Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Trump: Disrupter-In-Chief

 

Well, just what exactly did you expect?

Trump the Candidate was a loud, braggadocious, outrageous, counterpunching, reality show celebrity/businessman who never let an attack go unanswered. To refresh your recollection, you should go do a search for “2016 Republican debate highlights.”

You’ll see Big D lashing out at each of the 16 other Republican candidates, but only after they take a shot at him. Highlights include his takedown of Rand Paul at the beginning of the first debate after Paul lashed out at Big D at the outset. Then there’s the “little Marco” moment; the “low energy Jeb” jibe; the “lyin’ Ted Cruz;” and his disarming of Carly Fiorina by accurately pointing out her disastrous reign as CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

I agree with what you are saying. Many of these moments are cringeworthy. But his labels resonate—e.g., “Crooked Hillary.” And they stick.

Trump is not nice. Republicans tried “nice” with Mitt Romney in 2012. They tried “experienced and professional” with John McCain in 2008. Both lost. One of the reasons? No matter who is the Republican candidate, the Democrat politicians, and the heavily-Democrat media are not going to be nice nor professional. They’re going to say and do whatever it takes.

In the general election, it was Trump against Hillary and the Clinton army’s $2 billion war chest. Aiding Clinton and debasing Trump were the usual liberal, leftist suspects: Hollywood, the music industry, 90% of the mainstream media, pollsters, academics, and the vast majority of Deep Swampsters, including 100% opposition from the public employee unions like SEIU and the national teachers’ unions.

Big D also had against him the “never-Trumpers” in the GOP, including John McCain, who personally dispatched an aide to fly to London to pick up the Steele Dossier and return it to D.C., where McCain personally delivered it on December 6, 2016 to now-disgraced FBI Director Jim Comey. McCain fully admits this dossier gambit in his recent autobiography, “The Restless Wave.”

Trump voters were labeled “deplorables” by Hillary. Peter Strzok referred to them as smelly WalMart shoppers in an email to girlfriend Lisa Page. But, even after the vulgar Billy Bush tape, Trump voters, whom Obama described as “clinging to their guns and bibles,” voted for Donald J. Trump in droves on November 6, 2016, resulting in an electoral landslide.

If you expected these left-wing losers to lick their wounds and walk away, you fail to understand their self-righteous, quasi-religious zealotry. Before and after Big D’s inauguration, top management at Obama’s DOJ, FBI, and State Department implemented what Peter Strzok called their “insurance policy.” FBI used non-agent informants to spy on Trump’s campaign and his transition team. These informants entrapped the hapless wannabes, Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, and FISA warrants were issued based on false allegations in the Steele Dossier, paid for by HRC and the DNC, and made up out of whole cloth.

These same Democrat interests who fought Trump in the campaign, continued post-election, to fight their dirty war against President Trump. The falsified Russia collusion claim was promoted by Deep Staters Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr (Bruce and Nellie), Brennan, Clapper and others, aided and abetted by Rosenstein and Mueller.

The elements leading up to the Mueller appointment: Jeff Session’s recusal, the rise to power of Rosenstein, the Comey/Clapper leak of the Steele Dossier to CNN, who handed it off to BuzzFeed for publication, were orchestrated seamlessly by these Swampsters.

This “insurance policy” could not have been pulled off without significant advanced planning and coordination. Of course, all developments were breathlessly reported by a mainstream media fed by incessant leaks from the Swamp.

So, when Big D demeans others who attack him (e.g., traitorous John Brennan, Omarosa, Schumer), or when he says something gauche or vulgar; or when he does anything that makes you wince, just remember that Trump would never have beaten his Republican opponents or HRC if he were a conventional politician.

And if Trump had lost, we would not have enjoyed 4% GDP growth in the last quarter. There would have been no tax cuts and no massive deregulation. The military would have continued to deteriorate; Big Government would have continued to expand.

So, just look the other way while Trump is “draining the Swamp.” The Swamp is not going to give up without a fight. And Big D is a fighter par excellence.

There are 71 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Bob Thompson Member

    Great. All I would add relates to James Comey’s firing. Trump fires back when attacked, that’s clear. He also likes to clear away those who exhibit extreme weakness in their quest for self-preservation. Explains Comey’s firing, not obstruction of justice. When the timing is right, it will be Sessions.

    • #1
    • August 18, 2018, at 11:06 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  2. Richard Easton Member

    Remember also that the same caste of characters got Patrick Fitzgerald appointed to go after Bush. When Scooter Libby wouldn’t flip on Cheney, they went after Libby. The MO was around before Trump. He fights it unlike W. who folded.

    • #2
    • August 18, 2018, at 11:17 AM PDT
    • 16 likes
  3. Unsk Member

    It ain’t pretty, but it works for the Donald, and hopefully it works out for the rest of us. 

