussing further steps Congress, the executive branch, the states and the private sector might take to defend our elections against foreign interference,” he said as he seethed on the Senate floor over what he described as McCarthy-style attacks on his integrity and distortions of both his position on election security and his hawkish history of challenging Russia.

 

Throughout his political career, Mr. McConnell has made opposition to the Kremlin a hallmark of his foreign policy stands.

 

For once, Democrats seemed to be getting to a man who has embraced his portrayal as Darth Vader. When an unsubstantiated West Virginia Senate campaign ad in 2018 called him “Cocaine Mitch,” he began answering his Senate telephone with that identifier. “Moscow Mitch”? Not so much: “I was called unpatriotic, un-American and essentially treasonous,” he said.

 

Democrats pressed their advantage. And why not? #MoscowMitchMcTraitor was trending on Twitter, and Senate Republicans of all stripes were being asked about the blockade.

 

“So long as the Senate Republicans prevent legislation from reaching the floor, so long as they oppose additional appropriations to the states, so long as they malign election security provisions as, quote, partisan wish lists, the critics are right to say Leader McConnell and Republican senators are blocking election security,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said on the floor Tuesday.

 

Mr. Schumer has in the past suggested that another potential reason behind Mr. McConnell’s position is the thought that interference emanating from Russia could aid Republicans. “I hope it’s not because he thinks it will benefit him, because Putin could turn around in a minute, and then do things that he doesn’t like,” Mr. Schumer said in June.

 

Lawmakers in both parties have election security proposals waiting on the sidelines, and the furor has caused some to step up demands for Congress to take up their bills.

 

Senators Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, and Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, wrote on Monday to colleagues reconciling the annual House and Senate military policy bill to request that they include stalled sanctions legislation meant to deter Russia or other foreign actors from interfering in American elections. House lawmakers included a similar provision in their military policy bill, but the senators want to see it strengthened to slap Russia’s economy with intense sanctions if it is found to interfere in a future election.

 

“This conference committee represents this Congress’ best — potentially last — opportunity to enact meaningful legislation aimed at deterring Russia from a repeat performance of its 2016 presidential election interference,” the senators wrote. “We ask that you seize this opportunity and include the provisions outlined above in the final conference report.”

 

On Tuesday, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, signed on to a measure by Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the committee’s top Democrat, that would require campaign officials to report to federal authorities any offers of campaign assistance from foreign entities.

 

“Congress must take strong action to deter foreign nations from attempting to disrupt our elections,” Ms. Collins wrote on Twitter. “We should also move forward with securing our electoral process, the cornerstone of our democracy.”

 

Mr. McConnell’s opposition to any and all election legislation has bottled up the bills in the Senate Rules Committee. The panel’s chairman, Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, has hesitated to advance any of the bills since they would go nowhere on the floor.

Mr. Blunt said he repeatedly had been assured by the F.B.I., the Department of Homeland Security and the federal intelligence agencies that they were not lacking resources to combat election interference.

 

“They always say, ‘No, we don’t need anything,’” Mr. Blunt said Tuesday. A former state elections official himself, Mr. Blunt said he agreed with Mr. McConnell that the federal government should not gain more authority over state elections.

“Mitch would not want to see us further federalize the process and that’s where I am, too,” Mr. Blunt said.

 

Proponents of the bills say they are devised to keep the states in the lead. A Democratic measure approved by the House would send more than $1 billion to state and local governments to tighten election security, but would also demand that states use the money for machines with backup paper ballots and require a national strategy to protect American democratic institutions against cyberattacks. States would be required to spend federal funds only on federally certified “election infrastructure vendors.”

 

A bipartisan measure in both chambers would require internet companies like Facebook to disclose the purchasers of political ads. Another bipartisan Senate proposal would codify cyberinformation-sharing initiatives between federal intelligence services and state election officials, speed up the granting of security clearances to state officials and provide federal incentives for states to adopt backup paper ballots.

 

With the focus on the issue intensifying, Mr. McConnell and Senate Republicans will face more pressure to act.

If they do, the most likely result would not be advancing stand-alone bills but instead using the annual spending bills that must pass this fall to funnel more money to states to secure their elections and to make certain they have a paper-ballot trail that can be audited if questions arise about the legitimacy of an outcome. Ten states now lack full capacity to do so, according to the Rules Committee.

 

Mr. Schumer encouraged that idea Tuesday. “If McConnell wants to address election security in the appropriations process, we would welcome his support on an amendment to send more funding to the states,” he said. “We want to get something done on election security because this is not about party, this is a matter of national security.”

 

Mr. McConnell said Monday that he would not be intimidated into acting on election interference.

He also will probably not be answering his phone “Moscow Mitch.”

 

 

LawfulImmediateCollardlizard-size_restri

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Tortorella's Rant said:

The stories are fictional. The setting is real. 

Was created and written by a Baltimore crime reporter and a police detective. I think theyd know the deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

‘Moscow Mitch’ Tag Enrages McConnell and Squeezes G.O.P. on Election Security

He has worked extremely hard to earn that nickname.

 

The man is a rodent.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Red Light Racicot said:

He has worked extremely hard to earn that nickname.

