Joe Biden 2021

[GW Hayduke 1953]

After the GOP's overperformance in the 2020 election, everyone knew Biden wasn't going to be able to pass much of his agenda. Had the Dems been the ones who overperformed and had the stars aligned, we would be seeing huge structural changes to our democracy (For the People Act, DC and PR statehood, etc. etc.). However, no one should be the least bit shocked at what is currently going on in the Senate. This was all apparent immediately after the election.  Losing Maine, NC, and Iowa were big.  Dems even had a puncher's chance in Montana. It sucks. Elections have consequences. 

2020 was about removing the clown and building a big enough lead in the Senate to be able to ram through For the People Act and increase the number of senators.  We failed at the second part.  2022 gives us another opportunity.  

[Brisketexan 105139]

23 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Name the flag officer collaborators, because no insurrection is going to succeed without them

I worry a bit about the traitors in the House, but I don’t think there are enough to overturn EC results leading to a Dem win, and I think the Dems are going to hold the house if not make gains in 2022. 
 

I worry the most that a couple of Republican controlled state legislatures in 2024 give their EV to the Republican nominee who lost their state. In this scenario I can see the generals sorting it out in favor of the legitimate Dem winner, but they might say hey maybe we should run things for a while 

Charles Flynn, Michael Flynn's brother.  I do not trust him.  Not even 1%.  His brother has openly called for murderous violence to bring about regime change here in the US.  He is a traitor.  I do not trust his brother.

And yes, your last scenario is one of several that should concern us.  The very fact that we reached a point where military leaders thought that they had to speak out about how they will NOT be involved in elections was a horrific turning point in our history.  The fact that they might end up needing to be involved in 24...that would be even worse.  Because at that point, the precedent has been set: whoever controls the military wins the election.  Then the military will become politicized, with the GQP fighting for control.  And it will eventually win it, because the Dems just don't fight back.

[Sawbonz 27561]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Charles Flynn, Michael Flynn's brother. 

Very dangerous attitude to have blaming a family member for the sins of another. Do you have any actual evidence he is a risk, or are you just going to line families up against the wall when your civil war starts?

[bad_teammate 13195]

15 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

And what does that look like? Complaining he cant get his way? Calling people out? What specific thing should he do that’s not already being done or would likely backfire (like pressuring the 2 DINOs).

No need to call out by name at first, but he needs to use the bully pulpit to promote his agenda.

A massive problem we have right now is that Joe Biden is not a moving or articulate speaker. He could be touring the country right now giving speeches about the importance of the voting rights bill. He could be in swing states right now pulling crowds and getting huge media coverage.

He could be giving speeches about the real history of the Senate and the lies and misunderstandings spread about the filibuster.

He could be using the bully pulpit to push the agenda and inform voters.

He could be using what power he has to push the baseline expectations of all Democratic voters towards justice.

What you're advocating is... what? Just sit on his hands and lose quietly? If so, why? Because if you don't try then at least you can pretend you didn't lose?

[GW Hayduke 1953]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Very dangerous attitude to have blaming a family member for the sins of another. Do you have any actual evidence he is a risk, or are you just going to line families up against the wall when your civil war starts?

Have you ever heard of Hunter Biden?

[Brisketexan 105139]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

Very dangerous attitude to have blaming a family member for the sins of another. Do you have any actual evidence he is a risk, or are you just going to line families up against the wall when your civil war starts?

No need to line him up against the wall.  But in matters of national security, when one member of the family is compromised, it is quite reasonable to assume that the remaining close members are.  Charles shouldn't be lined up and shot.  But he shouldn't be entrusted with any position that would allow him the ability to attack our sitting government.

Because that is a thing.  That actually happened.  And is openly supported by his brother, who took an identical oath to defend the Constitution.

We trust Charles Flynn with power at our peril.

[Js1 85336]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

No need to line him up against the wall.  But in matters of national security, when one member of the family is compromised, it is quite reasonable to assume that the remaining close members are.  Charles shouldn't be lined up and shot.  But he shouldn't be entrusted with any position that would allow him the ability to attack our sitting government.