    One should always look at what a person in question does, not what he says. 

    Many, including the vast majority of media , the Never Trumpers and the Democrats are outraged by what Trump says, but don’t even try to understand what he has done.

    • #3
    • August 18, 2018, at 12:41 PM PDT
    • 15 likes
  4. Hoyacon Member

    Then there’s the latest source of outrage–John Brennan. Yes, John Brennan. The mantra is that Trump was OK to revoke the security clearance, but not in the way he did it. We are, it appears, supposed to consider the tender sensibilities of Mr. Brennan, a former Director of the CIA, who has made some of the more outrageous/unhinged comments about a sitting President ever heard from an intelligence official. Apparently, we are supposed to see President’s Trump’s actions as a vindictive curtailment of Brennan’s speech rights. But really, it’s fine for Brennan to speak, but not in the way he said it.

    • #4
    • August 18, 2018, at 1:12 PM PDT
    • 14 likes
  5. Gary Robbins Reagan

    From the OP:

    “Trump is not nice. Republicans tried “nice” with Mitt Romney in 2012. They tried “experienced and professional” with John McCain in 2008. Both lost.”

    I disagree. Romney and McCain lost because those were Democratic years. Trump won because it was a Republican year.

    The 22nd Amendment was adopted in 1951, which established a two-term limit on Presidents. The American people have gone one better. They have practically established a two-term limit on the two political parties, a pattern which has persisted in 15 of 17 elections since 1951!

    In each election, the question is if the party in power is on their first or second term. 

    • If the party is in its first term, the American people have historically given that party another four years, with the only exception being in 1980 after Jimmy Carter had been a disaster as President.
    • But if the party in power is in its second term, the American people in their wisdom have decided to “throw the bums out”! The only time that any party has gotten a third term was in 1988 when George H.W. Bush was essentially elected to the third term of the greatest president of the Twentieth Century, Ronald Reagan.

    Here are the results since the 22nd Amendment was adopted in 1951:

    1952 Republicans

    1956 Republicans

    1960 Democrats

    1964 Democrats

    1968 Republicans

    1972 Republicans

    1976 Democrats

    1980 Republicans (Jimmy Carter was a disaster)

    1984 Republicans

    1988 Republicans (George H.W. Bush was elected to Reagan’s third term.)

    1992 Democrats

    1996 Democrats

    2000 Republicans

    2004 Republicans

    2008 Democrats

    2012 Democrats

    2016 Republicans

    The OP faults McCain for losing to Obama. Nonsense. After two terms of a Republican President, the American People were ready to give the Democrats a chance, which had been the history other than in 1988.

    The OP faults Romney for losing to Obama. Nonsense. Unless Obama had been a Carter-like disaster, the Democrats were going to retain the Presidency, which had been the history other than in 1980. 

    Almost any Republican was going to win in 2016. It was our year. Unfortunately, instead of nominating a conservative, we decided to nominate a populist. Hopefully we can remedy that mistake in the 2020 primaries and nominate a conservative like Nikki Haley.

     

    • #5
    • August 18, 2018, at 1:15 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  6. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVeyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Some of these men deserve a break. McCain, aside from being about a decade past his prime (that’s no insult; it’s based on seeing clips of him circa 1996-2000, and seeing him on the campaign trail in 2008) didn’t lose because he was nice or polite or dainty or whatever the adjective of the month is; he lost because people elect Republicans to boost the economy and win wars. Well, in 2008 the economy looked like the smoking pit of Ground Zero, and we were mired in two major overseas wars, one of them a voluntary choice. Neither Ike nor Trump nor probably Abe Lincoln could have delivered the country to the GOP in 2008. 

    Romney? He really didn’t do so bad. He all but knocked off the Prez in the first debate. But he was a big money man in the middle of the biggest fit of anger at Wall Street in 80 years, not a perfect fit for the moment. The party knew he wasn’t a Patton; they didn’t have anyone better. Plus he was up against an incumbent. 

    • #6
    • August 18, 2018, at 1:43 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  7. cdor Member
    cdorJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Almost any Republican was going to win in 2016. It was our year. Unfortunately, instead of nominating a conservative, we decided to nominate a populist. Hopefully we can remedy that mistake in the 2020 primaries and nominate a conservative like Nikki Haley.

    Too bad McCain won’t be able to run in 2020 so your theory could really be tested. However, my theory is that only The Donald could have won as the Republican against HRC in 2016. Guess what…my theory at least has some provability. Just as Michael Henry said ” No matter who is the Republican candidate, the Democrat politicians and the heavily-Democrat media are not going to be nice nor professional. They’re going to say and do whatever it takes.” I’ll never forget McCain suspending his campaign when the financial crises broke. What? Why? Well he needed to fly back to DC and sit in a chair like a bump while other people decided what to do. Choosing Sarah Palin was the only smart thing McCain has ever done. Then he sat like a bump again while she got eviscerated by the same people who are doing everything they can, like you, to diminish Trump. Sad.

