US Politics Thread 2016-2020 [Archive] - Page 16

Mr Quatro

11-11-17, 12:57 AM

I think Trump is in bigger trouble than his lies indicate ... He's going to have to confess that he doesn't even know how to be the POTUS.

The truth will come out when he has accomplished absolutely nothing, zero point zero with the health care bill and or the tax reform bill don't go forward this year which only has about 6 weeks left.

Trump said that Papadopoulos was just a low-level volunteer ... not so :oops:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/359891-nyt-papadopoulos-was-in-regular-contact-with-stephen-miller

The Trump campaign aide who suggested that President Trump journey to Russia to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin during the campaign was in regular contact with now-White House aide Stephen Miller, The New York Times reported Friday.

George Papadopoulos was in regular contact with Miller during the spring of 2016, a period during which Papadopolous also helped edit a major foreign policy speech Trump delivered, according to the Times.

In late October, Trump referred to Papadopoulos as a "low-level volunteer" on his campaign after it was revealed that Papadopoulos had pleaded guilty to lying to federal officials about his Russian contacts.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders also said Papadopoulos had a "limited" role in the campaign.

In fact Donald Trump might not have the GOP majority for much longer ... a GOP majority that can't even agree on tax reform pr a health bill no less.

(CNN)Unified governments are rare and fleeting in the US, and Republicans don't have much time to make the most use of theirs. That doesn't pertain just to this class of Republicans -- it's a pattern of recent history.

Right now, the GOP controls every lever of power in Washington -- the White House and both houses of Congress.

Dowly

11-11-17, 07:37 AM

Yup, as usual the White House's answer was simply to lie. The fact that Papa sat at the same table with Trump, Sessions and others as part of Trump's national security team pretty much confirms he wasn't just another low level volunteer among thousands of other volunteers.

Rockstar

11-11-17, 05:42 PM

In fact Donald Trump might not have the GOP majority for much longer ... a GOP majority that can't even agree on tax reform pr a health bill no less.

Actual spending cuts and reducing taxes, now that would be nice. Unfortunately without a budget, tax reform isn't really much more than just shuffling the existing burden around to different tax payers. Nothing really changes.

Dowly

11-13-17, 09:46 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZAPwfrtAFY

August

11-13-17, 11:55 AM

John Oliver is a Trump hating liberal. You can't believe anything he says.

Buddahaid

11-13-17, 12:50 PM

John Oliver is a Trump hating liberal. You can't believe anything he says.

Trump hating Liberals are automatic liars while Trump loving Conservatives are always truthful?
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/8/89/Lokai.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20081217004121&path-prefix=en

Dowly

11-13-17, 01:06 PM

Trump hating Liberals are automatic liars while Trump loving Conservatives are always truthful?
Yes.

Also, Putin.

mapuc

11-13-17, 01:16 PM

August

11-13-17, 01:33 PM

Trump hating Liberals are automatic liars while Trump loving Conservatives are always truthful?

No, but then again Trump loving Conservatives aren't pretending to be anything but the supporters they are. It's Liberals like Oliver who seem to have the problem acknowledging their bias.

Catfish

11-13-17, 01:35 PM

[..} I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that we have a leader that speaks "freely" without any filter. Markus

He is not our leader.

Mr Quatro

11-13-17, 01:54 PM

One thing are certain though

Diplomacy is, in Trump's world, something that belong in the twilight zone

Have just read about his latest tweet where he called KJU short and fat.

I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that we have a leader that speaks "freely" without any filter.

Markus

It's a good thing, because you have to stop and think ... then agree or disagree with his tweets.

It's called swinging the pendulum ... I wonder if the next POTUS (Mike Pence) will tweet his thoughts?

August

11-13-17, 02:04 PM

It's a good thing, because you have to stop and think ... then agree or disagree with his tweets.

It's called swinging the pendulum ... I wonder if the next POTUS (Mike Pence) will tweet his thoughts?

Who knows what technology they'll even be using in 2025?

Mr Quatro

11-13-17, 02:19 PM

Who knows what technology they'll even be using in 2025?

A lot can happen before 2025 :yep:

Sixteen (16) year old girl accuses President Trump of touching her on the butt and remarking what nice breast she has ... Mike Pence takes over duties of the POTUS (fake news) :D

em2nought

11-13-17, 03:50 PM

It's Liberals like Oliver who seem to have the problem acknowledging their bias.

How can they possibly be bias when their cause, the complete tearing down of everything that made the USA different from all the other jack wads out there, is so righteous and just? Really, do you even think before you post? LMAO :03:

August

11-13-17, 03:53 PM

How can they possibly be bias when their cause, the complete tearing down of everything that made the USA different from all the other jack wads out there, is so righteous and just? Really, do you even think before you post? LMAO :03:

LOL! :salute:

vienna

11-13-17, 05:13 PM

I think Trump is in bigger trouble than his lies indicate ... He's going to have to confess that he doesn't even know how to be the POTUS.

...

Trump's embrace of the "Big Lie" was well documented even before his election; since just before he made his run for office official, various news articles, some of them from conservative GOP reporters, have detailed his duplicity and more than casual disregard for the truth. It is no surprise he has continued his ways while in the Oval Office, disgracing the Presidency...

Trump does have big problems hovering just outside of what has been more broadly reported. As I have noted before, there is, thus far, no direct evidence linking him directly with the efforts of his campaign team members and other hangers-on to collude with Russian interests to sway the election. He does face a big potential problem with possible obstruction of justice charges over some of his actions in relation to the Russia investigations; there is a strong possibility, given Trump's seeming inability to keep from mucking up his own bed by pulling bone-headed stunts, that he may well find himself on the receiving end of an impeachment action...

His real big issue will be his finances: his long history of bankruptcies and evasion of contractual obligations has made him persona non grata to US banks who have refused to extend him loans or lines of credit. The situation was so bad for Trump, he had to go outside the US for financing and was finally given funding by Deutsche Bank to shore up his business empire. The problem with that is DB required some form of vouching for Trump's loans and an informal vouching was made by a Russian oligarch closely tied to Putin. In addition, there are not a few players in the Trump/DB dealings who are linked to Russian interests, some even named as part of the ongoing investigations. This is also not new reportage; numerous articles detailing Trump's DB dealings and the Russian connections were also in print and on the Net well before the election starting just before Trump made a formal run declaration. I posted several in the 2017 Presidential Election Thread in the months before the election, from a wide variety of sources. (Note: the fact the reportage occurred well before the election exposes another Trump "Big Lie", that the news coverage of his transgressions are an effort to ex facto overturn his election, patently false since the reports did start occurring long before Election Day.) DB has been investigated and fined for massive money laundering crimes, including for Russian clients, and continues to be the target of on-going probes; included in the probes are the actions and activities of some of the same people involved in the Trump campaign, such as Manafort who has just recently been indicted for, among other things, money laundering. Trump faces having his financial dirty laundry exposed to public scrutiny and the possibility of losing a major source of his funding:

Deutsche Bank Is Turning Over Information on Trump --

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/donald-trump-deutsche-bank-russia

Kushner firm’s $285 million Deutsche Bank loan came just before Election Day --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/kushner-firms-285-million-deutsche-bank-loan-came-just-before-election-day/2017/06/25/984f3acc-4f88-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.80b6043bbe7e

Here's an article from 29 Aug 2016, a little over two months before the 2017 Election, detailing the DB scandal and the ties to Russia:

Deutsche Bank’s $10-Billion Scandal --

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/29/deutsche-banks-10-billion-scandal

In the article, there is this:

...

Meanwhile, unlike many other Wall Street lenders, Deutsche Bank continues to loan millions of dollars to businesses associated with Donald Trump. When the Times questioned Trump recently about his credentials on Wall Street, he said that a private wealth manager at Deutsche Bank, Rosemary Vrablic, could vouch for him.

...

Rosemary Vrablic, prior to joining DB, had been Trump's personal banker...

DB is in such severe trouble over its own dealings, it would be a bit far-fetched to believe they would make an effort to shield Trump's dealing from investigators or prosecutors. If the probes manage to cause Trump being forced to open up his financial documentation, such as his jealously guarded tax returns, it is entirely possible Trump would rather just resign his office as an attempt to blunt further scrutiny, which, now, may actually be a bit too late..

The 'resign-rather-than-reveal' scenario is one I have said is most likely since Election Day; however, Trump has shown himself to be such an idiotic fool, he could very well try to derail or stop the probes and garner that obstruction of justice charge...

<O>

Onkel Neal

11-14-17, 11:13 AM

He is not our leader.

Lol, oh sure, but what are you going to say when he saves the planet? :)

Nippelspanner

11-14-17, 11:35 AM

Lol, oh sure, but what are you going to say when he saves the planet? :)
Oh you mean when he resigns?

razark

11-14-17, 12:07 PM

Lol, oh sure, but what are you going to say when he saves the planet? :)
"Thank you for your resignation, sir."

Dowly

11-14-17, 12:21 PM

"Thank you for your resignation, sir.":haha:

Onkel Neal

11-14-17, 12:53 PM

"Thank you for your resignation, sir."

I wish, lol

vienna

11-14-17, 04:12 PM

"Thank you for your resignation, sir."

I wonder what it will sound like when an entire nation simultaneously breathes a sigh of relief?... :haha:

<O>

August

11-14-17, 04:59 PM

After so many disappointments one would think that you guys would have finally accepted that it's just not going to happen. :)

vienna

11-14-17, 05:10 PM

Give it time...

...and most probably not too much more time... :haha:

<O>

mapuc

11-14-17, 06:07 PM

My guess is that Trump will be the President until his mandate ends which will be 19 or 20th of Januar 2020.

It may give some people happy or sad face depending on which side your on.

He could do very well during his first time as President, so weel that he get a second period as POTUS.

Markus

STEED

11-14-17, 06:16 PM

Trump may not get a second bite of the cherry if The Dems get there act together or Reps have some one else better. Check back in three years times.

vienna

11-14-17, 06:58 PM

Things just keep getting stranger and more vague when it comes to the influence of Twitter on opinion. The ability to grossly misuse the social site continues to cause problems. Take the case of a pseudo-Texan supporter of the Alt-Right:

How a Russian 'troll soldier' stirred anger after the Westminster attack --

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/14/how-a-russian-troll-soldier-stirred-anger-after-the-westminster-attack

Neal, all y'all Texans should consider suing for defamation... :haha:

The spreading of "fake news" is not only limited to Russian trolls; here is a case involving the Twit(ter)-In-Chief and his fragile ego:

AP FACT CHECK: Trump tells a tale about Air Force One --

https://www.apnews.com/cc41ae65537b479d9142b7edb8f4024c/AP-FACT-CHECK:-Trump-tells-a-tale-about-Air-Force-One

<O>

em2nought

11-14-17, 07:29 PM

Trump may not get a second bite of the cherry if The Dems get there act together or Reps have some one else better. Check back in three years times. The Democrats had someone that probably would have beat Trump, but they redistributed the nomination. LMAO :03: Trump was the best Republican candidate to win the nomination since Reagan, and the party still doesn't accept him. LOL That's how out of touch with their brains both parties are. :doh:

Skybird

11-14-17, 07:56 PM

After the Asia trip...

.................................................. .................................................. .........................."On my trip, they rolled out a red carpet for me like noone ever had one!"
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/images/roter_teppich_ts/20583518/2-format1007.jpg

The Donald - friend of the singing Duterte. Dont get in their way. :D

by Struttmann, Der Tagesspiegel

Skybird

11-14-17, 08:02 PM

G.W. Bush, painter, and his latest portrait.
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/images/portraet_ts/20484486/2-format1007.jpg
by Stuttmann, Der Tagesspiegel

Torvald Von Mansee

11-16-17, 01:29 AM

Trump was the best Republican candidate to win the nomination since Reagan

Even if that were true, that's like being the tallest midget.

eddie

11-16-17, 02:03 AM

Even if that were true, that's like being the tallest midget.

:haha::haha:

em2nought

11-16-17, 02:47 AM

Even if that were true, that's like being the tallest midget.

I wish the midget had been running this time. :D
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/13/dd/62/13dd621f7593140cbb4191818c36935d--texarkana-texas-plano-texas.jpg

August

11-16-17, 07:43 AM

Even if that were true, that's like being the tallest midget.

That midget still managed to beat your party like a red headed step child so you guys might want to find another line of attack.

vienna

11-16-17, 03:51 PM

That midget still managed to beat your party like a red headed step child so you guys might want to find another line of attack.

If you are referring to Perot (for whom I voted), he didn't beat either of the main parties, but he did garner about 19% of the popular vote, putting a dent in GHW Bush's run for a second term and putting a shiver of fear down the spines of both the major parties. Not bad for a "midget"...

If you are referring to the current Midget-In-Chief, He couldn't even get a plurality of the popular vote and has not seen any substantial elevation of the public's opinion of his capabilities; that is hardly a "beating" by any description; in fact, it looks like the other major party's candidate in fact did give him a beating in the vote, something he knows and still grouses about like a spoiled child who didn't get his way...

<O>

u crank

11-16-17, 05:13 PM

"I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman — not me, not Bill [Clinton], nobody — more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America,"
-President Barack Obama

Unfortunately he had that wrong. The Democrats could not have had a worse candidate. They should have known better. They only have themselves to blame for Trump. The email thing alone should have been enough to raise serious questions about her chances. Her behavior since the election seals the deal. Almost any body could have defeated Trump except her. I hope somebody learned something.

vienna

11-16-17, 06:40 PM

-President Barack Obama

Unfortunately he had that wrong. The Democrats could not have had a worse candidate. They should have known better. They only have themselves to blame for Trump. The email thing alone should have been enough to raise serious questions about her chances. Her behavior since the election seals the deal. Almost any body could have defeated Trump except her. I hope somebody learned something.