Because that is a thing.  That actually happened.  And is openly supported by his brother, who took an identical oath to defend the Constitution.

We trust Charles Flynn with power at our peril.

Innocent until proven guilty is not part of American way anymore.  I guess we let the GOP win. 

All of Paul Gosar's siblings say otherwise - you can't blame them or assume they are insane and treasonous because their brother is.  They openly condemn him. 

[Brisketexan 105139]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Innocent until proven guilty is not part of American way anymore.  I guess we let the GOP win. 

All of Paul Gosar's siblings say otherwise - you can't blame them or assume they are insane and treasonous because their brother is.  They openly condemn him. 

I am not suggesting any criminal action or sanction.

I am suggesting that the military and commander in chief make a command decision about what a particular officer can be entrusted with.  That is not a criminal "innocent until proven guilty" standard at all. It is a military command decision.  It is about trust, and confidence in leadership.  Unless they have some damned strong evidence to the contrary, I don't believe that he should be in any role that would afford him the opportunity to attack our government.

Perhaps an easy question is this: if there is a violent insurrection against the United States, led by your brother, and you are in command of the forces activated and authorized to defend the Capitol, would you be able to order those troops to use deadly force against your brother?  That's an actual potential scenario.  We need to know what his answer is.

You're an idiot if you're not asking that question.  "Trusting people to respect our laws and processes, and not to attack our government" has been a really stupid strategy.  We should change it.

[RomaVicta 29907]

14 hours ago, GRHorn said:

 

Negged for repeating a lie. Nobody has said the government was almost toppled by the insurrection on Jan. 6. But maybe that allows you to chuckle about the five dead and the intent to murder GOP Vice President Pence and Dem House Speaker Pelosi. Terrorism and tourism do sound sort of alike.

I look forward to your next cowardly neg on the recruiting board.

[Sawbonz 27561]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Charles shouldn't be lined up and shot.  But he shouldn't be entrusted with any position that would allow him the ability to attack our sitting

You got a brother? 

[Js1 85336]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I am not suggesting any criminal action or sanction.

I am suggesting that the military and commander in chief make a command decision about what a particular officer can be entrusted with.  That is not a criminal "innocent until proven guilty" standard at all. It is a military command decision.  It is about trust, and confidence in leadership.  Unless they have some damned strong evidence to the contrary, I don't believe that he should be in any role that would afford him the opportunity to attack our government.

Perhaps an easy question is this: if there is a violent insurrection against the United States, led by your brother, and you are in command of the forces activated and authorized to defend the Capitol, would you be able to order those troops to use deadly force against your brother?  That's an actual potential scenario.  We need to know what his answer is.

You're an idiot if you're not asking that question.  "Trusting people to respect our laws and processes, and not to attack our government" has been a really stupid strategy.  We should change it.

Secretary Austin announced an intent to root out extremism in the military 2 months ago.

The fact that Charles Flynn has not been demoted or publicly removed from his position should tell you a lot, because he should have been the first person reviewed under that intent by the DOD to root out extremism - and continuously reviewed each time his brother vomits out some treasonous shit. 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Js1

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

There were members of the mob that were armed. Court documents have the lists. Since so many people were allowed to walk away freely, it's probably an undercount by a lot.

[Js1 85336]

We have a deal: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/24/infrastructure-deal-talks-biden-invites-bipartisan-senators-to-white-house.html

Quote

President Joe Biden on Thursday declared that the White House had struck an infrastructure deal with a bipartisan group of senators after discussing the massive plan to improve the nation’s roads, bridges and broadband earlier in the day.

“To answer the direct question we have a deal,” Biden said from the White House.

The president, flanked by a group of senators including Mitt Romney, R-Utah, and Mark Warner, D-Va., added that he would honor the latest policy framework that focuses on “hard” infrastructure.

“They have my word. I’ll stick with what we’ve proposed and they’ve given me their word as well,” he said. “None of us got all that we wanted. I didn’t get all that I wanted. But this reminds me of the days we used to get an awful lot done up in the United States Congress.”