    • #7
    • August 18, 2018, at 1:46 PM PDT
    • 12 likes
  8. Hoyacon Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Almost any Republican was going to win in 2016. It was our year. Unfortunately, instead of nominating a conservative, we decided to nominate a populist. Hopefully we can remedy that mistake in the 2020 primaries and nominate a conservative like Nikki Haley.

    Must you persist with this here? You are entitled to any opinion you choose to hold, but, on the numerous other occasions you’ve made this point, it’s been debated ad nauseam and effectively. I find it disrespectful of the several people who have taken considerable time to offer a contrary opinion. It’s not really even necessary in this thread.

    • #8
    • August 18, 2018, at 2:05 PM PDT
    • 17 likes
  9. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Almost any Republican was going to win in 2016. It was our year. Unfortunately, instead of nominating a conservative, we decided to nominate a populist. Hopefully we can remedy that mistake in the 2020 primaries and nominate a conservative like Nikki Haley.

    Must you persist with this here? You are entitled to any opinion you choose to hold, but, on the numerous other occasions you’ve made this point, it’s been debated ad nauseam and effectively. I find it disrespectful of the several people who have taken considerable time to offer a contrary opinion. It’s not really even necessary in this thread.

    The argument that only Trump could have won in 2016 is flatly wrong is perhaps the most pernicious argument that gets repeated over and over again.

    I believe that in 2016, the Mitt Romney of 2012, the John McCain of 2008, or the Bob Dole of 1996 would all beaten Hillary Clinton.

    Likewise, I believe that in 2008, the Hillary Clinton of 2016, or the John Kerry of 2004, or the Al Gore of 2000 would all have beaten John McCain.

    I am fighting against the fallacious and perhaps fatal argument that the only way Republicans can win in the future is to be Mini-Trumps.

    Politics runs in a cycle, and it is damn hard to overcome the prevailing winds.

    • #9
    • August 18, 2018, at 3:56 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  10. Bob Thompson Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Almost any Republican was going to win in 2016. It was our year. Unfortunately, instead of nominating a conservative, we decided to nominate a populist. Hopefully we can remedy that mistake in the 2020 primaries and nominate a conservative like Nikki Haley.

    Must you persist with this here? You are entitled to any opinion you choose to hold, but, on the numerous other occasions you’ve made this point, it’s been debated ad nauseam and effectively. I find it disrespectful of the several people who have taken considerable time to offer a contrary opinion. It’s not really even necessary in this thread.

    The argument that only Trump could have won in 2016 is flatly wrong is perhaps the most pernicious argument that gets repeated over and over again.

    I believe that in 2016, the Mitt Romney of 2012, the John McCain of 2008, or the Bob Dole of 1996 would all beaten Hillary Clinton.

    Likewise, I believe that in 2008, the Hillary Clinton of 2016, or the John Kerry of 2004, or the Al Gore of 2000 would all have beaten John McCain.

    I am fighting against the fallacious and perhaps fatal argument that the only way Republicans can win in the future is to be Mini-Trumps.

    Politics runs in a cycle, and it is damn hard to overcome the prevailing winds.

    The Republican Party. You saw it in a groove, I saw it in a rut. Are you watching what has gone on with the DoJ, FBI, Steele Dossier, Clinton Email Probe, Mueller Special Counsel Probe, Brennan, etc. Are you watching the single track mindset of the media out to get Trump, and not for the reasons that you don’t like him, much of which I can accept. You don’t show concern for these things, just that your precious Republican Party has lost its mojo. I care about the US of A, not the Republican Party.

    • #10
    • August 18, 2018, at 4:18 PM PDT
    • 13 likes
  11. Hoyacon Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Almost any Republican was going to win in 2016. It was our year. Unfortunately, instead of nominating a conservative, we decided to nominate a populist. Hopefully we can remedy that mistake in the 2020 primaries and nominate a conservative like Nikki Haley.

    Must you persist with this here? You are entitled to any opinion you choose to hold, but, on the numerous other occasions you’ve made this point, it’s been debated ad nauseam and effectively. I find it disrespectful of the several people who have taken considerable time to offer a contrary opinion. It’s not really even necessary in this thread.

    The argument that only Trump could have won in 2016 is flatly wrong is perhaps the most pernicious argument that gets repeated over and over

    Bait and switch, of course, on your previous statement. I look forward to your explanation as to how your contention that almost any Republican would have won in ’16 has anything to do with the argument (not at issue here) that only Trump would have won. Move the discussion much?

    And let’s be clear that you still haven’t addressed my point–the fact that you continue to beat a dead horse that several intelligent people her have contested more than once. That stands.