Actually, if it hadn't been for the existence of the Electoral College and the use of a "winner takes all" apportioning of that vote, Trump would not be the royal thorn he is to this country; as Trump has continuously carped and stewed about, he was not the direct choice of the voters themselves; he knows his office is held only by the machinations of the Electoral system and he did not have the confidence and support of the majority of the individual voters and has seen whatever support he did have slipping away as time has gone on; to say anyone could have defeated Trump is also indicative of another truth: the GOP could not field a viable candidate in 2016...

<O>

MaDef

11-16-17, 07:13 PM

Actually, if it hadn't been for the existence of the Electoral College and the use of a "winner takes all" apportioning of that vote, Trump would not be the royal thorn he is to this country; as Trump has continuously carped and stewed about, he was not the direct choice of the voters themselves; he knows his office is held only by the machinations of the Electoral system and he did not have the confidence and support of the majority of the individual voters and has seen whatever support he did have slipping away as time has gone on; to say anyone could have defeated Trump is also indicative of another truth: the GOP could not field a viable candidate in 2016...<O>
You do understand that the U.S. is not a straight democracy and never has been, right?

u crank

11-16-17, 07:26 PM

Actually, if it hadn't been for the existence of the Electoral College and the use of a "winner takes all" apportioning of that vote, Trump would not be the royal thorn he is to this country;

Hey it's your system.:D Ours isn't any better. Unless I live in the same riding (district) as the candidate for Prime Minister I can't vote for or against him. I can only vote for my candidate for Member of Parliament. If I like my candidate but don't like the PM candidate I'm in a quandary. I think your system is much better.

I also understand why the Electoral College system exists. Without it, your state, California would decide the Presidency every time. Hardly fair wouldn't you say. No system is perfect. I don't see the American system changing any time soon.

That being said I would ask you a question Vienna. Knowing all that we now know about Hillary and Bill (and I think we are going to find out a lot more in the weeks and months to come), would you want them in the White House?

..to say anyone could have defeated Trump is also indicative of another truth: the GOP could not field a viable candidate in 2016...

Oh I couldn't agree more. Trump is a clear indication that both parties are corrupt and have lost their way. Neither party has any idea or cares what the people really want. It's something like a ...um...er...swamp.:O:

vienna

11-16-17, 07:51 PM

You do understand that the U.S. is not a straight democracy and never has been, right?

Yep, I certainly do, but that still does not refute the fact the current sitting holder of the Oval Office never had and still does not have the majority support of the voting public and that his support is waning. Funny thing about being a leader: sometimes you become one, not because of talent or intelligence, or popularity, but because of some happenstance of a process; sometimes through inheritance (kings, sons of company founders, etc.), sometimes through freak circumstances (the fall or death of the existing leader, etc.), sometimes because there has been a dilution of viable alternatives; however it happens, the assuming of a leadership role does not, by any means, automatically mean the person in the leadership role is in any way qualified to lead, merely that some happenstance has placed the person in that position. Take Jimmy Carter, for whom I have much respect for his humanitarian efforts, as an example: Carter became President, not because he was necessarily the most qualified candidate, but because virtually no one the GOP could have run for the office could avoid the taint and stench f the Nixon debacle (there were, actually, a good number of GOP members who could have run, but chose not to, mainly because they did not want to put in the position of having to 'clean up' after Nixon); Carter didn't win because he was the best or most qualified, but because he wasn't associated with Nixon or the GOP that defended Nixon. The fact Carter's administration was a fair sized disaster makes the point. I think Jimmy Carter is a very fine, honest, moral, and principled man (something, oddly, making him inherently ill-suited for politics) and he has done and continues to do great humanitarian work. But Carter should never have been elected President...

The Trump and his Trumpettes fallback claim that he 'won' the election is hollow because, in his case, winning does not mean he enjoys the support of a majority of Americans nor has he ever had a clear mandate for his and his followers views and ideas. The current situation reminds me of situations I observed over the decades of my working life. There were a few times where I would be in a company where a person would find themselves as a supervisor or executive, not because they were qualified, but because of some circumstance. They would fumble and bumble along, often to the detriment of the company, and, ultimately, find themselves being shown the door. A lot of the employees could see the writing on the wall for the hapless victim and we just sort of sat back and made book on how long the dethroning would take; such is the feeling I get about Ol' Tiny Hands...

<O>

August

11-16-17, 08:20 PM

Simply put the electoral college puts the united in the United States.

vienna

11-16-17, 08:40 PM

Cheap sloganeering is often the sign of a paucity of the ability for logical standing and substance, but, if that makes it easier for you to try to justify gross incompetence, good for you... :haha:

Roy Moore seems to have been naughty fiscally as well as sexually; from the 13 Nov 2017 issue of the National Review magazine's "The Week" section:

Roy Moore, the Republican nominee for Senate in Alabama, set up a charity with a wonderful name: the Foundation for Moral Law. According to report in the Washington Post, he said that he would not take a "regular salary," not wanting to be a burden to the foundation. In truth, he took more than $1 million over five years, undisclosed on tax forms. Sometimes his salary amounted to a third of all contributions to the foundation. At least two of his children and his wife were on the payroll too. We'd say that members of the Moore family were doing well by doing good, except that it isn't clear what the positive contribution of the foundation was besides lining their pockets.

That name, "Moral Law"... :har:

<O>

Platapus

11-17-17, 08:02 AM

Hillary's legacy is being probably the only candidate that could lose to a buffoon like Trump.

2016 was a race to the bottom of the barrel.

I think the Republicans could have put anyone up and they still would have beaten Hillary.

I like to think that if the Democrats had put anyone but Hillary that Trump would have lost.

Picking Hillary was the Democrat's version of the Republicans nominating Palin. It was one of those "what were you thinkin?" moments that governs our politics.

Dowly

11-17-17, 08:12 AM

Myeah, Hillary especially was faced with a lot of dirt. Dirt that to this day has not been proven to be true. Hell, even AG Sessions said on Tuesday (or Wednesday?) that there needs to be a proper base for any special council on her (in response to why there has been no special council appointed to investigate Hillary.)

Catfish

11-17-17, 08:24 AM

^ But Trump said it, so it must be true. Like everything else he said.

Is there no law against reputational damage based on obvious lies b.t.w.?

u crank

11-17-17, 08:25 AM

Myeah, Hillary especially was faced with a lot of dirt. Dirt that to this day has not been proven to be true.

Depends what you mean by dirt. The Clinton email controversy is pretty much fact. As United States Secretary of State she used her family's private email server for official communications, rather than official State Department email accounts maintained on federal secure servers. That's a fact. Over 100 emails ere sent which contained classified information at the time they were sent. That's a fact. By her own admission this hurt her in the election. That's a fact as well.

Catfish

11-17-17, 09:05 AM

The Clinton email controversy is pretty much fact. [...] Over 100 emails ere sent which contained classified information at the time they were sent. [...]

Who sits in a glass house should not throw stones.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-republicans-who-did-exactly-what-hillary-did
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/04/colin-powell-condoleezza-rice-private-email-accounts-classified-hillary-clinton
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html

Jimbuna

11-17-17, 09:13 AM

The Pentagon accidentally retweets call for Trump to resign

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-42023605

How embarrassing :oops:

Catfish

11-17-17, 09:29 AM

^or maybe they knew exactly what they did :03:
Trump has not yet all staff exchanged with his yes-men.

Jimbuna

11-17-17, 09:37 AM

Possibily but I can imagine one or two heads might roll after this.

Cyborg322

11-17-17, 10:07 AM

USA has Trump the UK Boris

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/photos/2015/09/an-illustrated-history-of-donald-trumps-hair#9

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/gallery/2012/jun/08/boris-johnson-bad-hair-pictures#img-2

Is it something to do with the Hair ?

Thinking of getting one of these , think it will make me Rich and Famous ?

https://ibb.co/djvHa6

Dowly

11-17-17, 10:22 AM

Depends what you mean by dirt. The Clinton email controversy is pretty much fact. As United States Secretary of State she used her family's private email server for official communications, rather than official State Department email accounts maintained on federal secure servers. That's a fact. Over 100 emails ere sent which contained classified information at the time they were sent. That's a fact. By her own admission this hurt her in the election. That's a fact as well.Like AG Sessions said, there needs to be some base for accusations before special council can be appointed.

As for your "facts", do you have sources for them? You know, actual facts?

u crank

11-17-17, 11:38 AM

Who sits in a glass house should not throw stones.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-republicans-who-did-exactly-what-hillary-did
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/04/colin-powell-condoleezza-rice-private-email-accounts-classified-hillary-clinton
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/politics/private-email-trump-kushner-bannon.html

I hardly see how other peoples wrong doing excuses Mrs. Clinton. None of those people accepted the nomination to run for President. My point has been that this was one of a number of reasons why she lost. She is on the record blaming FBI Director James Comey, among others for her loss. The DNC was well aware of this but stuck with her. Kind of a comedy of errors. My point was that based just on that 'matter' alone she should not have been the Democratic nominee. End result ..Donald Trump.

August

11-17-17, 11:39 AM

Like AG Sessions said, there needs to be some base for accusations before special council can be appointed.

As for your "facts", do you have sources for them? You know, actual facts?

Sources!, really? What's next? Will we also need source links to claim that the Holocaust actually happened too?

How about an FBI official transcript, is that good enough for you?:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

u crank

11-17-17, 12:40 PM

@ August. Beat me to it. :D

There's some light reading there.

Catfish

11-17-17, 02:11 PM

[..] The DNC was well aware of this but stuck with her. Kind of a comedy of errors. My point was that based just on that 'matter' alone she should not have been the Democratic nominee. End result ..Donald Trump.

She should have refrained from becoming the candidate?
What about Trump's open racism, insults, or his lies too numerous to quote?
Just of all this ***** should never have been allowed to get even close to becoming a nominee. It seems people were just stunned and never thought this bigmouth made it. He appealed to the lowest instincts, and won. Mrs Clinton was much too intellectual.
They wanted a buffoon and they got it. End of story.

Now let's see how he puts her into jail because of eMails. Along with Jeb Bush, and his own advisors.

u crank

11-17-17, 03:19 PM

What about Trump's open racism, insults, or his lies too numerous to quote?

Here we go again. Because one person is bad that doesn't make the other one good. I'm not defending Trump. I never have. I'm repeating myself but one of the main reasons that Trump is President is because the other candidate was so obviously flawed. There are other factors but that is one of them. People don't vote for people that they don't like or trust.

She should have refrained from becoming the candidate?

Um, yes. She should have. It was a mistake. it was a mistake for the DNC to let her become a candidate. It was a mistake for her to be careless with sensitive material while in a job like Secretary of State of the USA. And she is still a year later questioning the legitimacy of the election. Unbelievable. She has blamed her loss on everyone but herself. America dodge a bullet.

Mrs Clinton was much too intellectual.

If you are going to equate someones intellect with their moral character, you could be disappointed.

vienna

11-17-17, 03:37 PM

Two interesting first-hand takes on Roy Moore and his 'character':

I know Roy Moore. He’s always been a con artist. --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/roy-moore-is-a-fraud/2017/11/17/45c0edfe-caf9-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.eb1c91467c73

(Note: the above article has some interesting background information on the history of the US Baptist Church...)...

Roy Moore’s Disingenuous Defense --

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/roy-moore-disingenuous-defense

If this clown actually wins the Alabama US Senate seat, hopefully the GOP leadership in the Senate will follow-through on their rumblings to oust him at the earliest opportunity...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOQpjvnm4ME

<O>

Dowly

11-18-17, 02:52 AM

How about an FBI official transcript, is that good enough for you?:

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-systemYes, that is good enough.

Did you read the following bit?

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

[..]

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

Nippelspanner

11-18-17, 05:10 AM

I wonder, why are some people here still so crazy about Hillary?

She doesn't matter anymore. She holds no power (let's be grateful), there won't be some magical return, she is of no importance whatsoever considering the current problems of the United States.

Ironically, those that yell "drain the swamp!" all the time seem to care more about partisan politics rather than actually draining that, by now, really murky swamp in Washington.

em2nought

11-18-17, 09:06 AM

She should have refrained from becoming the candidate?
What about Trump's open racism

Nobody ever called Trump a racist until he had the audacity to run against the anointed successor to Mr. "Change"
http://terrygydesen.com/files/10-King-Trump-Jackson1.jpg

...and what's this about Trump losing support and Hillary winning the election? It's the winners that get to write the history, but go on keep trying. :03:

Catfish

11-18-17, 12:51 PM

^ Trump not a racist? No one ever called Trump a racist? A bit delusional today?

One of hundreds of examples, long before his nomination
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/trumps-long-history-of-racism-w497876

Besides all that, just look at him and listen to what he says. Only someone who is deaf dumb and blind would not see what is there.

em2nought

11-18-17, 04:40 PM

A bit delusional today?

Speaking of delusions, let's face it Trump is North Vietnam to Hillary's USA :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgJvgESR920

August

11-18-17, 09:33 PM

Yes, that is good enough.

Did you read the following bit?

Well I listened to the whole thing live but the funny thing is that the statute does not mention intent.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

Buddahaid

11-18-17, 10:09 PM

Then the FBI considered it to be not gross negligence.

Rockstar

11-18-17, 10:17 PM

https://media.giphy.com/media/Ov9I1LONvXjEc/giphy.gif

Buddahaid

11-18-17, 10:31 PM

That's helpful. Seriously, the FBI's recommendation was that a case could not be effectively built from the evidence. Opinions are just that, opinions, not proofs.

Von Due

11-19-17, 05:28 AM

Just some food for thoughts
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42031670

Now, it may be easy to latch onto the side story here, the accusations, but one might want to have a sit down and think-through on the main story: Tribalism and how it shapes the political landscape, how the voters shape the landscape.

Catfish

11-19-17, 06:05 AM

^ a threatening idea.. but it explains a lot for all sides.

We are animals organised in tribes. Monkeys with high speed digital fibre optic technology, but still just tribes. Monkeys that hate.

u crank

11-19-17, 08:05 AM

We are animals organised in tribes. Monkeys with high speed digital fibre optic technology, but still just tribes. Monkeys that hate.