Bipartisan physical infrastructure (roads and bridges and broadband) and then tackle the human infrastructure stuff (American Families Plan and Jobs Plan) in the reconciliation work being done by Bernie and Schumer. 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Js1

[Sawbonz 27561]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Perhaps an easy question is this: if there is a violent insurrection against the United States, led by your brother, and you are in command of the forces activated and authorized to defend the Capitol, would you be able to order those troops to use deadly force against your brother?  That's an actual potential scenario.  We need to know what his answer is.

Why do you think this has not been done? And why do you think the military, having done so, would make the results public? Clearly Congress could in a public hearing. I don’t think they should but I wouldn’t oppose it

[Eskimohorn 5635]

No need to call out by name at first, but he needs to use the bully pulpit to promote his agenda.
A massive problem we have right now is that Joe Biden is not a moving or articulate speaker. He could be touring the country right now giving speeches about the importance of the voting rights bill. He could be in swing states right now pulling crowds and getting huge media coverage.
He could be giving speeches about the real history of the Senate and the lies and misunderstandings spread about the filibuster.
He could be using the bully pulpit to push the agenda and inform voters.
He could be using what power he has to push the baseline expectations of all Democratic voters towards justice.
What you're advocating is... what? Just sit on his hands and lose quietly? If so, why? Because if you don't try then at least you can pretend you didn't lose?

Speeches? Bully pulpit? Yeah, sure. Should he board his train and do a country-wide barnstorming tour and visit with folks at the soda pop machine in the pharmacy?

This is a new age. Thats not gonna work. We cant even get people vulnerable to a deadly diseases to get a vaccination to save themselves, their family, and other people.

You also point out he’s not a good speaker. So, save going in a time machine, successfully convincing voters to elect Mayor Pete, thats not gonna fucking work by your own admission.

Biden should be judged by the decisions he can make. In the current landscape, he has to make the best bad decisions. When he makes clearly unwise decisions, he should be held accountable.

[Brisketexan 105139]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

You got a brother? 

I do.  He's a salesman in the north country.  The most threatening thing he does is cruise around in his pontoon boat on a Minnesota lake and steadfastly refuse to get involved in anything political.  Also, he eats hotdish.....so, I mean, he's obviously not to be trusted on any matter of culinary taste.

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Secretary Austin announced an intent to root out extremism in the military 2 months ago.

The fact that Charles Flynn has not been demoted or publicly removed from his position should tell you a lot, because he should have been the first person reviewed under that intent by the DOD to root out extremism - and continuously reviewed each time his brother vomits out some treasonous shit. 

I sure as shit hope this is the case.  It SHOULD be the case.  I'm going further to say it MUST be the case.  To the point that I would expect him to turn over and immediately disclose any and all communications with his brother.  As to what has actually been done, I freely admit that I have no idea.  Neither do you.  Not knowing, but also knowing that the brother of a man who supports violent overthrow of the government is a general in charge of thousands of US troops, should make you nervous.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Brisketexan

[RomaVicta 29907]

13 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Unacceptable. Joe, grow a fucking brain and understand that you do not negotiate with terrorists. 

I think, my friend, that it's significant that he got something as a matter of policy.

I also think it's significant that he pulled some GOP senators out of McConnel lockstep obstructionism.

The alternative seems to be to have no funding for infrastructure (well, maybe a few hundred billion for new yacht moorings and beach improvements in the Hamptons and similar locations in desperate need) and to just cuss the GOPs.

Biden has been as good as his word. He will work with GOPs and some few GOPs will work with him. It gives the appearance that government might actually be inching toward working again.

Of course, if Joe traded voter suppression for this victory and he cleaves to such a promise, that's another matter. Actually, it'd be funny if he promised not to work against voter suppression, got his bill passed, and then went right into using the executive branch to undo voter suppression.

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

McConnell will abolish the filibuster without question when it suits him. He doesn’t give a shit. 