    • #11
    • August 18, 2018, at 8:04 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  12. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Almost any Republican was going to win in 2016. It was our year. Unfortunately, instead of nominating a conservative, we decided to nominate a populist. Hopefully we can remedy that mistake in the 2020 primaries and nominate a conservative like Nikki Haley.

    Must you persist with this here? You are entitled to any opinion you choose to hold, but, on the numerous other occasions you’ve made this point, it’s been debated ad nauseam and effectively. I find it disrespectful of the several people who have taken considerable time to offer a contrary opinion. It’s not really even necessary in this thread.

    The argument that only Trump could have won in 2016 is flatly wrong is perhaps the most pernicious argument that gets repeated over and over

    Bait and switch, of course, on your previous statement.

    That is a bold, and frankly discourteous argument, accusing the other speaker of bad faith. It does not forward the conversation.

    I look forward to your explanation as to how your contention that almost any Republican would have won in ’16 has anything to do with the argument (not at issue here) that only Trump would have won. Move the discussion much?

    Please elaborate on your argument.

    It appears to me that your premise is that only Trump could have beaten Hillary and the corrupt Clinton machine.

    If you have a different premise, I am not hearing it. Please elaborate, or acknowledge your premise.

    And let’s be clear that you still haven’t addressed my point–the fact that you continue to beat a dead horse that several intelligent people her have contented more than once. That stands.

    Those “several other intelligent people” aren’t here right now, you are. Please restate your argument. Is it your premise that in 2016 only Trump could have beaten Hillary? If I have misstated your premise, please restate it.

    I will look forward to hearing your argument. 

    Gary

    • #12
    • August 18, 2018, at 11:42 PM PDT
    • Like
  13. Bob Thompson Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Almost any Republican was going to win in 2016. It was our year. Unfortunately, instead of nominating a conservative, we decided to nominate a populist. Hopefully we can remedy that mistake in the 2020 primaries and nominate a conservative like Nikki Haley.

    Must you persist with this here? You are entitled to any opinion you choose to hold, but, on the numerous other occasions you’ve made this point, it’s been debated ad nauseam and effectively. I find it disrespectful of the several people who have taken considerable time to offer a contrary opinion. It’s not really even necessary in this thread.

    The argument that only Trump could have won in 2016 is flatly wrong is perhaps the most pernicious argument that gets repeated over and over

    Bait and switch, of course, on your previous statement.

    That is a bold, and frankly discourteous argument, accusing the other speaker of bad faith. It does not forward the conversation.

    I look forward to your explanation as to how your contention that almost any Republican would have won in ’16 has anything to do with the argument (not at issue here) that only Trump would have won. Move the discussion much?

    Please elaborate on your argument.

    It appears to me that your premise is that only Trump could have beaten Hillary and the corrupt Clinton machine.

    If you have a different premise, I am not hearing it. Please elaborate, or acknowledge your premise.

    And let’s be clear that you still haven’t addressed my point–the fact that you continue to beat a dead horse that several intelligent people her have contented more than once. That stands.

    Those “several other intelligent people” aren’t here right now, you are. Please restate your argument. Is it your premise that in 2016 only Trump could have beaten Hillary? If I have misstated your premise, please restate it.

    I will look forward to hearing your argument.

    Gary

    I don’t find this argument useful, it is based solely on opinion and I already have mine. The fact is Trump prevailed over Clinton all hypotheticals notwithstanding. I don’t see any concern expressed on your part about the high level of corruption that has been exposed in our federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering bureaucracy as a result of Trump’s election. Would this just have remained a secret and undisturbed cabal had a ‘good’ Republican candidate been nominated?

    • #13
    • August 19, 2018, at 6:51 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  14. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnellJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Regarding the security clearance issue: What legitimate need does a retired person, military or otherwise, have for a national security clearance?

    When I left the Army, I just assumed that my Secret clearance lapsed, since it was always predicated upon “need to know.” Once a person has retired from service, what is their “need to know?”

    • #14
    • August 19, 2018, at 10:37 AM PDT
    • 14 likes
  15. Django Member

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Regarding the security clearance issue: What legitimate need does a retired person, military or otherwise, have for a national security clearance?

    When I left the Army, I just assumed that my Secret clearance lapsed, since it was always predicated upon “need to know.” Once a person has retired from service, what is their “need to know?”

    A former head of a three-letter agency could be useful as a consultant if he had access to current information. That’s the only rationale I can think of. It wouldn’t apply to Brennan, IMHO. 

    • #15
    • August 19, 2018, at 10:41 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  16. Bob Thompson Member

    Django (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Regarding the security clearance issue: What legitimate need does a retired person, military or otherwise, have for a national security clearance?

    When I left the Army, I just assumed that my Secret clearance lapsed, since it was always predicated upon “need to know.” Once a person has retired from service, what is their “need to know?”