 

The man is a rodent.

I was under the impression that was more of a reptilian species. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

‘Moscow Mitch’ Tag Enrages McConnell and Squeezes G.O.P. on Election Security

 
Carl Hulse
2 hrs ago
 
WASHINGTON — Senator Mitch McConnell is usually impervious to criticism, even celebrating the nasty nicknames that have been bestowed on him by critics. But Mr. McConnell, the Senate majority leader, is incensed with his new moniker, “Moscow Mitch,” and even more miffed that he has been called a “Russian asset” by critics who accuse him of single-handedly blocking stronger election security measures after Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

Democrats had been making the case for months, but it was supercharged last week by the testimony of Robert S. Mueller III, the former special counsel, who told the House Intelligence Committee that the Russians were back at it “as we sit here.”

 

Mr. McConnell cites several reasons for his opposition — a longstanding resistance to federal control over state elections, newly enacted security improvements that were shown to have worked in the 2018 voting and his suspicion that Democrats are trying to gain partisan advantage with a host of proposals. Republican colleagues say that Mr. McConnell, a longtime foe of tougher campaign finance restrictions and disclosure requirements, is leery of even entering into legislative negotiation that could touch on fund-raising and campaign spending.

 

But whatever Mr. McConnell’s reasoning, criticism of him for impeding a number of election proposals has taken hold — even back home in Kentucky, where the majority leader faces re-election next year.

 

“Democrats want more aggressive legislation to protect America’s elections after Robert Mueller’s stark warning about Russian interference,” began one report aired on a Louisville television station last week. “Mitch McConnell blocked it.”

 

Even President Trump felt compelled to come to his defense — as only he could.

 

“Mitch McConnell is a man that knows less about Russia and Russian influence than even Donald Trump,” the president told reporters Tuesday as he was leaving for a speech in Jamestown, Va. “And I know nothing.”

 

That did not relieve the heat on the majority leader, who on Monday had appeared to open the door ever so slightly to doing more on election preparedness.

 

“I’m sure all of us will be open to discussing further steps Congress, the executive branch, the states and the private sector might take to defend our elections against foreign interference,” he said as he seethed on the Senate floor over what he described as McCarthy-style attacks on his integrity and distortions of both his position on election security and his hawkish history of challenging Russia.

 

Throughout his political career, Mr. McConnell has made opposition to the Kremlin a hallmark of his foreign policy stands.

 

For once, Democrats seemed to be getting to a man who has embraced his portrayal as Darth Vader. When an unsubstantiated West Virginia Senate campaign ad in 2018 called him “Cocaine Mitch,” he began answering his Senate telephone with that identifier. “Moscow Mitch”? Not so much: “I was called unpatriotic, un-American and essentially treasonous,” he said.

 

Democrats pressed their advantage. And why not? #MoscowMitchMcTraitor was trending on Twitter, and Senate Republicans of all stripes were being asked about the blockade.

 

“So long as the Senate Republicans prevent legislation from reaching the floor, so long as they oppose additional appropriations to the states, so long as they malign election security provisions as, quote, partisan wish lists, the critics are right to say Leader McConnell and Republican senators are blocking election security,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, said on the floor Tuesday.

 

Mr. Schumer has in the past suggested that another potential reason behind Mr. McConnell’s position is the thought that interference emanating from Russia could aid Republicans. “I hope it’s not because he thinks it will benefit him, because Putin could turn around in a minute, and then do things that he doesn’t like,” Mr. Schumer said in June.

 

Lawmakers in both parties have election security proposals waiting on the sidelines, and the furor has caused some to step up demands for Congress to take up their bills.

 

Senators Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, and Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, wrote on Monday to colleagues reconciling the annual House and Senate military policy bill to request that they include stalled sanctions legislation meant to deter Russia or other foreign actors from interfering in American elections. House lawmakers included a similar provision in their military policy bill, but the senators want to see it strengthened to slap Russia’s economy with intense sanctions if it is found to interfere in a future election.

 

“This conference committee represents this Congress’ best — potentially last — opportunity to enact meaningful legislation aimed at deterring Russia from a repeat performance of its 2016 presidential election interference,” the senators wrote. “We ask that you seize this opportunity and include the provisions outlined above in the final conference report.”

 

On Tuesday, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, signed on to a measure by Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the committee’s top Democrat, that would require campaign officials to report to federal authorities any offers of campaign assistance from foreign entities.

 

“Congress must take strong action to deter foreign nations from attempting to disrupt our elections,” Ms. Collins wrote on Twitter. “We should also move forward with securing our electoral process, the cornerstone of our democracy.”

 

Mr. McConnell’s opposition to any and all election legislation has bottled up the bills in the Senate Rules Committee. The panel’s chairman, Senator Roy Blunt, Republican of Missouri, has hesitated to advance any of the bills since they would go nowhere on the floor.

Mr. Blunt said he repeatedly had been assured by the F.B.I., the Department of Homeland Security and the federal intelligence agencies that they were not lacking resources to combat election interference.