This is so stupid.  He could’ve done that during Trump’s term and didn’t. Do you not remember Trump calling for it repeatedly on the Twitters?

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

What's funny is Republicans think the exact same thing about Republicans.

Yep. The other side is doing whatever they want because they’re so ruthless! We just roll over for them! Cmon, get tough!

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Today the President is traveling to North Carolina to urge citizens to get vaccinated (right now he is speaking on infrastructure before he boards AF1). He is promoting a community canvassing event there.

 

[Sawbonz 27561]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Not knowing, but also knowing that the brother of a man who supports violent overthrow of the government is a general in charge of thousands of US troops, should make you nervous.

I guess my family isn’t as close as yours 

[GRHorn 105]

16 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Negged for repeating a lie. Nobody has said the government was almost toppled by the insurrection on Jan. 6. But maybe that allows you to chuckle about the five dead and the intent to murder GOP Vice President Pence and Dem House Speaker Pelosi. Terrorism and tourism do sound sort of alike.

I look forward to your next cowardly neg on the recruiting board.

 

Just stay on topic bud. Keep your nonsense over here. 

[RomaVicta 29907]

13 hours ago, DonkeyCigars said:

I agree with your take, but the incongruence is the earnestness in which people were breathlessly lamenting about the "end of democracy as we know it" and "the treasonous insurrection" and "coup de force". The press and hysterical people gave a few hundred insane John McAfee types the power and efficacy of an organized military coup, which has always been extremely odd to me.

I think the concern about the "end of democracy as we know it" is a conclusion reached separately from the treasonous insurrection and coup de force.

I'll refer to the Brisket Ledge Papers as pre-dating the insurrection. The grim outlook regarding the fate of the republic has more to do with what some of us see as criminality in the GOP teamed with a party determination to bend every rule for power and the election and support of a party leader, Donald Trump, who wages his campaign on republican structures without a whit of subtlety.

I'll add here that I was likely harsh in my judgment of you earlier on.  I'll apologize for that. I don't name call as a rule, but I did lump you in with some people unfairly.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33870]

9 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

 

Just stay on topic bud. Keep your nonsense over here. 

[Brisketexan 105139]

14 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I guess my family isn’t as close as yours 

Maybe.

But I also know that people have their applications for sensitive security clearances denied, regularly, because of concerns about family members.  It may seem unfair, and paranoid, but in matters of national security and people being potentially compromised (again, I am not speaking as to ANY criminal sanction), such a standard is not unwarranted.

[RomaVicta 29907]

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Hope you guys like expanding police budgets and black people in jail, because Jailin' Joe is playing the hits!
 

 

 

Defunding the police did not mean ending funding for police. It was a terrible slogan. The intent was that funding should be provided for alternatives to police response to things like domestic disturbances or suicide calls etc.

That said, I think the aim of this funding deserves scrutiny. If the funding aims to improve those aspects of the police that rightfully caused the rise of BLM and the protests that group so brilliantly orchestrated, then this could be a good thing.

If it's a flood of money to make nice with police forces as they are, then it's flat out wrong.

I'd like more information. The provided graph comes from a point of view that may slant its intent.

To be clear, I support the intent behind the disastrous slogan "defund the police." I support BLM. I don't buy the piffle about cops risking their lives everyday to keep me safe. I think we agree on all of that.

[wildcat09 29354]

You guys realize that Charles Flynn was probably involved in the initial decision to refuse to deploy the National Guard on 1/6, right?

[Js1 85336]

So they are gonna roll all those UI benefits that red states cut off into funding the infrastructure package.  That's marvelous.

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45952]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

You guys realize that Charles Flynn was probably involved in the initial decision to refuse to deploy the National Guard on 1/6, right?

Yeah, I'm not sure why we're suddenly concerned with criticism of Chuck "just because he's Mike's brother".  I mean, he's been in play this whole time.

[Js1 85336]

Because he was not part of the DC National Guard chain of command and had no authority to deploy troops in his role? 