    A former head of a three-letter agency could be useful as a consultant if he had access to current information. That’s the only rationale I can think of. It wouldn’t apply to Brennan, IMHO.

    And those retired from the military or government might be employed in private sector roles requiring a clearance for which an updated review would be required in any case.

    • #16
    • August 19, 2018, at 10:59 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  17. cdor Member
    cdorJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Django (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Regarding the security clearance issue: What legitimate need does a retired person, military or otherwise, have for a national security clearance?

    When I left the Army, I just assumed that my Secret clearance lapsed, since it was always predicated upon “need to know.” Once a person has retired from service, what is their “need to know?”

    A former head of a three-letter agency could be useful as a consultant if he had access to current information. That’s the only rationale I can think of. It wouldn’t apply to Brennan, IMHO.

    In Brennan’s case, if he wanted to be useful as a consultant to a NGO because of his security clearance, he probably should have thought of that before he lied to Congress, assisted in falsely accusing the POTUS of collusion, and then actually publicly accusing the same POTUS of treason. In lieu of those aforementioned actions, however, Brennan is actually useless for much of anything short of howling at the moon.

    • #17
    • August 19, 2018, at 11:08 AM PDT
    • 13 likes
  18. Ontheleftcoast Member

    MichaelHenry: So, just look the other way while Trump is “draining the Swamp.” The Swamp is not going to give up without a fight. And Big D is a fighter par excellence.

    “When they get in trouble they send for the sons-of-bitches.”*

    ———————

    *Attributed to WWII Fleet Admiral Ernest King…when he was later asked if he had said this, King replied he had not, but would have if he had thought of it.

    • #18
    • August 19, 2018, at 11:37 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  19. Django Member

    cdor (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Regarding the security clearance issue: What legitimate need does a retired person, military or otherwise, have for a national security clearance?

    When I left the Army, I just assumed that my Secret clearance lapsed, since it was always predicated upon “need to know.” Once a person has retired from service, what is their “need to know?”

    A former head of a three-letter agency could be useful as a consultant if he had access to current information. That’s the only rationale I can think of. It wouldn’t apply to Brennan, IMHO.

    In Brennan’s case, if he wanted to be useful as a consultant to a NGO because of his security clearance, he probably should have thought of that before he lied to Congress, assisted in falsely accusing the POTUS of collusion, and then actually publicly accusing the same POTUS of treason. In lieu of those aforementioned actions, however, Brennan is actually useless for much of anything short of howling at the moon.

    Exactly why I assumed Brennan had no justification for keeping his access. 

    BTW, I once had a special access lifted because I wasn’t actively supporting the effort. They called it an “administrative de-briefing” and said it had no effect on my other accesses. That is different from having a clearance revoked “for cause”. A few months later, I got a call that said, “Show up and sign some papers.” I was brought back into that area as a “consultant”. It’s not a big deal unless one’s ego gets in the way, or unless he plans to make money off the clearance. That latter describes Brennan and a bus-load of others. 

    • #19
    • August 19, 2018, at 11:47 AM PDT
    • 11 likes
  20. Bob Thompson Member

    Django (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Regarding the security clearance issue: What legitimate need does a retired person, military or otherwise, have for a national security clearance?

    When I left the Army, I just assumed that my Secret clearance lapsed, since it was always predicated upon “need to know.” Once a person has retired from service, what is their “need to know?”

    A former head of a three-letter agency could be useful as a consultant if he had access to current information. That’s the only rationale I can think of. It wouldn’t apply to Brennan, IMHO.

    In Brennan’s case, if he wanted to be useful as a consultant to a NGO because of his security clearance, he probably should have thought of that before he lied to Congress, assisted in falsely accusing the POTUS of collusion, and then actually publicly accusing the same POTUS of treason. In lieu of those aforementioned actions, however, Brennan is actually useless for much of anything short of howling at the moon.

    Exactly why I assumed Brennan had no justification for keeping his access.

    BTW, I once had a special access lifted because I wasn’t actively supporting the effort. They called it an “administrative de-briefing” and said it had no effect on my other accesses. That is different from having a clearance revoked “for cause”. A few months later, I got a call that said, “Show up and sign some papers.” I was brought back into that area as a “consultant”. It’s not a big deal unless one’s ego gets in the way, or unless he plans to make money off the clearance. That latter describes Brennan and a bus-load of others.

    I like that. A near perfect application of ‘need to know’.

    • #20
    • August 19, 2018, at 11:49 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  21. Django Member

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Regarding the security clearance issue: What legitimate need does a retired person, military or otherwise, have for a national security clearance?

    When I left the Army, I just assumed that my Secret clearance lapsed, since it was always predicated upon “need to know.” Once a person has retired from service, what is their “need to know?”