You got that right man. Well said. :up:

Just some food for thoughts
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42031670

Good find. This caught my eye.

In the context of Donald Trump, political scientists have recently discovered that voters aren't stupid - they are actually quite capable of recognising that a politician is lying. But it doesn't change the way they feel about him.

It seems to me that in America and other places as well, voters are put in a position that they don't want to be in. To make a choice that they don't want to make. It's an imperfect system that's not likely to change.

In Moore's case there is a lot a stake. If Jones, the Democrat wins, and he is ahead in the polls, the GOP advantage in the Senate goes down to one. With John McCain and Rand Paul that is big trouble for the GOP.

Rockstar

11-19-17, 01:56 PM

Am I now to think the truth is that Gorillas must hate Orangutans because the Gorilla would rather live within its own borders with other Gorillas? Or would it be better to say the two beasts know how to *live and let live?

*you should tolerate the opinions and behavior of others so that they will similarly tolerate your own

Catfish

11-19-17, 02:04 PM

^ not a problem when these live in Africa, and those in Borneo :D

Rockstar

11-19-17, 09:14 PM

^ not a problem when these live in Africa, and those in Borneo :D

https://media.giphy.com/media/TwtXMS5EnKDBK/giphy.gif

vienna

11-20-17, 08:14 PM

Well I listened to the whole thing live but the funny thing is that the statute does not mention intent.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

In criminal law, intent is a part of the whole basis for prosecution along with means, and opportunity, etc.; it is not necessary for a statute to explicitly state intent as part of a violation. Basically, any criminal case has to have the component of intent in order to be prosecutable and, ultimately, for a finding of guilt...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

The need to how intent is what keeps a person who accidentally or unintentionally causes a harm from being prosecuted and convicted harshly by an extreme application of a law; this is the fundamental criteria that defines the difference between 1st degree murder and involuntary manslaughter; without the proof of intent, every person who took a life, even accidentally, would be open to a 1st degree murder charge...

<O>

Dowly

12-01-17, 01:14 PM

Michael Flynn pleads guilty to lying to the FBI (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michael-flynn-charged-with-making-false-statement-to-the-fbi/2017/12/01/e03a6c48-d6a2-11e7-9461-ba77d604373d_story.html?utm_term=.7976e1f53334)

Former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty Friday to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, and authorities indicated in court he was acting under instructions from senior Trump transition officials in his dealings with the diplomat.

Mr Quatro

12-01-17, 01:51 PM

Pleaded guilty with a deal I betcha ... :yep:

I bet you ... (in case Steve is reading this thread)

August

12-01-17, 01:54 PM

Pleaded guilty with a deal I betcha ... :yep:

I bet you ... (in case Steve is reading this thread)

What do you want to bet that this does not affect the president?

vienna

12-01-17, 04:49 PM

Sucker bet for you... :03:

The news reports regarding the Flynn deal have made mention of Flynn having acted at the direct behest of Trump on some of the matters at issue, not a good prospect for Ol' Yellow Hair, if proved; the fact that Flynn got such a light deal considering all the other charges he could have faced indicates whatever cooperation and information he has been sharing with the Special Counsel is/was worth the price, somewhat similar to the break John Dean got in the Watergate scandal. I still have a strong suspicion Flynn and the others involved with contacts with Russia were acting on a belief their contacts were secure and out of the sight and purview of the FBI, NSA, etc. when they really weren't; Flynn, Manafort, and a couple of the other actors seemed to be genuinely shocked and surprised when the details of the when, where, and who of the contacts were revealed. It will be interesting to see what shakes out now...

The good, the bad and the ugly of Michael Flynn's guilty plea --

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/362813-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-flynn-indictment

<O>

vienna

12-01-17, 04:53 PM

https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1198519048p4/44567.jpg (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/44567.Theodore_Roosevelt)

“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”

― Theodore Roosevelt

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/3a/e6/04/3ae60417918eb26ce5eed9dcd3c68231--mark-twain-quotes-huckleberry-finn.jpg

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/ 8kKDQsJCYxJx8fLT0tMTU3Ojo6Iys/RD84QzQ5OjcBCgoKDQwNGg8PGjclHyU3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nz c3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3Nzc3N//AABEIAKAAoAMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAACAwEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAADBQIEBgcBAAj/xAA6EAACAQMDAgUBBgYBAgcAAAABAgMABBESITEFQQYTIlFhcR QjMoGRoUJSscHR8AczRBUWQ1OCouH/xAAUAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/8QAFBEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP/aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8A1iuSyg9u9SIzqJbOKiR6QwGMV8w3IOTtm g9YjBzXsERZTjg15qULlqnC/pA3BJxgcmgtW/kBgDGSfY8VZlUaTgaVcbbcGqkZdiAFOCOTRryYJEBIQxU9u3zQ WwYpLXEgLdvT/WvLNEiMkJIbLZU5zvSkXMmsaTlmGVHZqC10/wBpE4JA1YfUNgfrQO7u+jtE0IpVc7fH+msr1bxAtrM6PcxYMRI 1ZODjAHHJNW+qXvmRKVAGkgP3xWI8TW8k8Ml5F63GQ6nJ0jbgU DWw68bufy1fQWQAqTjyz2x8GmUXWXtxpuh5mCccbf7vXKormT7 OzQ3BWRTgRYxqA4wfcHO3emvR+otGipesQkaAy6gQ6fUf2+tB1 e1ukl9XYjII/vVwNvsNiK5x0/q0Vj1VLeK5DW8ow0ZOfLf/AB8dq6HapK0SyJGxVhzg70BWXj5oZXNEY7Y/Dg53rz0+oEj3FAPzCrY9xX0bDNQUYbcY3oiqGO21BItpB32oTs cZqTkbgg0N3AUbfQ0AicjPPce1QLnkfqK9DAYK/mKKoyNgCaAKp5mzgBPc1egiVXAl9TAbBv4f0oYACgHAHI/zTKyjWM+a6rnH4jvQBuGYYI/+3f6Uq6g7hQRGQN8MOD+dObhxNcx28eCzZzjsPemv2CE2yxBTh Rse9Bgba4u1XXlWZO7PjH133o0sqSKxMaOTu5AwT9SdjWjm6DJ I2AqhM51HGR9KFJ4djAIcs4IxktQZH7SPvltYmKKMLlvTqzwPi s89ndzSRu6yRRy6gUVfUvuTvp/pmumN0WBIxHEmADnbahnpKpjGRvkig43P4XumnMXlKrNnTIOH/Lsf80wTw1PFauLxppXcD7xcFgV3GxP98V02e3WHdUQAnPHFVZY UOc4Pfig534S8PteeIDJfyIy220YMKqpP5AZxvvXX4pZoI4woy vDKCAV+mOaxr3H2APIEBVWGcHBx7U4h64jqBIdmGcgbg9s0Dub S4Gdy3BPf4oLhSMoe2MZ4pNN1nKkR+p493U7V43Ufs8rO6lY2G c0DVY8sM7H2zUlTBzUIpo5Y1eJgx5x9anq57UEX2DCqz5437d6 sOd8Gqkr+sjNB7pGgkYB969hLZGhfVmvlIOxolvESxYZGKAj+Y mNsHOSD/iq93fSwaVjUFidOSfw/J9hTUQLHHoXGpsbcGlx6b5c73Mw3VTgljgfODQWvDMEpuZbi7b Ux2XPbfmtQG0ikPTBohzq1MTuR7+5pmrtjcmgsyT4XaqjzA798 147MDnt7ULXrJOnig+MgzxVWadRnO9HfbYbAiqMytGdwDke9BQ uJdZIG68VRmYoOScjHHFMJo04K6SN+M/vSy5GDu+3J34oKtxBrtJA2ykH1VnrK4dp47WOVGZAUdyf+nknT n4xt+VaC4nRYHzgj+U1ibvyWuyQkjhjjQchvyx/WgeyyqJUjn0xXCNhXG4Oex+DirF1bugWNwQqn0sN8D2PxWfs72 WED7M3mQLuvmAEEdwc8EU1g8SRxy6bqOWNS2xUgsh42zsR8UF/plzdW4KzxBouUdGxtnbFaa0uvMgxJHIrg8kUit7pon1RPHcRMM g8b/TtTq1lE8RYsIzgZXn8s0B5zpAY96ryY1D6V4XMjYIxjioO+P8U HwIYhTkb0ysCrOiliI03dj3+KUg4kBX3q0GfytByVYkNwKBzH1 KJmkuNKlP8A0ge/zS+5u2l1Fn2I9+DSjqN0kEOmFd8cZ7CvOlyrdwDU7az63PON+K B3YXYhiVShZGbIKn+tX7nr/SrcRpPdJE7DZW71lvEF29j0YXSxO5Y6I0UZZmPAFck8SX3UoL8 p1C0FvLIdlkfcj5yNxQfof/xK1mi1wyo647GqC35e4UIQEZigye4Ga4N0rqfUYbpIkk0EEEqD kYP9BXZ4rK4Hh+0ucDzlPmfUmgbTX0Skh5VTSN9Rqub60LALdo SeSG4/L9K5D4qklkme4lvZFVW4EhwP/wApBaXt0t40saGUj0uXlK7nuTvj6UHbJer2gmW389DI253z/u1VbuRWIZiAMYBNcw6ddXF3DN1OWzuY7UeiSdDr0frvj6Cnds0 oCTW90s1owGCO31/3vQP7kr5UuyjA4O+ax0nUJNTN5jogfD6d1Ke2KedQuXgjOdmZS PpmseJDHG0Wk5JwpXbPwfigd9GeFZpC8qiLSPMVsgFW7/B5r3qEavIYI8uIhkSFeRtg/pSeAP8AZlmdNaIxwQ3B25FEHW2jk1lo2bRpMbKSCPYUGn6fdOl rrXT6GGRjkHkVae9ZZIySY11YbL5/Sst0vqSNFMkuQwPp1d/81oYRH1M+TtlCB6vb/RQa20cGNXyTkfnU5FyCRuBzULeM2tukepvTgVJvUjZGRnvQRAK sPrRmLGP0kZ3NVw5ByAQfipwnQeT7770CHr0rRlJTqAGx996b+ F5VdMyrnVjS2MZFWzaxXLIZFDafj3q/bW0aqMbBeMDH5UDC3jXy4nkTzWXO2ng0HqCWdxC0LWDTMx3GgD 96NbyYII4xtirqOdJMh00GbtvDdmsgle0iifJwAoyAexNO+uzx 2PS1GFACbLR0+/IaMfdE5z/N8ilHi0xzxJGz6Qp4NBz+16LB1K/hup1XQrYeP3+lalug9Ft4nhWwt4/MXSRo2I5G/wBd6V21zYwziJZfVqwSTgGtNGFni0fiGNs9qDH3XQbaCGWK1ji WBsny9Z05PxWdsLGXpEjLGwMchzjGyn3rol/awpGdKqgUc5zmkdxbweQcDLfzc/nQIrxnuS8JUHWOQOPzrMdRs3tYVjm0hgCds4I5OCa10XpkJbb1 b/NK/ESytKjpH5ilCrjH4cd/60GcN55Fi8Jc6ZHGx7jnf86ja2bXSholQMDkuX0k/vj9qovehRkLrI29W452q50xJ7oiNAGDfwKhOn32oCzWc0MeuK4 SVE2Kq+SorX+E4G8uK704BOlt+azvTukXL3c2YgkWgqD2JrpPQ 7BbbpUMbj1bk4oGUi5QFeD80NAMYK71JxhCFOcDGM0NGUYyd/agEJFIGMnA+lS15AxyT3qpGw7c5ogAK4yR9DQXopxGB5Z3NGW6 YKFIznfPc1QVioUD2/Wh3Ds+CNSkbDBoNRay5iSUd1qhfXF11FzZ2bAf+5ID+EVLpbsO lwGYFDp3JB2oDS29qztAwUBMuxO/xQO/t8VhCtszoWiUKpBxkcA1jfEvWrdcyTXCogG7NSvraP1GK7KuyF FbAG22Rv8An7/FZvqfhdhE9yWeS320l2LAbA5oB3fiPpNysqW8b6x+EuhBb6d62 fgHrclxYLFc6jIFyGP8Qye/vXOE6UI7EXSRShwpZQpByByeN/19603S7uSzYIRpdnBBOdIGBt9ON/mg2PWr05OD+VZ/7Tr2324+lW7qZbhA+CrZ9YblWHIpdGuiUsTkGgDcSYPsDzRY4p nsLk2oDTeUdGrfJ7Deq19/0SRjPeqFx1226VB980rzEeiFNtX1PYfvQZv/AMvyjrEdjI+hmALk76cjJyaZ2Dx9Pv5Ybe5WNB92WPLj3pXH1K 7v72W4kdA8oIwNhv2FLWCrMzO4Mg3OTqGaDrtpddF6fbqZrxJJ MA4J3z8AVpldNKFMEEbYri3QOm3nVvMXp4h0pguThSc11XpMd3 DZpFeBVZPwhTnAoGDkkkDAoJ7+j/5Zr1nz+InPxUcexz9KCggCtpPtRtWkAEEUMYOOx96KuxGWoPhJ 6huf0qQlAlzJ6kAyw4oB2Y4Od6MoLYUso3GSePegP1Xqhi6Y+h XZyuNKD34HxXPrzrjpbXkJLMcHHf1A9vfIJOa2ask9wVchlC+k Ec78/tSDxB0Mz3Ec0SaWJ+8P8wHFBkIuo3zxPEuI0cKrsXIyo3AH60y vepzzmy6YNUltkK5wV1nvv7U6t/Dj41FW349NXpekYgQC20spyH075oEVkLW+uLg3c/3cDqmpRgeWqkADvy37GoC5VLK4ijRJYQVkOuID059TAZznJB/Kpv0K66dMzxKZBcNhhj8IPJP+96W+bJZz3crrkM+hl4zyx2+cn j3oHdl1SOfPnSECNlhdtWdWxODnkjGAe4IzxTKNkkXUB3zjPFY +2keGFirYLsrxuN2QjO+4xuNqf9EmNzGZJA+Se4xwdyPcUBL2M 6RttznNY3xSPvYyOF2GNz81vL4pFDj+TJOawF5runYldy2Ac75 zQUrOE7tKVjixuzZ2/KvZ5InlwgGgDZmXG/vVqC10RukzBNQ/i70CGz84pEDnWRjt6j/ag13gDprveHqUTjymysig5zXRiNIx/akvhDpkfTOhQQRqwcktIX2JNOTxucgdz2oPMAkbbZ3NQfYkJX2 vsKGSQMZ5oKh1eXwcjk9hXy5LA5oqqANQTnj615htQBxj4oIAk ZL/AJGhuckKDj5opj5wOKGVBkQAcUA1DRNqLEP224pp0t0u7hY7hQ D/AAj3pc7ZJ3HGKLZxLJcQqWIYnAIOCDQa23uLG3bTIqjBxgniiT XfS3GWjUHPIasF1y46xbNIkMMM4G+okq2Ky8nia89euBlIJzl+ KDonUuoWEgZQq4HGawnV0tzM8qsFY75XOTSiTrtxMSpjQHHvmq El07D1sxPzQNI4lCwxg5GQXYkZ23Aq9bzpBEkcW+g8c7Gs/C+jDSuyjPxvUW6ir4hjOkMdh/E30oHl3etcQnByO4HduwHxSqz8iG3UzFTMJDkY3ppZ+Huu9SKv B0+SOM/heciNf339u1S6n4QPSLOe66l1qyW5RDIluoOXI7ZJz+1BorXwp ZdXtYGuWdVjxq0/xfGe1O7fw30mxm8+3tI9ajC5GcY+tZfwv466JaWEdrfNPA+MNI 6Fl/Udq2dt1Gzv7fzrC6imj90bNB9KF1E5wtV5nGSBuvvRt2Rs8UFg de/FAJW2z843qSjHG5b9q9Yquke5zX2jAJJ3zQU1kQPwSCNyTUi4D 8nHxS2OQOc6uaOGH8R2xgCgu6lOTkuKHqGr0gfShg6jtnUP3oc syQxs8uURfxE7ZoPLmaKzjknnOI1GSay/TfEc1/4y6VFH91bG5UBAfxe2aW+IutSdRIVcpAvAB5Puad+AfD6npE3i SdVZ47pLe2Rv4MEMzfUnSB7b+9B0icxxQ3UkvYEZNca6y7zXMh C/d6ufeu33XR7nqKtHGmIn5Zthiqy+BOlfZ2jvbj7s/jEJxkfLc/0oOCyTpEgVAS57gZNPOieDPE3VU8+36Y8EJ/7i6zEv14yf0rd9X8TeDvBLlfC/SbS7vuDKvq0/WQkn9K514k8beIPEMh+23rJC3/bQnSgH07/U0DyXoPhPo+W8Rdfk6hcLs1tYDCqR2JG5/UUF/wDkHp/TIjB4V6Bb2yjiafBY/O2/6msE2xJGDUDxQPupeMvEHU1xP1ORFP8ADCBGP23/AHpCx1uWbdjuWO5P514BtXnHNBPOCafeA7w2PimzZG0pOTE47H I2z+dZ/G29eq7xMrpIUdGDKw7Eb0H6FdVJyyAkNkfBqLerfilfhrrMfXe lRXSLolUaJ07qwpqSNCk7igG6jTxx3oOWD5B7cGiFsggg/rUG1BhqwaBBGVY7ABQdvijBtThc8VRQsp1af0osb6VLsTtufpQ Wr2/g6fCXmYADf61i+r9Xn6iSDmK33ITk4+ar9TvZL++ZiT5asfLXG aXXkvlwsM+s9zzigBcSGS4CA5GwGDzTK36lcw2gs45JPsykssH mtpBO5OO5NUek2U12JJI19K7a22ANNLdYbc51KZM581FJCj4Bo On23/I0fT+gWdu8DvdpAqlDsFwMett8HasH13xL13qaH7be4hYnCQ+h QOwOOeaSanlckhiT2J7/AN6MzR4RI4nJy2XbHHtj+1BQmVijYAOdhtzmqsyrHsO2xOdj80 wFzputIiLt5ZOFXaH549v60GazEq+fG+tGyfSO3fn86BackEhR ih8rtV8W44bIxvgnBOeK9kgVY86gM984FAv0nNT0Dg5z/SplkLnQCx7Y4qSQSlSQQASRgHfagARpA7mo9jnY/NWNGrSQoUHuByPfFR8snOBnf23oN3/xLdW6tf2Uk2m5l0uiH+JRsfz4rohUqpAFcBgaaGZZYXaKaM5Rw cFT2rqPg3xmnWALHqICX+PS42Sb6ezfFBqNIBPbtUZmzlsfpRg c41DFAn2X2NB//9k=