[Willfully Horn 8017]

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

  I'm going further to say it MUST be the case.  To the point that I would expect him to turn over and immediately disclose any and all communications with his brother.  As to what has actually been done, I freely admit that I have no idea.  Neither do you

WAPO reported early this year that Charles was part of the military’s non-response on Jan 6. 
 

“Army falsely denied Flynn’s brother was involved in key part of military response to Capitol riot”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/flynn-national-guard-call-riot/2021/01/20/7f4f41ba-5b4c-11eb-aaad-93988621dd28_story.html%3foutputType=amp

 

So, I don’t trust him. 

[jimmyjazz 45952]

18 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Because he was not part of the DC National Guard chain of command and had no authority to deploy troops in his role? 

That's not what I recall.

EDIT:  @Willfully Horn posted it

Edited June 24, 2021 by jimmyjazz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

21 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You guys realize that Charles Flynn was probably involved in the initial decision to refuse to deploy the National Guard on 1/6, right?

I’m amazed Charles Flynn passes a routine background check based on his brother association alone.  

[Js1 85336]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That's not what I recall.

EDIT:  @Willfully Horn posted it

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/politics/michael-flynn-brother-capitol-hill-riot/index.html

Quote

Washington (CNN)The Army is now acknowledging that Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn, the brother of President Donald Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn, was in the room for one of the key January 6 phone calls in which DC government and US Capitol Police were asking for National Guard troops to quell the unfolding violence at the US Capitol.

Quote

The official timeline from the office of then-acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller listed McCarthy, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, the city's deputy mayor, DC Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency Director Christopher Rodriguez, and Metropolitan Police Department leadership as participants on the call. Gen. Walter Piatt, director of the Army staff, was also on the call.

 

But there was no mention of the involvement of Charles Flynn, a three-star general who has already been approved by Congress for a fourth star. Flynn is responsible for operations, plans and training, but he is not part of the chain of command of the DC National Guard, and he does not have the authority to deploy troops.

 

[jimmyjazz 45952]

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I knew he was in the chain of command, but rather that I recalled him being called out as being in the loop.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

49 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

This is so stupid.  He could’ve done that during Trump’s term and didn’t. Do you not remember Trump calling for it repeatedly on the Twitters?

McConnell will do whatever suits his interests in the moment.  He has no guiding principles and he’s already abolished a major judicial filibuster because he could and judges are his thing.  I understand y’all see him preserving the filibuster for strategic reasons but if he believes it’s to his advantage to abolish it and Dems will do it anyway, he’s not going to hesitate. 

[Js1 85336]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I knew he was in the chain of command, but rather that I recalled him being called out as being in the loop.

Got it.  Yeah, they initially left out his involvement and its been corrected, but his position still did not have authority to deploy NG troops or overrule anyone in the chain of command.  Looking at you, Chris Miller. 

[RomaVicta 29907]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

No need to line him up against the wall.  But in matters of national security, when one member of the family is compromised, it is quite reasonable to assume that the remaining close members are.  Charles shouldn't be lined up and shot.  But he shouldn't be entrusted with any position that would allow him the ability to attack our sitting government.

Because that is a thing.  That actually happened.  And is openly supported by his brother, who took an identical oath to defend the Constitution.

We trust Charles Flynn with power at our peril.

From NBC News, Flynn was in a key position during the insurrection. He reportedly supported an argument for not deploying the Guard:

Quote

Their testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee at a hearing about the riot contradicts what the commanding general of D.C.’s National Guard at the time, Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, now the Senate sergeant at arms, previously told Congress.

In March, Walker told lawmakers that Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt, director of the Army staff, and Gen. Charles Flynn, brother of former President Donald Trump’s White House national security adviser, Michael Flynn, said it wouldn’t look good to send National Guard troops to the Capitol.

Piatt and Flynn on Tuesday denied that they made such comments.