 

“They always say, ‘No, we don’t need anything,’” Mr. Blunt said Tuesday. A former state elections official himself, Mr. Blunt said he agreed with Mr. McConnell that the federal government should not gain more authority over state elections.

“Mitch would not want to see us further federalize the process and that’s where I am, too,” Mr. Blunt said.

 

Proponents of the bills say they are devised to keep the states in the lead. A Democratic measure approved by the House would send more than $1 billion to state and local governments to tighten election security, but would also demand that states use the money for machines with backup paper ballots and require a national strategy to protect American democratic institutions against cyberattacks. States would be required to spend federal funds only on federally certified “election infrastructure vendors.”

 

A bipartisan measure in both chambers would require internet companies like Facebook to disclose the purchasers of political ads. Another bipartisan Senate proposal would codify cyberinformation-sharing initiatives between federal intelligence services and state election officials, speed up the granting of security clearances to state officials and provide federal incentives for states to adopt backup paper ballots.

 

With the focus on the issue intensifying, Mr. McConnell and Senate Republicans will face more pressure to act.

If they do, the most likely result would not be advancing stand-alone bills but instead using the annual spending bills that must pass this fall to funnel more money to states to secure their elections and to make certain they have a paper-ballot trail that can be audited if questions arise about the legitimacy of an outcome. Ten states now lack full capacity to do so, according to the Rules Committee.

 

Mr. Schumer encouraged that idea Tuesday. “If McConnell wants to address election security in the appropriations process, we would welcome his support on an amendment to send more funding to the states,” he said. “We want to get something done on election security because this is not about party, this is a matter of national security.”

 

Mr. McConnell said Monday that he would not be intimidated into acting on election interference.

He also will probably not be answering his phone “Moscow Mitch.”

 

 

LawfulImmediateCollardlizard-size_restri

Nothing to add.

I just want to post this 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hugor Hill said:

You guys are determined to make this thread the longest thread ever in the history of threads. 

 

 

Maybe some are, and those that are trying, thank you for the help.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hugor Hill said:

You guys are determined to make this thread the longest thread ever in the history of threads. 

 

 

Just wait until he is re-elected.. :frantic:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economists now America wide sounding alarm bells over todays rate cuts.  Fed head said they didn't want to cut now rumours of influencing todays cuts are coming out.  expecting some serious stock market shock to occur soon.

 

If you're in the market, now might be a good time to look at gold and commodities over intangible markets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Economists now America wide sounding alarm bells over todays rate cuts.  Fed head said they didn't want to cut now rumours of influencing todays cuts are coming out.  expecting some serious stock market shock to occur soon.

 

If you're in the market, now might be a good time to look at gold and commodities over intangible markets

Market has largely priced this one in after all the talk the past few months. I think the uncertainty is more with potential future cuts and thus central banks having less maneuvers to use if the economy really needs it down the line, forcing governments (as opposed to the central banks) to take action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ronaldoescobar said:

Market has largely priced this one in after all the talk the past few months. I think the uncertainty is more with potential future cuts and thus central banks having less maneuvers to use if the economy really needs it down the line, forcing governments (as opposed to the central banks) to take action.

Yield curve inversion, new cuts, ongoing trade war and government spending coming to an end.

 

everything economists said would happen and the warning signs associated are coming true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Warhippy said:

Yield curve inversion, new cuts, ongoing trade war and government spending coming to an end.

 

everything economists said would happen and the warning signs associated are coming true.

I agree and we are entering dangerous territory imo.  Those signs are pointing towards a recession incoming. The trouble is the timing as there are some indicators that are showing mid points in the business cycle (as opposed to late in the cycle indicators) such as the 2yr-10yr curve which has not yet inverted (3m-10yr has). We are still seeing market volatility, corporate profits, credit, business investment and employment displaying mid-cycle characteristics but it is only a matter of time for those to display late/end of cycle characteristics. We saw the market today drop mainly because investors thought that the FED was not dovish enough which I do not agree with personally. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ronaldoescobar said:

I agree and we are entering dangerous territory imo.  Those signs are pointing towards a recession incoming. The trouble is the timing as there are some indicators that are showing mid points in the business cycle (as opposed to late in the cycle indicators) such as the 2yr-10yr curve which has not yet inverted (3m-10yr has). We are still seeing market volatility, corporate profits, credit, business investment and employment displaying mid-cycle characteristics but it is only a matter of time for those to display late/end of cycle characteristics. We saw the market today drop mainly because investors thought that the FED was not dovish enough which I do not agree with personally. 

US economy has been punching wildly above its weight due to government injection.  All signs point to something very bad coming soon without sound leadership.

 

So...yikes

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

US economy has been punching wildly above its weight due to government injection.  All signs point to something very bad coming soon without sound leadership.

 

So...yikes

Absolutely... don’t want to see it overheat which is the path they’re on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ronaldoescobar said:

Absolutely... don’t want to see it overheat which is the path they’re on.

When the recession hits.  Who do you think they'll blame?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Warhippy said:

When the recession hits.  Who do you think they'll blame?

The Fed and/or the democrats would be my guess.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this on my profile wall but I'll post it here too:

 

Half a century later the Nixon tapes continue to bite the Republicans in the butt...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.