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

― Mark Twain

<O>

Platapus

12-01-17, 05:00 PM

To paraphrase Mark Twain

When the Trump administration calls role at a meeting, the attendees don't know whether to answer "present" or "not guilty". :D

Catfish

12-01-17, 05:05 PM

How i imagine Trump meetings (Careful: blood content):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy3MtznDeqg

August

12-01-17, 06:16 PM

How i imagine Trump meetings

Funny that's just how I would imagine a Hillary meeting and there's an actual body count to back it up. :)

vienna

12-01-17, 06:29 PM

Flynn says he is cooperating with Mueller probe --

https://www.yahoo.com/news/flynn-says-cooperating-mueller-probe-215844248.html

Flynn’s lawyers released a statement by him after his court appearance. “After over 33 years of military service to our country, including nearly five years in combat away from my family, and then my decision to continue to serve the United States, it has been extraordinarily painful to endure these many months of false accusations of ‘treason’ and other outrageous acts,” it said. “Such false accusations are contrary to everything I have ever done and stood for. But I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong, and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right. My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel’s Office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions.”

Lock him up!!, Lock him up!!, Lock him up!!, ... :03: :D

em2nought

12-02-17, 12:41 AM

How i imagine Trump meetings

Senator John McCain does not give this video a thumbs up. :03:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKc_X2PV4AAlj9s.jpg

Rockstar

12-02-17, 07:12 AM

ABC's Bob Ross report removed from website and round filed . Still waitng for someone to be busted for Russian/Trump Campaign collusion. <yawn>

Dowly

12-02-17, 09:08 AM

Funny that's just how I would imagine a Hillary meeting and there's an actual body count to back it up. :)There is? Can you provide any examples?

Platapus

12-02-17, 10:46 AM

There is? Can you provide any examples?

I think it is one of those fox news things

Dowly

12-02-17, 10:50 AM

I think it is one of those fox news thingsYes, that is why I asked. When anything Trump related happens FOX is immediately bringing up Hillary, or in Flynn's case I think they reminded that he was hired by Obama, but of course forgot to tell that Obama fired him and warned Trump to not hire him. Whataboutism.

Onkel Neal

12-02-17, 11:21 AM

To paraphrase Mark Twain

When the Trump administration calls role at a meeting, the attendees don't know whether to answer "present" or "not guilty". :D

:har:

Looks like the investigation is leading to the Top... so, hopefully we will have a new President, soon, maybe Paul Ryan? :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up::Kaleun_Thumbs_Up: :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

Dowly

12-02-17, 11:34 AM

I know not much about Pence other than that he is a rather religious man, but Paul Ryan is/used to be a proponent of Ayn Rand's stuff which certainly wouldn't be good. As much as people say they hate regulations, I feel they are extremely important to have.

Or to put it in one picture:
https://i.imgur.com/rVkhjbg.jpg

August

12-02-17, 11:37 AM

There is? Can you provide any examples?

You can start with four:

US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, USFS officer Sean Smith, CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty.

em2nought

12-02-17, 11:38 AM

:har:

Looks like the investigation is leading to the Top... so, hopefully we will have a new President, soon, maybe Paul Ryan? :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up::Kaleun_Thumbs_Up: :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

Silly voters thinking they could elect anyone they please. Bahahahaha :yep:

Dowly

12-02-17, 11:53 AM

You can start with four:

US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, USFS officer Sean Smith, CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty.
So Benghazi, is there any proof that the blame falls on Clinton? If so, please post source(s) so I can read and check them. I honestly don't know much about the incident, which is why I ask.

August

12-02-17, 11:59 AM

Silly voters thinking they could elect anyone they please. Bahahahaha :yep:

Yep if they manage to bring Trump down there will never be a successful challenge to the Deep State again, at least one that doesn't involve blood shed.

August

12-02-17, 12:00 PM

So Benghazi, is there any proof that the blame falls on Clinton? If so, please post source(s) so I can read and check them. I honestly don't know much about the incident, which is why I ask.

Yeah right... :roll:

Dowly

12-02-17, 12:06 PM

I take that as a "no" then.

EDIT: Why wouldn't you provide sources for that? If it is so sure a situation there should be plenty to provide, right? Yet you don't.

vienna

12-02-17, 02:10 PM

https://i1.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/07fd-_3zcwZrx2VCD.jpg?w=800&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C477px&ssl=1

https://i1.wp.com/thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/0HabAoOK6Ey7-o446.jpg?w=800&crop=0%2C0px%2C100%2C429px&ssl=1

Here's the source:

https://thinkprogress.org/proof-that-the-benghazi-investigation-is-totally-unlike-any-other-in-two-charts-74bb343f7292/

Note four times as many Committees investigated Benghazi than investigated 9/11 and there were 45% more hearings on Benghazi than 9/11. Over-investigated, much?...

The above includes Committees and Hearings chaired by GOP Chairmen and having GOP majority membership, and, yet, none of them were able to directly or indirectly place blame on Clinton; also note the above does not include the investigations conducted by other agencies and entities such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc., that, likewise, were unable to directly or indirectly place blame on Clinton; yet the Far Right, the Tin-Foil Hat crowd, and the desperate Trumpettes persist in endlessly and needlessly and, at times, at great taxpayer expense, bring up this tired and overly disproved canard. The facts are out there, but, of course, the facts only get in the way of those who can only cling to fantasy in order to shore up their idiocies; maybe they should go back to something 'factual', like Pizzagate...

<O>

u crank

12-02-17, 02:43 PM

Note four times as many Committees investigated Benghazi than investigated 9/11 and there were 45% more hearings on Benghazi than 9/11. Over-investigated, much?...

Possible but that doesn't change the findings.

The above includes Committees and Hearings chaired by GOP Chairmen and having GOP majority membership, and, yet, none of them were able to directly or indirectly place blame on Clinton....

That might be true as well but there is plenty of blame to go around.

the report drilled down on new details about how Clinton’s State Department failed to protect the diplomatic outpost in Libya. The report also said that the CIA missed the looming threat despite warnings and wrote faulty intelligence reports after the attack. And GOP staff said their findings indicate that the Defense Department did not meet its response times to deploy military assets to Benghazi and follow-up to ensure Americans were rescued in a timely fashion.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/benghazi-report-obama-clinton-224854

yet the Far Right, the Tin-Foil Hat crowd, and the desperate Trumpettes persist in endlessly and needlessly and, at times, at great taxpayer expense, bring up this tired and overly disproved canard. The facts are out there, but, of course, the facts only get in the way of those who can only cling to fantasy in order to shore up their idiocies;

:har: Now why does that sound familiar.

vienna

12-02-17, 03:14 PM

...

Possible but that doesn't change the findings.

...

So, you're saying you agree with the findings of all those investigation that there is no direct, individual culpability of Clinton? Because, that is substantially and specifically the findings of all those investigations...

Now, if only the Trumpettes would stop trying to flagellate deceased equines and turn the same extreme, obsessive, and persistent scrutiny towards the failings, excesses and criminality of the Trump Administration, perhaps they'd actually find some real, genuine, worrisome and substantial issues to carp about; I know the vast majority of other Americans have...

...

:har: Now why does that sound familiar.

Because its been said so often about the Trumpettes and their leaders?....

<O>

u crank

12-02-17, 04:28 PM

So, you're saying you agree with the findings of all those investigation that there is no direct, individual culpability of Clinton? Because, that is substantially and specifically the findings of all those investigations...

Other findings of the same investigation..

But the final section of Gowdy’s report does sharply criticize both Clinton’s use of a private email account and what it called the administration’s “shameful” stonewalling of the investigation. The report said the administration’s refusal to turn over all records to the panel made it impossible for committee investigators to say with certainty that they have reviewed all the facts surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

“What may appear at first blush to be a lack of competence on behalf of the State Department now appears fully intentional and coordinated,” according to an exclusive copy of a part of the report that alleges the administration stonewalled Gowdy’s probe. “Delaying the production of documents sought by letter, informal request or subpoena has decided political advantages for those opposing the investigation.”

The report will also detail the Defense Department’s failure to move assets to respond during the attack. The panel found that while President Barack Obama and then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta approved the military to do all that it could just after 8:30 that night, no one was deployed for hours and DOD failed to meet deployment times, according to one committee staffer.

The committee also blasts the State Department’s internal investigation of the attack, known as the Accountability Review Board, for allegedly coordinating with Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. Such reviews are traditionally independent.

The committee spoke to at least one State Department official who said the traditional setup of an ARB was not followed, noting Mills’ involvement.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/benghazi-report-obama-clinton-224854

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Wrong doing, culpability and incompetence are sometimes hard to distinguish. The responsibility ultimately lies with those in charge. There is no doubt that Clinton's role in this was politicized by the GOP during this investigation. That's not a viable excuse. Like so many things with this woman, it's never her fault. I believe that this tragedy and the resulting attempt to distract from the actual events played a roll in Mrs. Clinton's election loss.

Oh and by the way the use of the somewhat derogatory term 'Trumpettes' does not pave the way for good political discussion. I would have thought you would be above that.

vienna

12-02-17, 04:54 PM

Other findings of the same investigation..