    A former head of a three-letter agency could be useful as a consultant if he had access to current information. That’s the only rationale I can think of. It wouldn’t apply to Brennan, IMHO.

    In Brennan’s case, if he wanted to be useful as a consultant to a NGO because of his security clearance, he probably should have thought of that before he lied to Congress, assisted in falsely accusing the POTUS of collusion, and then actually publicly accusing the same POTUS of treason. In lieu of those aforementioned actions, however, Brennan is actually useless for much of anything short of howling at the moon.

    Exactly why I assumed Brennan had no justification for keeping his access.

    BTW, I once had a special access lifted because I wasn’t actively supporting the effort. They called it an “administrative de-briefing” and said it had no effect on my other accesses. That is different from having a clearance revoked “for cause”. A few months later, I got a call that said, “Show up and sign some papers.” I was brought back into that area as a “consultant”. It’s not a big deal unless one’s ego gets in the way, or unless he plans to make money off the clearance. That latter describes Brennan and a bus-load of others.

    I like that. A near perfect application of ‘need to know’.

    That is the way it should work. A lot of people suffering from cranio-rectal inversion criticize Trump for trying to make the system work as it is supposed to. 

    • #21
    • August 19, 2018, at 11:55 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  22. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Django (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Regarding the security clearance issue: What legitimate need does a retired person, military or otherwise, have for a national security clearance?

    When I left the Army, I just assumed that my Secret clearance lapsed, since it was always predicated upon “need to know.” Once a person has retired from service, what is their “need to know?”

    A former head of a three-letter agency could be useful as a consultant if he had access to current information. That’s the only rationale I can think of. It wouldn’t apply to Brennan, IMHO.

    In Brennan’s case, if he wanted to be useful as a consultant to a NGO because of his security clearance, he probably should have thought of that before he lied to Congress, assisted in falsely accusing the POTUS of collusion, and then actually publicly accusing the same POTUS of treason. In lieu of those aforementioned actions, however, Brennan is actually useless for much of anything short of howling at the moon.

    Exactly why I assumed Brennan had no justification for keeping his access.

    BTW, I once had a special access lifted because I wasn’t actively supporting the effort. They called it an “administrative de-briefing” and said it had no effect on my other accesses. That is different from having a clearance revoked “for cause”. A few months later, I got a call that said, “Show up and sign some papers.” I was brought back into that area as a “consultant”. It’s not a big deal unless one’s ego gets in the way, or unless he plans to make money off the clearance. That latter describes Brennan and a bus-load of others.

    I like that. A near perfect application of ‘need to know’.

    That is the way it should work. A lot of people suffering from cranio-rectal inversion criticize Trump for trying to make the system work as it is supposed to.

    A “cranio-rectal inversion.” You should copywrite that. Brilliant!

    • #22
    • August 19, 2018, at 1:06 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  23. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

     

    Romney? He really didn’t do so bad. He all but knocked off the Prez in the first debate. But he was a big money man in the middle of the biggest fit of anger at Wall Street in 80 years, not a perfect fit for the moment. The party knew he wasn’t a Patton; they didn’t have anyone better. Plus he was up against an incumbent.

    I remember a burst of optimism after that first debate, despite all of the things working against Romney. Then Romney played prevent defense, then he fumbled. I think Romney lost in that sequence rather than President Obama beating him.

    • #23
    • August 19, 2018, at 1:34 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  24. Judge Mental Member

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

     

    Romney? He really didn’t do so bad. He all but knocked off the Prez in the first debate. But he was a big money man in the middle of the biggest fit of anger at Wall Street in 80 years, not a perfect fit for the moment. The party knew he wasn’t a Patton; they didn’t have anyone better. Plus he was up against an incumbent.

    I remember a burst of optimism after that first debate, despite all of the things working against Romney. Then Romney played prevent defense, then he fumbled. I think Romney lost in that sequence rather than President Obama beating him.

    If he had smacked down Candy Crowley he would have won.

    • #24
    • August 19, 2018, at 1:39 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  25. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Judge Mental (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):

     

    Romney? He really didn’t do so bad. He all but knocked off the Prez in the first debate. But he was a big money man in the middle of the biggest fit of anger at Wall Street in 80 years, not a perfect fit for the moment. The party knew he wasn’t a Patton; they didn’t have anyone better. Plus he was up against an incumbent.

    I remember a burst of optimism after that first debate, despite all of the things working against Romney. Then Romney played prevent defense, then he fumbled. I think Romney lost in that sequence rather than President Obama beating him.

    If he had smacked down Candy Crowley he would have won.

    Maybe. To me, far more effective would have been any kind of offense on Obamacare, but Romeny was hamstrung on that.