I recalled the above from stories at the time. This recent article gave us this new detail:

Quote

Flynn, who on Jan. 6 served as deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and training for the Army, also said in his testimony that he never used the word “optics.” Flynn now serves as the commander of the U.S. Army Pacific

I think high level generals operate something like the cops. They cover for each other. How many generals had to have known that Michael Flynn was at least without integrity and likely disloyal to the Constitution?

The Army at the time of the insurrection denied Flynn was part of the decision making or that he was even "present." He was on the phone call; real slick dodge. The following is from CNN vamping (as usual) off of a real news organization, the Washington Post:

Quote

The Army is now acknowledging that Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn, the brother of President Donald Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn, was in the room for one of the key January 6 phone calls in which DC government and US Capitol Police were asking for National Guard troops to quell the unfolding violence at the US Capitol.

The decision-making has come under scrutiny as city and Capitol Police officials have alleged that the Pentagon was slow to respond, while the Pentagon and Army maintain they never denied or delayed requests for the National Guard.

In official timelines released by the Department of Defense in the wake of the riot, Charles Flynn, the deputy chief of staff of the Army, was not listed as participating in any of the calls that day about mobilizing the National Guard to respond to the riot.

The Washington Post was the first to report Flynn's participation in the call.

The Army and Flynn lied about his involvement. This was done likely to protect his name because maybe he isn't really tied to his brother much. Bad move. Now those in the Army who covered up for him have sullied his name and their own.

But what the hell, let's put him in charge of the Army in the Pacific. Remember the days when this would be a big story? Good times.

Idiot World can't keep up with Corrupt World

Fuck the Flynns

[wildcat09 29354]

38 minutes ago, Js1 said:

So they are gonna roll all those UI benefits that red states cut off into funding the infrastructure package.  That's marvelous.

 

 

Oh cool, we're going to be giving money to private equity to buy public infrastructure and charge us tolls to use it.

I hate it.

[atomheartbevo 89667]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I sure as shit hope this is the case.  It SHOULD be the case.  I'm going further to say it MUST be the case.  To the point that I would expect him to turn over and immediately disclose any and all communications with his brother.  As to what has actually been done, I freely admit that I have no idea.  Neither do you.  Not knowing, but also knowing that the brother of a man who supports violent overthrow of the government is a general in charge of thousands of US troops, should make you nervous.

If Secretary Austin and the other DOD leaders had any question about Charles Flynn, they could have quietly sidelined him with a cushy job and/or pushed him into retirement.  If he goes public and starts ranting that it's about his brother and it's unfair, then he's provided the means for them to kick him into retirement. 

This is not rocket science.  Austin is not going to tolerate this kind of shit if Charles Flynn followed the same racist organizations or whatever that his brother did.

[Js1 85336]

I like this.  Biden wants this AND the reconciliation.   Nice call out at any Dem legislator who might threaten to torpedo the physical infrastructure bill - it's both or nothing. 

 

Pelosi and Schumer are in full agreement.  Pelosi said she's not bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor w/o the reconciliation bill as well.  Schumer said it's "all or nothing." Both Manchin and Sinema are on board with the rest of infrastructure via reconciliation, so I don't foresee too much of a problem (other than the progressive House Dems bitching the price tag is too low). 

There hasn't been a single Senator who has balked at the second package price tag Bernie is floating ($6T). 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Js1

[Sawbonz 27561]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Maybe.

But I also know that people have their applications for sensitive security clearances denied, regularly, because of concerns about family members.  It may seem unfair, and paranoid, but in matters of national security and people being potentially compromised (again, I am not speaking as to ANY criminal sanction), such a standard is not unwarranted.

And I would imagine you would have to have shit buttoned down pretty tight to sanction in any way a flag officer for the actions of a sibling. And rightly so

[atomheartbevo 89667]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Maybe.

But I also know that people have their applications for sensitive security clearances denied, regularly, because of concerns about family members.  It may seem unfair, and paranoid, but in matters of national security and people being potentially compromised (again, I am not speaking as to ANY criminal sanction), such a standard is not unwarranted.

58 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m amazed Charles Flynn passes a routine background check based on his brother association alone.  