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/benghazi-report-obama-clinton-224854

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Wrong doing, culpability and incompetence are sometimes hard to distinguish. The responsibility ultimately lies with those in charge. There is no doubt that Clinton's role in this was politicized by the GOP during this investigation. That's not a viable excuse. Like so many things with this woman, it's never her fault. I believe that this tragedy and the resulting attempt to distract from the actual events played a roll in Mrs. Clinton's election loss.

...

The key in that statement is Clinton lost; its over, the bullet was dodged and, last I looked she isn't sitting in the Oval Office, so what has done or is doing or will be doing really has no relevance to the Trump mess; that is a morass of his own creation and one he will either have to drain or others will be only to glad to do it for him...

Still, Benghazi is old news and is really not going anywhere, which makes it useless to dredge up in a sad, weak attempt to deflect from the real, current, and potential, if not already actual, harm and damage going on now with an out of control and demented administration...

Bottom line, dredging up Benghazi, et al, does not make the Trump administration and its cohorts any less culpable for the many transgressions they have committed. They must stand and be judged on what they have committed and that alone, without resorting to the schoolyard defense of "Well, they did it first!"...

If they are going to talk the talk about law and order and carp about taking responsibility, they are really going to have to walk the walk...

...although, it now seems its going to be more of a 'perp walk'...

...

Oh and by the way the use of the somewhat derogatory term 'Trumpettes' does not pave the way for good political discussion. I would have thought you would be above that.

Oh, I am better above that. The use of that particular sobriquet was my modest attempt to counter the idiotic use of terms such as "snowflake", etc. so easily bandied about by the Trump apologists and defenders and just myself having a bit of fun, at their expense; if it irritates or infuriates them, well, that's just a bit of a bonus... :D

<O>

Mr Quatro

12-02-17, 05:04 PM

Still, Benghazi is old news and is really not going anywhere, which makes it useless to dredge up in a sad, weak attempt to deflect from the real, current, and potential, if not already actual, harm and damage going on now with an out of control and demented administration...

Bottom line, dredging up Benghazi, et al, does not make the Trump administration and its cohorts any less culpable for the many transgressions they have committed. They must stand and be judged on what they have committed and that alone, without resorting to the schoolyard defense of "Well, they did it first!"...

<O>

Your talking trash talk about Trump and Russia ... these present day problems including Benghazi are nothing compared to what this 2017/2018 administration will face if Trump attacks NK ... even if we win a war with NK we lose and have to take care of the survivors of NK and SK and maybe even Japan.

If the Trump lovers give up the bottom line is that President Trump can't win a war of hate against him :yep:

Dowly

12-02-17, 05:52 PM

You can start with four:

US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, USFS officer Sean Smith, CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty. Still waiting for those sourse... You got them right? Or is this just another drive by August?

August

12-02-17, 05:53 PM

I take that as a "no" then.

EDIT: Why wouldn't you provide sources for that? If it is so sure a situation there should be plenty to provide, right? Yet you don't.

You can take it anyway you like Dowly. I fail to see the value in repeating what has already been discussed at length in this thread. You have a search feature so use it if you are indeed so obtuse.

As far as i'm concerned she is guilty of their deaths, through her arrogance and incompetence if nothing else. I also blame the Democrats for being perfectly willing to ignore and cover for her failings in order to maintain their hold on power.

Dowly

12-02-17, 06:08 PM

You can take it anyway you like Dowly. I fail to see the value in repeating what has already been discussed at length in this thread. You have a search feature so use it if you are indeed so obtuse.

As far as i'm concerned she is guilty of their deaths, through her arrogance and incompetence if nothing else. I also blame the Democrats for being perfectly willing to ignore and cover for her failings in order to maintain their hold on power.
I asked you to provide some source for what you said. It should not be so hard. You again fail to do so. That you name names doesn't mean anything, can they be linked to Hillary Clinton?

u crank

12-02-17, 06:10 PM

The key in that statement is Clinton lost; its over, the bullet was dodged and, last I looked she isn't sitting in the Oval Office,

Yes that is true. Now if she would just stop talking about it and go away, people would stop talking about her. If you are going to write a book about your tragic election loss and cross the country hawking it you can expect a little attention. History will decide her overall roll in the scheme of things.

Still, Benghazi is old news and is really not going anywhere, which makes it useless to dredge up in a sad, weak attempt to deflect from the real, current, and potential, if not already actual, harm and damage going on now with an out of control and demented administration...

I didn't bring it up. Just commenting on other peoples posts.

Oh, I am better above that. The use of that particular sobriquet was my modest attempt to counter the idiotic use of terms such as "snowflake", etc. so easily bandied about by the Trump apologists and defenders and just myself having a bit of fun, at their expense; if it irritates or infuriates them, well, that's just a bit of a bonus... :D

I've never used the term "snowflake". And if that's your excuse for childish name calling, so be it.

vienna

12-02-17, 06:30 PM

Yes that is true. Now if she would just stop talking about it and go away, people would stop talking about her. If you are going to write a book about your tragic election loss and cross the country hawking it you can expect a little attention. History will decide her overall roll in the scheme of things.

That's why I choose to ignore her and deal with the current mess; can't go back and undo what's been done. Too bad others just can't seem to dredge her up as a sad, weak attempt at counter argument to real issues. If she were never mentioned again, good or bad, I'd be fine with that...

I didn't bring it up. Just commenting on other peoples posts.

Never said you did bring it up and never intended to imply you did. Just commenting on other people's posts... :D

I've never used the term "snowflake". And if that's your excuse for childish name calling, so be it.

Also, I never said you, specifically, used the term "snowflake" at any point, nor did I so imply. You seem to be a bit oversensitive on the term, though. Tell you what, I'll refrain from using the term unless the need arise to counter other childish name calling...

BTW, I don't recall you taking umbrage to "snowflake', etc. Dual standard, maybe... :hmmm: :haha:

<O>

u crank

12-02-17, 07:42 PM

That's why I choose to ignore her and deal with the current mess; can't go back and undo what's been done. Too bad others just can't seem to dredge her up as a sad, weak attempt at counter argument to real issues. If she were never mentioned again, good or bad, I'd be fine with that...

Although I am not an American I have followed US politics since the Nixon era. It's a fascination you might say. One thing I have noticed is that although an administration might end, it's influence does not. A President might be out of office but his legacy, for better or worse lives on. A perfect example would be Bill Clinton. His name keeps coming up in the present day sexual abuse controversy. It may seem totally unfair to do this but you can't erase history. And so it is with Hillary Clinton. She gets attention because she asks for it. For the life of me I can't figure out why. I think she is trying to rewrite history for her legacy what ever that might be.

Also, I never said you, specifically, used the term "snowflake" at any point, nor did I so imply. You seem to be a bit oversensitive on the term, though.

:D What I meant is that I don't use any of those terms. It doesn't really bother me, I just don't think it is productive. But I am not offended.

BTW, I don't recall you taking umbrage to "snowflake', etc. Dual standard, maybe... :hmmm: :haha:

No one has used that term in a post with me, but yes it is equally .. mmm.. silly. Again I am not offended. I'm a Canadian. You can't insult me. Go ahead try. :D

vienna

12-02-17, 07:58 PM

Although I am not an American I have followed US politics since the Nixon era. It's a fascination you might say. One thing I have noticed is that although an administration might end, it's influence does not. A President might be out of office but his legacy, for better or worse lives on. A perfect example would be Bill Clinton. His name keeps coming up in the present day sexual abuse controversy. It may seem totally unfair to do this but you can't erase history. And so it is with Hillary Clinton. She gets attention because she asks for it. For the life of me I can't figure out why. I think she is trying to rewrite history for her legacy what ever that might be.

:D What I meant is that I don't use any of those terms. It doesn't really bother me, I just don't think it is productive. But I am not offended.

No one has used that term in a post with me, but yes it is equally .. mmm.. silly. Again I am not offended. I'm a Canadian. You can't insult me. Go ahead try. :D

I don't have to try: you've already admitted you're a Canadian... :03: :haha:

You mentioned Nixon and Presidential legacies; I was very much aware of the whole Nixon debacle since I was 17 years old when he was inaugurated and I was 23 years old when he slunk away from the White House. Without a doubt, Nixon and his legacy has had the most effect and impact on US politics and the election process. Watergate is used as a sort of standard measure to define the scurrilousness of political malfeasance of any party stripe. The severe distrust and disdain of various Presidents since Nixon towards the press, and vice versa, was born out of Nixon's actions as President. The overtly hostile atmosphere in current US politics is a by-product of the Nixon years. Civility in US politics was virtually annihilated after Nixon and seems to be only getting worse. If you really want to measure impact, "Nixon's The One"...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MtCeBws4jpA/0.jpg

<O>

em2nought

12-02-17, 08:10 PM

Your talking trash talk about Trump and Russia ... these present day problems including Benghazi are nothing compared to what this 2017/2018 administration will face if Trump attacks NK ... even if we win a war with NK we lose and have to take care of the survivors of NK and SK and maybe even Japan.

If the Trump lovers give up the bottom line is that President Trump can't win a war of hate against him :yep:

Try to look on the bright side. :03:
https://memeguy.com/photos/images/on-the-other-hand-276327.png

u crank

12-02-17, 08:44 PM

I don't have to try: you've already admitted you're a Canadian... :03: :haha:

You... you... hoser.:O:

Watergate is used as a sort of standard measure to define the scurrilousness of political malfeasance of any party stripe. The severe distrust and disdain of various Presidents since Nixon towards the press, and vice versa, was born out of Nixon's actions as President. The overtly hostile atmosphere in current US politics is a by-product of the Nixon years. Civility in US politics was virtually annihilated after Nixon and seems to be only getting worse.

I cannot disagree. What I see now in the American political system is a disturbing trend. It is the criminalization of political belief. It is no longer enough to simply disagree. The opponent is a criminal that has to be prosecuted. Impeach him. Lock her up. This is disturbing. It worries me. I hope it is not the future.

em2nought

12-03-17, 06:15 PM

Yep if they manage to bring Trump down there will never be a successful challenge to the Deep State again, at least one that doesn't involve blood shed.

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-our-government-is-the-potent-the-omnipresent-teacher-for-good-or-for-ill-it-teaches-the-whole-louis-d-brandeis-303931.jpg

vienna

12-04-17, 03:57 PM

You... you... hoser.:O:

...

That's MR. Hoser to you, ya dang Canuck! :O:

http://bobanddoug.com/pics/comic.jpg

...

I cannot disagree. What I see now in the American political system is a disturbing trend. It is the criminalization of political belief. It is no longer enough to simply disagree. The opponent is a criminal that has to be prosecuted. Impeach him. Lock her up. This is disturbing. It worries me. I hope it is not the future.

Unfortunately, I fear it may get worse. The rise of 'news' organizations, blogs, etc., who are little more than outlets for whatever stripe of political axe to grind has rendered actual researched and confirmed reportage a dying breed. The really big recent hit came when the idea of "alternative facts" got into common usage; now we have 'reporters' and government officials using the deeply flawed concept as a shield for whatever idiocy and nonsense they wish to foist off as "real" on the public...

<O>

vienna

12-04-17, 05:48 PM

I have a feeling there's going to be some more data about Roy Moore coming out as the election date gets closer; wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't something really damning waiting in the wings:

Woman shares new evidence of relationship with Roy Moore when she was 17 --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/woman-shares-new-evidence-of-relationship-with-roy-moore-when-she-was-17/2017/12/04/0c3d1cde-d903-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?utm_term=.8232b9b835d5

<O>

u crank

12-04-17, 06:57 PM

I have a feeling .......

I have a felling it's not going to matter. :D

Rockstar

12-04-17, 11:15 PM

https://media.giphy.com/media/103fSL2bvfdOjS/giphy.gif

Dowly

12-05-17, 07:49 AM

Deutsche Bank receives subpoena from Mueller on Trump accounts: source (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-deutsche-bank/deutsche-bank-receives-subpoena-from-mueller-on-trump-accounts-source-idUSKBN1DZ0XN)

FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller has asked Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) to share data on accounts held by U.S. President Donald Trump and his family, a person close to the matter said on Tuesday.

Isn't this exactly what Trump warned Mueller not to do earlier this year? :)

u crank

12-05-17, 08:31 AM

-
Isn't this exactly what Trump warned Mueller not to do earlier this year?

Indeed it is.

Ok here is my way out in left field, hailmary, conspiracy theory. Mueller has nothing. Not only that but the recent revelations about Peter Strzok is problematic for him. He wants Trump to fire him. It does two things for him. Gets him, Mueller, of the hook and creates a new crisis for Trump.

Takes off tin foil hat and stares at secret decoder ring. :D

Dowly

12-05-17, 08:41 AM

Sure, everything's possible. :)

EDIT: Though, aren't subpoenas decided on by the Grand Jury in this case? Mueller just proposes them and gives them information to come to an decision?

Rockstar

12-05-17, 03:30 PM

Deutsche Bank receives subpoena from Mueller on Trump accounts: source (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-deutsche-bank/deutsche-bank-receives-subpoena-from-mueller-on-trump-accounts-source-idUSKBN1DZ0XN)

Isn't this exactly what Trump warned Mueller not to do earlier this year? :)

Apparently nobody ever issued a subpoena. Like ya said though anything is possible, just not now. lol

But if you still believe the medias claim a subpoena was issued to the German bank then you should believe their claim that Mueller issued it.

Catfish

12-05-17, 04:04 PM

^ This is all over the media in Germany, just not on the front pages.

There is more of this in the media
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/03/donald-trump-slash-size-national-parks-utah-allow-drilling/

and the other side:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/04/national-park-lovers-should-applaud-trumps-monument-decision.html

Rockstar

12-05-17, 04:29 PM

Oh I'm sure it is spreading like wildfire.