    • #25
    • August 19, 2018, at 1:52 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  26. Ontheleftcoast Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    […]

    The argument that only Trump could have won in 2016 is flatly wrong is perhaps the most pernicious argument that gets repeated over and over

    Bait and switch, of course, on your previous statement. I look forward to your explanation as to how your contention that almost any Republican would have won in ’16 has anything to do with the argument (not at issue here) that only Trump would have won. Move the discussion much?

    And let’s be clear that you still haven’t addressed my point–the fact that you continue to beat a dead horse that several intelligent people her have contested more than once. That stands.

    There is a further useful disambiguation: Looking at the constellation of issues surrounding nationalism vs globalism (as distinct from globalization,) it is by no means obvious that the candidates @garyrobbins considers to have been as electable as Trump (or moreso) would have been readily distinguishable from Hillary on them.

    David Goldman has an interesting review of Yoram Hazony’s new book The Virtue of Nationalism.

    Hazony:

    Many political theories assume that political events are motivated by the individual’s concern for his own life and property. … But human individuals are also capable of regarding the aims and interest of a collective or institution of which they are members as their own, and of acting upon these aims and interests even where such action will be detrimental to their lives and property.

    Goldman:

    ….states do not emerge from an organic agglomeration of clans. The formation of clans has occurred for tens of thousands of years, and the outcome until very recently was not the formation of nations but rather perpetual warfare among clans and tribes. We observe the same phenomenon today: Perhaps 1,000 languages are spoken today in the New Guinea Highlands with an average of a few thousands speakers each.

    And:

    Large parts of the conservative movement adulate John Locke as the philosophical inspiration to the founding of the United States. Hazony thinks his influence entirely baleful, and his chapter on the British philosopher is the liveliest and most enjoyable in the book. “In reducing political life to the individual’s pursuit of life and property,” Hazony writes, Locke did not merely offer an impoverished and unsuccessful account of human motivation and action, but summoned into being a dreamworld, a utopian vision, in which the political institutions of the Jewish and Christian world—the national state, community, family and religious tradition—appear to have no reason to exist. He cites Edmund Burke’s declaration before the Commons that Locke’s Second Treatise was one of the worst books ever written. What bothers Hazony most is Locke’s statement that “mankind are one community.” 

    The latter is a piety nearly as common among conservatives as it is on the Left; if Hazony is correct it is of course pernicious either way.

    • #26
    • August 19, 2018, at 2:08 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  27. Django Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Regarding the security clearance issue: What legitimate need does a retired person, military or otherwise, have for a national security clearance?

    When I left the Army, I just assumed that my Secret clearance lapsed, since it was always predicated upon “need to know.” Once a person has retired from service, what is their “need to know?”

    A former head of a three-letter agency could be useful as a consultant if he had access to current information. That’s the only rationale I can think of. It wouldn’t apply to Brennan, IMHO.

    In Brennan’s case, if he wanted to be useful as a consultant to a NGO because of his security clearance, he probably should have thought of that before he lied to Congress, assisted in falsely accusing the POTUS of collusion, and then actually publicly accusing the same POTUS of treason. In lieu of those aforementioned actions, however, Brennan is actually useless for much of anything short of howling at the moon.

    Exactly why I assumed Brennan had no justification for keeping his access.

    BTW, I once had a special access lifted because I wasn’t actively supporting the effort. They called it an “administrative de-briefing” and said it had no effect on my other accesses. That is different from having a clearance revoked “for cause”. A few months later, I got a call that said, “Show up and sign some papers.” I was brought back into that area as a “consultant”. It’s not a big deal unless one’s ego gets in the way, or unless he plans to make money off the clearance. That latter describes Brennan and a bus-load of others.

    I like that. A near perfect application of ‘need to know’.

    That is the way it should work. A lot of people suffering from cranio-rectal inversion criticize Trump for trying to make the system work as it is supposed to.

    A “cranio-rectal inversion.” You should copywrite that. Brilliant!

    We could make it a tagline for the enterprise. Ricochet: For Those Not Suffering From Cranio-Rectal Inversion. 

    • #27
    • August 19, 2018, at 3:07 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  28. Bob Thompson Member

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Regarding the security clearance issue: What legitimate need does a retired person, military or otherwise, have for a national security clearance?

    When I left the Army, I just assumed that my Secret clearance lapsed, since it was always predicated upon “need to know.” Once a person has retired from service, what is their “need to know?”

    A former head of a three-letter agency could be useful as a consultant if he had access to current information. That’s the only rationale I can think of. It wouldn’t apply to Brennan, IMHO.

    In Brennan’s case, if he wanted to be useful as a consultant to a NGO because of his security clearance, he probably should have thought of that before he lied to Congress, assisted in falsely accusing the POTUS of collusion, and then actually publicly accusing the same POTUS of treason. In lieu of those aforementioned actions, however, Brennan is actually useless for much of anything short of howling at the moon.