By the time Michael Flynn was forced out of the military/DIA, Charles Flynn had 28 or 29 years of service.  He had a track record the military could look at - he wasn't some kid just out of high school or college, that was being checked out throughly because he had nothing to base a background check on.  Hell, Charles Flynn was probably a lot more scrutinized than officers at his level normal are, because of his brother.

Charles Flynn is not untouchable, so stop acting like you don't understand why he's not been booted out and arrested or whatever.  

For fuck's sake, Stanley McChrystal, David Petraeus, and Michael Flynn were all forced out of the military under Obama in a short amount of time.

Shortly before those three were forced out, all three had shitloads of praise being heaped upon them by the military and civilian establishment.  Those three were on track to reach the highest levels of the Army.

Some of y'all act like the Republicans do when it comes to Hunter Biden.  Quit hyperventilating.

[wildcat09 29354]

@Js1, you've been following this much more closely than I have? Why are they touting a plan that has the approval of only 5 Republican senators as if it's a done deal?

[Js1 85336]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

@Js1, you've been following this much more closely than I have? Why are they touting a plan that has the approval of only 5 Republican senators as if it's a done deal?

The original bipartisan framework was agreed upon by the G-21.  Looks like 10 of them were tasked with more detailed negotiations. 

[Sawbonz 27561]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

You guys realize that Charles Flynn was probably involved in the initial decision to refuse to deploy the National Guard on 1/6, right?

If true sounds like something a democrat controlled house would hold a public hearing on. 

[Js1 85336]

Joe Biden, who allegedly sucks and the Democrats also allegedly are stupid garbage, could head into the midterms having passed:

• American Recovery Plan - reconciliation FY2021
• Physical Infrastructure - bipartisan
• Endless Frontiers - bipartisan
• Human Infrastructure - reconciliation FY2022

And they technically have the FY2023 reconciliation that could be used right before midterms (starts 10/1/2022)

[Brisketexan 105139]

15 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Charles Flynn is not untouchable, so stop acting like you don't understand why he's not been booted out and arrested or whatever.  

Straw man.  I have not once said that he should be booted out of the military or arrested.

I said that I would not support putting him in ANY position where he would have the opportunity to lead troops in an effort to overthrow our government.  It may be that sending him to the opposite coast for his next command was to provide some buffer against that exact possibility.  I don't know.  

What I HAVE said is that I don't trust him.  And I don't.  And I think it would be foolish to do so, in light of his close connection to a fucking former general, sworn to uphold the constitution, who has OPENLY ADVOCATED FOR A VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT.....combined with his suspicious involvement in the affairs of January 6th, including the holdback of guard forces.

When it comes to people who might be in a position to overthrow my government, my loss of trust isn't predicated by fire, or even smoke....a mere whisp of smoke is enough, because the stakes are so high.

[Sawbonz 27561]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

combined with his suspicious involvement in the affairs of January 6th, including the holdback of guard forces.

Funny you left this part out before. It was all about who his brother was. Your Robespierre is bleeding through 

[wildcat09 29354]

18 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The original bipartisan framework was agreed upon by the G-21.  Looks like 10 of them were tasked with more detailed negotiations. 

So it looks like the Republicans in this group are Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, Jerry Moran, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, Mitt, Mike Rounds, Thom Tillis, and Todd Young. Those last three guys I've barely heard of and know next to nothing about. The others all seem trustworthy enough I guess (for Republicans) on this except for Graham and Portman. I'll believe that they'll vote to hand Biden a win the moment they actually do and not a second before.

[Brisketexan 105139]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Funny you left this part out before. It was all about who his brother was. Your Robespierre is bleeding through 

Naah, I just didn't type out every thought in my head.  I kinda get criticized for that around here.

And again, nowhere, no way, no how have I said that Charles should suffer any criminal sanction, beheading, or anything like that.  I just don't trust him with a contingent of troops in a position to overthrow my government.  There's a LOT of fucking daylight between Robespierre and "maybe we shouldn't put that guy in a perfect position to launch a coup against the government."