Rockstar

12-05-17, 04:35 PM

Media/Ideology A

https://media.giphy.com/media/OHMkK8zl9fvSU/giphy.gif

Media/Ideology B

https://media.giphy.com/media/OHMkK8zl9fvSU/giphy.gif

Rockstar

12-05-17, 06:20 PM

Keep in mind too 2018 mid term elections are right around the corner. Frenzied accusations of collusion from one side and sexual misconduct from the other.

Mr Quatro

12-06-17, 03:58 AM

Unfortunately, I fear it may get worse. The rise of 'news' organizations, blogs, etc., who are little more than outlets for whatever stripe of political axe to grind has rendered actual researched and confirmed reportage a dying breed. The really big recent hit came when the idea of "alternative facts" got into common usage; now we have 'reporters' and government officials using the deeply flawed concept as a shield for whatever idiocy and nonsense they wish to foist off as "real" on the public...

<O>

This is as true as it gets vienna, but have you noticed that birds of a feather stick together, especially when it comes to news reporting. Remember the old news man Dan Rather?

One mistake cost him his job ... the job of reporting the news, but instead of that he was making up stories in the news. People believe who they will believe and the news people, like Matt Lauer, are paid large sums of money for you to trust that they are telling you the truth.

The truth with a slant for the left or for the right is what the birds of a feather are looking for. :yep:

eddie

12-06-17, 01:46 PM

Skybird

12-06-17, 02:24 PM

Trump recognizes Jerusalem as capital of Israel. By that he delivers on another promise and pays back to the Jewish donators supporting his campaign.

If this decision survives, it ends a chapter of decades of completely failed and clueless European and American Middle East policy, that the Europeans and the UN still want to continue on the grounds of wishful thinking, cowardice, and reality-denying illusions.

While this decision implies admittance of failure of the past diplomatic paradigm, it does not replace it with a better alternative. It is an end of the guaranteed negative quality, without offering a new positive quality. But it shakes up the established long-held, petrified status quo. I can imagine both good or bad coming from this shaking alone.

However, I agree with this decision.

That this decision will live beyond Trump, however is in question. Before the US embassy can be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a new one has to be build in Jerusalem. And that, with all preparing work before, will take years. Years that maybe will see Trump leaving office. And his successor maybe stopping it while the embassy still sits in Tel Aviv.

Maybe Trump even knows that he may have delivered just words here, no deeds to be feared. Or he knows not. Who knows. Wjat was it that Rumsfeld once philosophised about knowns and unknowns... LOL

Outcome of all this? Uncertain. For Israel I hope that the decision will stand beyond Trump's reign. But I am anything but sure that it will.

That the Islamic lobby organisation named UN cries '"sky falling", was to be expected. I do not care for them either.

eddie

12-06-17, 02:58 PM

Going to be interesting Skybird, to see how this plays out.

vienna

12-06-17, 03:10 PM

Bannon attacks Romney and his sons for lack of military service! Hey Bannon, have you checked Trump and his 2 idiot sons for military service yet? :haha::haha::har::har: That's right, none of the Trumps ever served either.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bannon-rips-romney-and-his-sons-for-lack-of-military-service/ar-BBGhEGI

Hey, Bannon, heard any good "bone spur" stories lately? :haha:

The unmitigated hypocrisy of the Alt-Right is a marvel to behold. Their propensity for putting their feet in their mouths, often up to the knee, is impressive. It is to be noted not only have none of the Trumps served, neither has Trump son-in-law Kushner. The big irony is how Trump has sought to shore up his Cabinet and other staff appointments by going heavily on former military officers...

When GW Bush was running for reelection, the nature of his service became an issue; at the time, there was a website listing members of Congress and other political figures who had served in the military; one of the surprise was how many of the vets were DEMs and how so few of the GOP members served, particularly since many of them were the most vocal about the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars; also of note was the number of DEM vets who served in combat as opposed to the GOP members...

I did manage to find the site listing I noted above; here is a link, for those who may be interested:

http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html

<O>

Catfish

12-06-17, 03:48 PM

August

12-06-17, 04:28 PM

Rockstar

12-06-17, 04:35 PM

I was thinking of asking the same question. Its politics, just a multitude of pots calling the kettles black and vice versa

Rockstar

12-06-17, 04:38 PM

What really kills me is how Trump performs, how he presents himself and his action. This is so absolutly childish, blown up, pompous, laughable.

I still find it unbelievable that this .. is the President of the USA.

What he just said(!) about Jerusalem is unnecessary.. he already has the support of his followers. We will see lots of dead people, without a real reason other than Trump's ego.

But ya gotta admit there are no secrets, you know exactly what's on his mind with every tweet. The people wanted transparency they got it! :haha:

And by they way I heard is speech and have to admit I liked what he had to say and how he presented it.

Catfish

12-06-17, 04:44 PM

But ya gotta admit there are no secrets, you know exactly what's on his mind with every tweet. The people wanted transparency they got it! :haha:

^ This is certainly true :haha:

vienna

12-06-17, 04:49 PM

But ya gotta admit there are no secrets, you know exactly what's on his mind with every tweet. The people wanted transparency they got it! :haha:

And by they way I heard is speech and have to admit I liked what he had to say and how he presented it.

I really doubt Trump is about transparency. The very fact he so often contradicts himself and lies about subjects and people all the while knowing what he is saying is absolutely untrue belies any claim to transparency. Transparency means not hiding anything: seen his tax returns lately?; seen his detailed financials lately?; have you seen any of the myriad personal and business disclosures other previous Presidents have made in an effort towards full disclosure and transparency both before and after they were elected? Trump is a fog of lies and deceit and misrepresentation, not a 'breath of fresh air'. Trump's not draining the swamp: he's restocking it with his own worse gators and using his office to line his pockets...

<O>

Rockstar

12-06-17, 05:32 PM

https://media.giphy.com/media/P4mKlvXqykSI0/giphy.gif

August

12-06-17, 06:29 PM

What he just said(!) about Jerusalem is unnecessary.. he already has the support of his followers. We will see lots of dead people, without a real reason other than Trump's ego.

Trumps ego? Was it his ego that passed the law mandating this move way back in 1995? Is it ego to keep ones promises?

Fact is this very thing was one of his campaign planks. One that I think helped significantly to get him elected, so of course he is going to follow through. I doubt it will make anyone hate us any more than they do already.

vienna

12-06-17, 06:39 PM

The last time the US pissed off the Arab states:

Oil Embargo, 1973–1974 --

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/oil-embargo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

Interestingly, I seem to recall how the Right got up on their hind legs and howled when Obama went ahead with the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, keeping a promise and commitment entered into before he even took office and also one of his campaign planks; a commitment, BTW, entered into by Obama's predecessor, GW Bush. Hypocritical, much?...

<O>

eddie

12-06-17, 06:41 PM

https://media.giphy.com/media/P4mKlvXqykSI0/giphy.gif

Like listening to August crying like a baby about Benghazi isn't it!:haha: Over and over again!:D

vienna

12-06-17, 06:55 PM

Interesting article on how the Trump-GOP Tax Reform (Can't help laughing when I typed that) is going down with the taxpayers themselves:

Trump is doing a lousy job selling tax cuts --

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-lousy-job-selling-tax-cuts-191316112.html

Only 29% of taxpayers approve of the Reform, a percentage even lower the Trump's abysmally low approval rate of about 32-34%. In, fact 59% don't approve of the plan. The 2018 mid-term elections could be very interesting and not in a good way for the GOP...

<O>

August

12-06-17, 07:39 PM

Like listening to August crying like a baby about Benghazi isn't it!:haha: Over and over again!:D

Oh c'mon now Eddie, the truth is it's you and your fellow liberals who have been the ones crying like babies for the past 13 months now and Benghazi is a significant part of the reason why.

You see your candidate could claim that it didn't matter, your party could try and laugh it off but it actually did matter, over and over again, millions of times all across the country with every ballot check mark for Donald Trump.
:salute:

vienna

12-06-17, 08:57 PM

Gee, I guess all those ballot checks for candidates other than Trump, you know, the majority of the votes, must mean something, like, I guess, they didn't buy the Trump-GOP hogwash, any more than anyone is buying the idea Trump is a great president. The only reason the GOP and the Trump apologists hang on so tenaciously to the tired and disproven Benghazi dead horse is the fact they have precious little to bring to the table, they have no real solutions to problems, they have no real viable plans, they lack the support of the majority of voters and citizens, they are watching whatever support they did have whittle away daily and, perhaps, they are desperate to deflect attention from their various shortcomings. It is interesting how Trump and the GOP keep bring up Clinton; if you're looking for a broken record, they have an LP with only one song. Instead of rehashing old tropes and rerunning the same show, it would be nice if they actually presented actual viable plans and goals the real life voters and citizens are concerned about; I mean when you have to change Congressional voting rules to eke out a skin-of-the teeth passage of a tax bill you won't even let people read before they vote and it is replete with hand written revisions and then you bully it through in a flailing attempt to get it passed with out even the most cursory review, it says you have done something you have little or no faith in and you are ashamed to actually let it be seen in the clear light of day; all in all a weak, sad and pathetic example of governance: shall we call it "The GOP Way"?...

<O>

Skybird

12-06-17, 10:36 PM

The last time the US pissed off the Arab states:

Oil Embargo, 1973–1974 --
<O>
Does not compare. Situation today is totally different. We maybe must fear an American oil embargo more than an OPEC embargo today. :D

Since decades Western ME policy was crippled by the notorious fear of that the Arabs might be pissed about something, and that precious Islamic sentiments might be pissed about something, that that we should not risk the wrath of the pissed part of the world. We didn't risk it, allowed stagnation, self-paralysis, petrification of our political thinking that way - and for some reason they nevertheless despise us and are pissed because of us. So what is the difference if the outcome is the same? They are pissed if we do and they are pissed if we don't. Lets stop pampering them.

I have stopped caring for whether they are pissed or not. Their world is a garbage bin. Voices from the garbage bin telling me about rights and precious sentiments and civilisation I do no longer listen to. Enough is enough. Keep the lid on this garbage bin, it stinks of rotten centuries and foul dogmatics

u crank

12-07-17, 10:35 AM

The only reason the GOP and the Trump apologists hang on so tenaciously to the tired and disproven Benghazi dead horse is the fact they have precious little to bring to the table....

It does come up a bit. So does this.

Gee, I guess all those ballot checks for candidates other than Trump, you know, the majority of the votes

:D

Rockstar

12-07-17, 05:48 PM

I seem to remember that we've been alerted before by someone here that Texas is the one buying up and controlling all oil.

vienna

12-07-17, 07:09 PM

Does not compare. Situation today is totally different. We maybe must fear an American oil embargo more than an OPEC embargo today. :D

...

Certainly Germany must fear an American oil embargo. Remember, it was not just the US on which the Arab oil states slapped an embargo; nations believed to be sympathetic to the US and/or Israel also had the tap turned off. If there is an oil embargo over the Jerusalem matter, it would most likely be as encompassing as in 1973. So, then, what happens? The tap is turned off and our allied nations turn to the US to take up the slack; the US might have enough to sustain for a while, but only if it severely curtails exports overseas. In any case, the oil companies will undoubtedly seize on an embargo to seriously jack up the prices at the pump and to industries; in 1973, an oil company gas station in my neighborhood went from selling regular gasoline for US$0.29.9/gal to US$0.89.9 in a period of 24 hours; I don't expect anything less if there is an embargo again...

And its not just the citizen buying gas; there is a sort of 'ripple' effect; if you ship any product by any means requiring oil-based fuels, your cost will go up and your prices for shipping will go up accordingly; if you manufacture anything that has oil-based components, your costs will go up and your product prices will go up accordingly; if you are in retail and have inventory shipped to you and if that inventory consists of any oil-based product, your costs will go up and the prices you charge your customers will go up accordingly; if you are a consumer faced with suddenly higher prices, you will feel the pinch and seek higher wages to offset your higher expenses; if you are an employer, well, you can either increase wages to keep employees or lay off staff in order to cut costs. An embargo is never a simple matter; it has long reaching tentacles. As someone who lived through and vividly remembers the mess of the last embargo in 1973, it is never a simple 'them/us' equation. One other thing I also remember: while consumers in the US were struggling to deal with gas shortages and the effects of those shortages, US oil companies were eagerly selling US oil to overseas buyers mainly because they could get a far better sale price than selling in the US domestic market: I somehow don't think the US oil companies are going to be any more fired up with an "America First" spirit now than they were then...

I seem to remember that we've been alerted before by someone here that Texas is the one buying up and controlling all oil.

Yep, that would be me. I didn't notice the perceived trend of oil company behavior until Obama put the kibosh on new oil drilling leases a few years back. The oil companies were already sitting on a surprising large number of existing, unused, unexploited leases, a great many of them in the state of Texas. Obama actually rescinded some of the unused leases, sort of saying use the leases you've got and if you won't use them, well, then you lose them. The question that came up in my mind was, why are the oil companies seek even more leases when they aren't actively using the existing leases? The fact the oil companies were seeking leases in states outside of the Texas/Oklahoma area was interesting; it was almost like "We want to drill oil, just not Texas oil". If you put the whole situation together, logically, what you get is an apparent effort by oil companies to deplete sources outside of Texas with the apparent intent to be the 'last men standing' when it come to oil supplies. If you also take into account the fact the oil companies have aggressively sought sources outside of the US other than the Arab states, such as that Canadian pipeline for instance, in lieu of exercising their existing unused leases, it does make one wonder...

The situation brings up another interesting question: if the goal of the US energy policy is to make the US energy independent from OPEC and other foreign oil states, why are the oil companies sitting on so much stock and continuing to seek foreign oil source? Shouldn't they be do what the GOP chanted a while back: "Drill, baby, drill!!"?...

Gaining the enmity of the Arab states will not only open the US and its allies to embargo; as stated, things are different nowadays from 1973: back in 1973, there was not an extensive and roughly organized Islamic terrorist threat. We not just lose our oil, we might also gain increased terror acts...