    Exactly why I assumed Brennan had no justification for keeping his access.

    BTW, I once had a special access lifted because I wasn’t actively supporting the effort. They called it an “administrative de-briefing” and said it had no effect on my other accesses. That is different from having a clearance revoked “for cause”. A few months later, I got a call that said, “Show up and sign some papers.” I was brought back into that area as a “consultant”. It’s not a big deal unless one’s ego gets in the way, or unless he plans to make money off the clearance. That latter describes Brennan and a bus-load of others.

    I like that. A near perfect application of ‘need to know’.

    That is the way it should work. A lot of people suffering from cranio-rectal inversion criticize Trump for trying to make the system work as it is supposed to.

    A “cranio-rectal inversion.” You should copywrite that. Brilliant!

    We could make it a tagline for the enterprise. Ricochet: For Those Not Suffering From Cranio-Rectal Inversion.

    Is this your way of getting rid of some contributors?

    • #28
    • August 19, 2018, at 3:16 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  29. Django Member

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Regarding the security clearance issue: What legitimate need does a retired person, military or otherwise, have for a national security clearance?

    When I left the Army, I just assumed that my Secret clearance lapsed, since it was always predicated upon “need to know.” Once a person has retired from service, what is their “need to know?”

    A former head of a three-letter agency could be useful as a consultant if he had access to current information. That’s the only rationale I can think of. It wouldn’t apply to Brennan, IMHO.

    In Brennan’s case, if he wanted to be useful as a consultant to a NGO because of his security clearance, he probably should have thought of that before he lied to Congress, assisted in falsely accusing the POTUS of collusion, and then actually publicly accusing the same POTUS of treason. In lieu of those aforementioned actions, however, Brennan is actually useless for much of anything short of howling at the moon.

    Exactly why I assumed Brennan had no justification for keeping his access.

    BTW, I once had a special access lifted because I wasn’t actively supporting the effort. They called it an “administrative de-briefing” and said it had no effect on my other accesses. That is different from having a clearance revoked “for cause”. A few months later, I got a call that said, “Show up and sign some papers.” I was brought back into that area as a “consultant”. It’s not a big deal unless one’s ego gets in the way, or unless he plans to make money off the clearance. That latter describes Brennan and a bus-load of others.

    I like that. A near perfect application of ‘need to know’.

    That is the way it should work. A lot of people suffering from cranio-rectal inversion criticize Trump for trying to make the system work as it is supposed to.

    A “cranio-rectal inversion.” You should copywrite that. Brilliant!

    We could make it a tagline for the enterprise. Ricochet: For Those Not Suffering From Cranio-Rectal Inversion.

    Is this your way of getting rid of some contributors?

    hadn’t thought of that, but now that you bring it up … 

    But seriously, there are only two I can think of and they aren’t involved in this thread. 

    • #29
    • August 19, 2018, at 3:18 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  30. Bob Thompson Member

    Django (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Regarding the security clearance issue: What legitimate need does a retired person, military or otherwise, have for a national security clearance?

    When I left the Army, I just assumed that my Secret clearance lapsed, since it was always predicated upon “need to know.” Once a person has retired from service, what is their “need to know?”

    A former head of a three-letter agency could be useful as a consultant if he had access to current information. That’s the only rationale I can think of. It wouldn’t apply to Brennan, IMHO.

    In Brennan’s case, if he wanted to be useful as a consultant to a NGO because of his security clearance, he probably should have thought of that before he lied to Congress, assisted in falsely accusing the POTUS of collusion, and then actually publicly accusing the same POTUS of treason. In lieu of those aforementioned actions, however, Brennan is actually useless for much of anything short of howling at the moon.

    Exactly why I assumed Brennan had no justification for keeping his access.

    BTW, I once had a special access lifted because I wasn’t actively supporting the effort. They called it an “administrative de-briefing” and said it had no effect on my other accesses. That is different from having a clearance revoked “for cause”. A few months later, I got a call that said, “Show up and sign some papers.” I was brought back into that area as a “consultant”. It’s not a big deal unless one’s ego gets in the way, or unless he plans to make money off the clearance. That latter describes Brennan and a bus-load of others.

    I like that. A near perfect application of ‘need to know’.

    That is the way it should work. A lot of people suffering from cranio-rectal inversion criticize Trump for trying to make the system work as it is supposed to.

    A “cranio-rectal inversion.” You should copywrite that. Brilliant!

    We could make it a tagline for the enterprise. Ricochet: For Those Not Suffering From Cranio-Rectal Inversion.

    Is this your way of getting rid of some contributors?

    I hadn’t thought of that, but now that you bring it up …

    But seriously, there are only two I can think of and they aren’t involved in this thread.

    Actually, I haven’t seen much of them lately anyway.

    • #30
    • August 19, 2018, at 3:20 PM PDT
    • Like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.