<O>

Mr Quatro

12-08-17, 01:15 PM

Yep, that would be me. I didn't notice the perceived trend of oil company behavior until Obama put the kibosh on new oil drilling leases a few years back. The oil companies were already sitting on a surprising large number of existing, unused, unexploited leases, a great many of them in the state of Texas. Obama actually rescinded some of the unused leases, sort of saying use the leases you've got and if you won't use them, well, then you lose them. The question that came up in my mind was, why are the oil companies seek even more leases when they aren't actively using the existing leases? The fact the oil companies were seeking leases in states outside of the Texas/Oklahoma area was interesting; it was almost like "We want to drill oil, just not Texas oil". If you put the whole situation together, logically, what you get is an apparent effort by oil companies to deplete sources outside of Texas with the apparent intent to be the 'last men standing' when it come to oil supplies. If you also take into account the fact the oil companies have aggressively sought sources outside of the US other than the Arab states, such as that Canadian pipeline for instance, in lieu of exercising their existing unused leases, it does make one wonder...

The situation brings up another interesting question: if the goal of the US energy policy is to make the US energy independent from OPEC and other foreign oil states, why are the oil companies sitting on so much stock and continuing to seek foreign oil source? Shouldn't they be do what the GOP chanted a while back: "Drill, baby, drill!!"?...

Gaining the enmity of the Arab states will not only open the US and its allies to embargo; as stated, things are different nowadays from 1973: back in 1973, there was not an extensive and roughly organized Islamic terrorist threat. We not just lose our oil, we might also gain increased terror acts...

<O>

Vinnea sure has a lot of time to think out loud when he types, uh? :up:

Your post reminds me of a question I've had for a long time about oil companies ... What does net profit mean? Doesn't it include all expenses taken out like looking for oil, equipment. drilling, transportation and the refining and the retail stations too?

Look at the graph on this link (they won't let me copy it over)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272711/top-global-oil-and-gas-companies-based-on-net-income/

This statistic depicts the 2017 ranking of the global top ten oil and gas companies based on net income. The values are based on the 2017 Financial Times Global 500 list. The Russian company Gazprom was ranked first, with a total net income of approximately 16.53 billion U.S. dollars.

Exxon Mobil is the second one on the list at 10.5 billion dollars in net profits.

Maybe I'm off a little on profits vs income, but still that is a lot of money ... money that investors feel comfortable investing in. :yep:

ikalugin

12-08-17, 03:31 PM

Oil embargo by arabs would be amusing, especially if it goes together with an increase in tensions with the west, as this would:
- increase our oil/gas sales revenue.
- increase our arms sales revenue.

Catfish

12-08-17, 03:46 PM

I wonder how the Saudi's reaction will be, after Trump's idea with Jerusalem.

Jimbuna

12-09-17, 11:08 AM

An oil embargo will only benefit those with sufficient reserves in the long term.

Platapus

12-09-17, 03:15 PM

An oil embargo will only benefit those with sufficient reserves in the long term.

Which is why I am against the increasing of our domestic oil production. When you have a resource that is as valuable and critical as oil and there is a finite supply, it is in our best strategic interest to use foreign sources first.

When the foreign sources start getting low, we will have our domestic supplies.

You don't want to be the first country to run out of oil, you want to be the last. :03:

em2nought

12-09-17, 03:22 PM

oopsie again :har:
https://i.imgflip.com/1kayqe.jpg

eddie

12-09-17, 04:58 PM

oopsie again :har:
https://i.imgflip.com/1kayqe.jpg

Just like all the lies coming out of Trumps mouth,lol Should change the name of the White House to Trumpsters dumpster, there is so much BS and garbage coming out of the there!:haha::haha::har::har: Time to dump Trump into a garbage scow!:har:

vienna

12-09-17, 06:00 PM

Pots & Kettles:

Fox News issues correction on Roy Moore accuser yearbook ‘forgery’ headline --

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/363990-fox-news-issues-correction-on-roy-moore-accuser-yearbook-forgery-headline

No, Roy Moore accuser didn't admit she forged his signature in her yearbook --

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/dec/08/blog-posting/no-roy-moore-accuser-didnt-tamper-or-forge-yearboo/

<O>

u crank

12-10-17, 10:13 AM

CNN, MSNBC and CBS has a bad day. And not their first. As bad as Fox News can sometimes be, I now have zero faith in the accuracy and especially the intent of both CNN and MSNBC.

FRIDAY WAS ONE of the most embarrassing days for the U.S. media in quite a long time. The humiliation orgy was kicked off by CNN, with MSNBC and CBS close behind, with countless pundits, commentators and operatives joining the party throughout the day. By the end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation’s largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened.

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/

If you go to CNN's website you have to go to the politics section and scroll almost to the bottom of the page to find a correction on the article. I guess they don't see it as to big a deal. :O:

Surely anyone who has any minimal concerns about journalistic accuracy – which would presumably include all the people who have spent the last year lamenting Fake News, propaganda, Twitter bots and the like – would demand an accounting as to how a major U.S. media outlet ended up filling so many people’s brains with totally false news. That alone should prompt demands from CNN for an explanation about what happened here. No Russian Facebook ad or Twitter bot could possibly have anywhere near the impact as this CNN story had when it comes to deceiving people with blatantly inaccurate information.

It is troubling to say the least. Here you have three major news outlets breathlessly reporting an inaccurate story almost with glee. Proven wrong this of course just gives the current WH more ammunition to push the 'fake news' line. You would think they could learn from past mistakes and be certain that they have it right.

The more serious you think the Trump/Russia story is, the more dangerous you think it is when Trump attacks the U.S. media as “Fake News,” the more you should be disturbed by what happened here, the more transparency and accountability you should be demanding. If you’re someone who thinks Trump’s attacks on the media are dangerous, then you should be first in line objecting when they act recklessly and demand transparency and accountability from them.

Rockstar

12-10-17, 10:28 AM

https://media.giphy.com/media/isP4TLqhjm3zq/giphy.gif

vienna

12-11-17, 03:49 PM

Trump’s Treasury Dept embarrasses itself with one-page ‘analysis’ --

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-treasury-dept-embarrasses-itself-one-page-analysis

<O>

Mr Quatro

12-11-17, 04:33 PM

CNN does it again :oops:

CNN mocked for airing segment on Trump's soda consumption while NYC faced terror attack

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/11/cnn-mocked-for-airing-segment-on-trumps-soda-consumption-while-nyc-faced-terror-attack.html

vienna

12-11-17, 04:56 PM

Poll: Percentage of Americans Identifying As Republican Has Dropped Since Trump Won --

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republican-percentage-drops-gallup_us_5a2dbf49e4b069ec48ae6aec?ncid=edlinkushp mg00000313

https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/24327141_885268511638838_8521578486677110784_n.jpg ?ig_cache_key=MTY1OTczMjQxNjQ1Njg4NTU4OA%3D%3D.2

<O>

Rockstar

12-11-17, 06:25 PM

Like a reed in the wind it bends which ever way the wind blows. What you posted was a daily track which means "Gallup interviews approximately 1,000 U.S. adults aged 18 and older every day." When one looks back over the long term it may not be much of a dramatic change one may be lead to believe after reading the Huffington Post. The fat lady hasn't started singing yet.
As 2017 Nov 2-8

Republican-25%, Independent-42%, Democrat-30%

Looking back it seems that Republicans tend to float 3 to 5 points up and down. However Independents appear to increase as Democrat percentages trend lower. But that's just me.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

em2nought

12-11-17, 06:48 PM

Poll: Percentage of Americans Identifying As Republican Has Dropped Since Trump Won --

<O>

Maybe those folks don't identify "Trump" as a Republican either. It's pretty clear that the old crop needs drained from the swamp along with the democrats. Maybe they identify as what is going to replace what the Republicans have become :03:

vienna

12-11-17, 07:28 PM

The irrefutable fact is the GOP has lost a significant amount of voter support in the year since Trump's election and it doesn't seem to be getting any better; on top of that, they still trail the DEMs in numbers...

If you really want to see the future of election politics in the US, look at the voters, like myself, who are self-described as Independents; you own cite places us at 42% and the number has been growing over the years; I seriously doubt whatever the GOP morphs into, if it doesn't collapse into an irrelevant factor, will be something that will draw many of the new Independents back into the fold; Independents think freely and individually, something neither party particularly wants and most particularly not the GOP...

But there may be a silver lining: once Trump is dumped, maybe the GOP can get back a few of the strays... :03: :D

<O>

Mr Quatro

12-11-17, 08:19 PM

Polls? Did you bring up the subject of polls? :oops:

Were the polls wrong November 2016? Yes they were, embarrassingly wrong :yep:

Who would trust a poll? A left winger perhaps? If it were to his or her liking that is :D

Kptlt. Neuerburg

12-11-17, 11:35 PM

Dowly

12-12-17, 05:48 AM

Who would trust a poll? A left winger perhaps?Donald Trump. He links to polls quite regularly in his tweets.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/876394578777174021

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/836332166728527872

If it were to his or her liking that is :DAgain, the answer is Donald Trump.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828574430800539648

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/894984126582972416

vienna

12-12-17, 05:18 PM

Donald Trump. He links to polls quite regularly in his tweets.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/876394578777174021

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/836332166728527872

Again, the answer is Donald Trump.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/828574430800539648

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/894984126582972416

Trump is obsessed with polls, but seems, as is his wont about almost all subjects, to not really understand exactly what the polls really mean; he has, in just the past week or so, touted a poll that actually showed his disapproval rating hitting an even 60% for the first time and a new high for that category, yet he somehow saw his rather dismal approval rating as a plus; I may not be a great at maths, but I am pretty sure if 60% of the people don't like you, what you stand for, or what you are doing, then that is not a very good sign...

Once again, Trump tweets out a bad poll number that’s still better than reality --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/12/08/once-again-trump-tweets-out-a-bad-poll-number-thats-still-better-than-reality/?utm_term=.301f4c7c21a0

There is cold reality and fact and, then there is Trump; unfortunately for him, cold fact and reality tends to win out in the end...

<O>

STEED

12-13-17, 06:08 AM

Alabama election: Democrat Jones defeats Roy Moore in Senate upsethttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42333712

How much bad news is this for Trump? :hmmm:

vienna

12-13-17, 03:24 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42333712

How much bad news is this for Trump? :hmmm:

Not so much for Trump; he's already trying to walk back his support of Moore; he's now saying he was right all along since he supported Moore's opponent during the Alabama Senate Primary (which Moore won) and that Moore's defeat yesterday was vindication of how right Trump is; basically, Trump is throwing Moore under the bus, a trait Trump is well known for and a trait many of those who support him and who expect him to support them should keep in mind...

The big cause for concern is for the GOP: the last Congressional session, they had 54 seats in the Senate out of 100; they started this session with 52 seats, a loss of two in the last election, and now, with the election of Jones, the GOP is down to 51 total seats; with the upcoming 2018 mid-term elections looming, an increasingly unpopular president, a scattered legislative agenda, and growing PR problems, the GOP is going to be hard pressed to keep their majority in the Senate...

Something the GOP or any party that allows the more extreme wings of their party hold sway to consider: politics is much like a pendulum - the father you allow it to be pulled towards the farther limit of its swing in one direction, the farther and faster it will swing towards the opposite of its limit...

Things are not getting any better for Trump; Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the UN and very high profile member of the Trump administration, just came out with a statement putting Trump squarely in the cross-hairs of the current sexual misconduct controversies:

Nikki Haley: women who accuse Trump of sexual misconduct 'should be heard' --

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/10/nikki-haley-donald-trump-accusers-should-be-heard

Now, Roger Stone, GOP strategist and close Trump ally, has come out with statements that will give Trump little comfort:

It's ‘Painfully Obvious’ Trump Will Be Charged by Mueller, Says President’s Ally Roger Stone --

http://www.newsweek.com/painfully-obvious-trump-charged-mueller-roger-stone-747155

Now, will Trump pull a 'Nixon' and seal his doom by firing Mueller?...

<O>

Mr Quatro

12-13-17, 04:02 PM

Now, will Trump pull a 'Nixon' and seal his doom by firing Mueller?...

<O>

No!

vienna

12-13-17, 04:16 PM

Sometimes you gotta wonder just how gullible the purveyors of fraud think their victims really are, particularly if your intended victim is a knowledgeable and shrewd US Senator. Some person or persons have tried to float an allegation US Senator Charles "Chuck" Schumer was or is under threat of legal action related to sexual harassment charges as part of an apparent smear campaign against the high-profile Trump critic:

Senate's Top Democrat Chuck Schumer Asks Police To Investigate Forged Document Framing Him As Sex Criminal --

http://www.newsweek.com/police-handed-fake-files-attempt-smear-senates-top-democrat-chuck-schumer-sex-746677

Needless to say, the Alt-Right press and supporters glommed on to the alleged "court filing" like they were mosquitoes in a nudist colony. They, who so often decry "fake news", didn't seem to have any qualms about going off half-cocked with the forgery, perhaps a significant indication of just how desperate the Alt-Right and other Trump supporters are to shift any amount of focus from the failings of their guy. This embrace is now come a cropper as more and more facts come to light:

Alt-Right Hyped Sexual Harassment Hoax to Attack Schumer --

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mike-cernovich-chuck-johnson-alt-right-hyped-anti-schumer-forgery-that-plagiarized-conyers-complaint

This has got to be one of the most pathetic attempts at a smear in recent history. The perpetrators seem to have given no thought to the idea any attack against any high-profile politico is going to get an extreme amount of scrutiny and vetting. It is going to be interesting to find out who is behind this farce...

"There is cold reality and fact and, ... cold fact and reality tends to win out in the end..."
How does that go? :hmmm: Oh, yes: "sad, weak"...

<O>

u crank

12-13-17, 04:39 PM

The perpetrators seem to have given no thought to the idea any attack against any high-profile politico is going to get an extreme amount of scrutiny and vetting.

:har: Unless it's CNN. :har:

vienna

12-13-17, 04:57 PM

There's really a big difference between an error in news reportage (its not yet proven the CNN story was deliberate, in spite of how much the Trump camp may bellow about it) and an actual act of intentional fraud that may even be of a level of criminality...

...unless, of course, criminality is not a problem for the Trump defenders; after all they must still be smarting after they failed to deliberately get a pedophile elected to the Senate...

<O>

u crank

12-13-17, 05:35 PM

There's really a big difference between an error in news reportage (its not yet proven the CNN story was deliberate, in spite of how much the Trump camp may bellow about it) and an actual act of intentional fraud that may even be of a level of criminality...

That is true. But CNN has lost just about all it's hard earned credibility. If you are a fair minded person you cannot look at them in any other way than as a news network with a political agenda. News people are suppose to gather facts, confirm those facts and create a narrative for us to see and read. It is very obvious to me that CNN has already written the narrative and are gathering facts to support that narrative. This is exactly what happened this week with the WikiLeaks/Donald Trump Jr. story. The facts fit their preconceived story perfectly and they ran with it. You can call it an error if you want but I see it as something else. It's an ongoing, purposeful attempt to shape the narrative that they have already decided is true. It's bad journalism. In fact it's not even journalism.

August

12-13-17, 06:04 PM

Rockstar

12-13-17, 06:13 PM

Geezuz U-Crank its unfortunate that in this day and age you still have to explain that to people. Personally if and when I watch TV I can see a particular bent to most news stories regardless if its CNN, Fox, CBS who ever. I tend to think in order to gain and keep an audience you must above all tell them what they want to hear, otherwise they'll go elsewhere.

vienna

12-13-17, 06:31 PM

That is true. But CNN has lost just about all it's hard earned credibility. If you are a fair minded person you cannot look at them in any other way than as a news network with a political agenda. News people are suppose to gather facts, confirm those facts and create a narrative for us to see and read. It is very obvious to me that CNN has already written the narrative and are gathering facts to support that narrative. This is exactly what happened this week with the WikiLeaks/Donald Trump Jr. story. The facts fit their preconceived story perfectly and they ran with it. You can call it an error if you want but I see it as something else. It's an ongoing, purposeful attempt to shape the narrative that they have already decided is true. It's bad journalism. In fact it's not even journalism.

Hmm... interesting...

...and just which news outlet or organization do you see as meeting your requirements of not having a slant or bent, of not having a bias, and of being entirely accurate all the time and in every case, because I would like to find what you have found to be a wholly reliable source, although I feel it would be easier to find, say, a unicorn or Bigfoot...

An intelligent, discerning person would approach any new reportage with a grain of salt; it is never a good practice to accept any reportage of subjective material as hard, solid fact; there will always be a 'taint' and it is up to any reasonably intelligent person to seek out as many different reports and/or sources as needed to either confirm or refute any reportage; to quote a prominent GOP leader: "Trust, but verify". The persons at both ends of the political spectrum seem bent on persuading us only their particular brand of reportage is the gospel truth. Any time someone tries to desperately and loudly sell you their 'snake oil' as being the best and only, its usually because it isn't. The much maligned 'mainstream media' is very much more often right than wrong, and far more right than the Alt-Right media that carps about fake news. The current Schumer events are a prime example: the mainstream sought to verify while the Atl-Right media just ran with the raw story, gloating over how the had a 'Gotcha!' on Schumer and the DEMs, with blaring headlines, only to find the case was far, far different than what the Alt-R was reporting; note also how the Alt-R media, in the wake of the revelation the Schumer report was fraud, has yet to really make retractions, amendations, clarifications, or apologies, things mainstream media do as a matter of course and policy...

Then there is "fake news". The Trump camp and the Alt-R media are always going on about the subject, yet, if you really look at it, the mainstream has been far more accurate than the detractors would have you believe. Let's just loom at the Flynn case as an example;

Report: Flynn had contact with foreign entities
Alt-R/Trump: "Fake News! Fake News!"
...until it was proved true...

Report: Flynn had meetings with Russians
Alt-R/Trump: "Fake News! Fake News!"
...until it was proved true...

Report: Flynn had multiple meetings with Russians
Alt-R/Trump: "Fake News! Fake News!"
...until it was proved true...

Report: Flynn had meetings with Russians prior to Trump taking office and discussed lifting sanctions
Alt-R/Trump: "Fake News! Fake News!"
...until it was proved true...

Report: Flynn asked Russia's ambassador to the US "to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day."
Alt-R/Trump: "Fake News! Fake News!"
...until it was proved true...

Over and over again, the many "fake news" reports regarding the Trump administration have been proven substantially true and the subjects of those reports are now facing criminal charges (a couple have already plead guilty) with more charges to come. In Flynn's case the only real "fake news" was the assertions of the Trump camp that Flynn did not "willfully and knowingly make materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statements” to the FBI (a direct quote form the charges against Flynn to which, he has, in fact, plead guilty). There is far more fakery coming from the Alt-R and the Trump camp than has been coming from the mainstream, with the Trump camp "fake news" being expected, coming as it does from sources supporting a person who, himself, has ax extremely distant relationship with truth and honesty than one would expect to find in even the most crass politician. Basically, when Trump says, "Believe me!", you very much shouldn't...

For now, I will continue to seek facts from all sources of all bents and not be enslaved to the extreme bent of either side of any issue...

You know; "Trust, but verify."...

<O>

vienna

12-13-17, 06:49 PM

If this were a single instance Vienna might have a point but CNN has a long and extensive history of biased reporting. They even have their own Wiki page for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

You apparently didn't read the article you cite in your post, since at the very top of the article is this acknowledgement of deficiencies:

This article has multiple issues.

Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This article focuses too much on specific examples without explaining their importance to its main subject. (June 2016)

This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (June 2016)

This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. (September 2016)

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the artticle's content, kind of like, oh I don't know, maybe, shoddy, biased reportage?... :hmmm: It might not be a bad idea to do some actual research to verify the "facts"...

It is possible to go back and look at any news media's history and find missteps; the true test is if the number of missteps versus accurate reportage rise to the level of truly bad reportage. Reputable media goes the whole length to acknowledge and report their own errors, which CNN has done in the past and continues to do, as do all the other reputable news media, a degree of integrity and custom notably lacking in the Alt-R media or, even outlets like Fox News; in fact, the last time Fox issued a public retraction was under the duress of legal liability stemming from one of the "Fair and Balanced" reports. Odd, isn't it, that Fox News no longer use that slogan? Odd and appropriate...

<O>

u crank

12-13-17, 07:20 PM

Hmm... interesting...

...and just which news outlet or organization do you see as meeting your requirements of not having a slant or bent, of not having a bias, and of being entirely accurate all the time and in every case, because I would like to find what you have found to be a wholly reliable source, although I feel it would be easier to find, say, a unicorn or Bigfoot...

Hmm... I don't know a perfect non bias news outlet or organization nor was I talking about them if they do exist. I was talking about CNN. You know the one that says an apple isn't a banana. The one with the slogan 'The Most Trusted Name in News'. That one. This was a major screw up for which they have made some pretty lame excuses.

.... there will always be a 'taint' and it is up to any reasonably intelligent person to seek out as many different reports and/or sources as needed to either confirm or refute any reportage;

Sorry but no. It's not up to me to make sure a story, especially a story like this one is true and has been properly vetted before it goes to air. That's their job. You know professional journalists. I'll take the responsibility after it goes on the air to check it out.

And who specifically are these Alt-R media sources you keep mentioning.:hmmm:

vienna

12-13-17, 08:17 PM

Hmm... I don't know a perfect non bias news outlet or organization nor was I talking about them if they do exist. I was talking about Fox News. You know the one that says an apple isn't a banana. The one with the slogan 'Fair and Balanced'. That one. This was a major screw up for which they have made some pretty lame excuses.

...

Odd, isn't it, how neatly my amendations fit into the above; just an illustration of how similar either end of a spectrum can be... :03: :D

...

Sorry but no. It's not up to me to make sure a story, especially a story like this one is true and has been properly vetted before it goes to air. That's their job. You know professional journalists. I'll take the responsibility after it goes on the air to check it out.

...

So, you're saying they have to be absolutely, totally perfect before they air or print anything? That they have to have every single fact, possibility, nuance, variable completely in line before they publish? You do realize the news media is the product of human beings, people, with the normal fallibility and being prone to error as all us other regular human beings? Perhaps we should only allow the infallible to produce and report news, you know, maybe the Pope...no, wait,.. there was that whole Galileo, solar system thing... :hmmm:

Additionally, I didn't say you are responsible for something before it airs; that is ludicrous on its face and a fallacious argument, quite possibly an act of avoidance. It is a responsibility for any person who values truth and fact to be prepared, if they really place such a high value, to seek out not just what is presented to them at face value, but, also to go beyond to establish the truth and verify the facts from all sources. This may be a foreign concept to those who follow a person who bases his judgements of the veracity of his 'friends' on the basis of "I believe him; he told me it wasn't true" with no facts to support it and even if it flies in the face of known facts. If you truly take things at face value, I've got this bridge in NY you might be interested in or, perhaps, you'd like to meet a very generous Nigerian prince... :03:

...

And who specifically are these Alt-R media sources you keep mentioning.:hmmm:

To quote John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious." If you insist I state the obvious, oh, how about Fox News, Brietbart, Infowars, Charles Johnson, Mike Cernovich, etc., all of whom, BTW, have made some whoppers of errors in their time; in fact, a sample of the nature of what appears to be proper Alt-R due dilligence can be found in the Schumer piece to which I posted a link in my post about eight or so posts back:

“This is the journalist process CNN doesn’t go through,” Cernovich said on Periscope on Tuesday. “CNN, they go ‘oh ****, Don Jr. got an email about Wikileaks before anybody else? Boom boom boom front page news.’ But me, I go oh, wait, hold on a minute, let’s chill.”

In fact, Schumer’s office said, CNN and other outlets including the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, The New Yorker, and ABC News all received the document on Tuesday, around the same time as Cernovich and Johnson. None of those outlets posted in advance about being in possession of documents that would “end the career of a U.S. Senator” though.

...

Cernovich and Johnson both have dubious records as journalists. Johnson infamously misidentified a college student as a woman who falsely accused University of Virginia students of rape. He also falsely accused then-congressional candidate Cory Booker of lying about his address, and falsely accused a New York Times reporter of posing for Playgirl. Cernovich fanned the flames of the Pizzagate hoax, a conspiracy theory that accused high-level Democrats of running a child sex-trafficking ring through a pizzeria.

From the same article:

When a journalist criticized Cernovich’s sourcing on Twitter, Cernovich replied that the media was “already doing damage control! It doesn’t matter. I already have legal documents, exact dates, same as with Conyers.”

Cernovich quickly backtracked once it was reported Schumer’s office had gone to police on Tuesday. (Under D.C. law, forging a document filed in a public office is punishable by up to 10 years in jail or a $25,000 fine.)

“There’s language that looks like it came from some of the Conyers stuff, like it might have been copied from there,” Cernovich said during a Tuesday evening broadcast on Periscope. Cernovich now said he thought the document was a hoax, but it “still could be confirmed.”

Reached by The Daily Beast on Wednesday, Cernovich said he was the victim of a “sophisticated forgery” and provided the supposed “number of the hoaxer,” which was disconnected.

Apparently, the prospect of being involved in something punishable by up to 10 years in jail or a $25,000 fine inspired some fancy tap dancing...

I came across this Doonesbury toon and, who knows, it may explain away the whole Russia scandal:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TfQvLrj14eQ/Wi0_uDRJClI/AAAAAAAAAX4/dLuPKINFVW0YhlgOY3ypvKH9ulFBoSm5QCLcBGAs/s640/FirefoxScreenSnapz108.jpg

I not sure: I can't remember if you're Canadian... :hmmm: :D

<O>

u crank

12-13-17, 09:10 PM

Odd, isn't it, how neatly my amendations fit into the above; just an illustration of how similar either end of a spectrum can be... :03: :D

That's cute. :)

So, you're saying they have to be absolutely, totally perfect before they air or print anything? That they have to have every single fact, possibility, nuance, variable completely in line before they publish?

I didn't say that. Have you read anything about this story? They only had to confirm one thing for the story to be the bombshell they thought it was or to be false. The date. Were they even the slightest bit interested in whether it was right? The Washington Post was and corrected them. It took CNN from 8:05 a.m. till 3:45 p.m. to correct a story that could have been significant. Was this intentional? Let's say no. Just very bad journalism and a bias that they don't try to hide. Then there's their sources that gave them this info. They either knew the date was wrong and didn't tell them ( they had eight hours) or intentionally made the date wrong in their leak. Some sources.

And this is their hilarious correction.

The new information, CNN noted, “indicates that the communication is less significant than CNN initially reported.”

Ya don't say? :har:

Brietbart, Infowars, Charles Johnson, Mike Cernovich, etc.,

I don't read or watch any of those.....do you?

If you are going to call Fox News Alt Right then do you call CNN and MSNBC Alt left?

vienna

12-13-17, 09:58 PM

I don't read or watch any of those.....do you?

...

Actually, I do; not on a daily basis, but I do like to keep up on all sides of an issue; I'll particularly go to them if I find them referred to as a source or as a relevant part of another outlet's story; the more intel one has, the better they can process fact from fiction...

It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it... :D

...

If you are going to call Fox News Alt Right then do you call CNN and MSNBC Alt left?

I only use the descriptors of particular outlets used by other peer media. Fox News has long ago shed any pretense of being mainstream and, in fact, makes a point of not wanting to be considered mainstream. Their advocacy of Trump and the Trump regime places them pretty much in the Alt-R camp, although I, personally, don't see them as being as rabid in their approach as most of the other Alt-R outlets...

I did notice some time ago some of the Alt-R media began to use the term 'Alt-Left' towards other media outlets, but it doesn't seem to have gained much or any traction as a matter of general use. Perhaps it has something to do with a lot of the Alt-R actively embracing the moniker, "Alt-Right" and a general indifference by the other media to consider describing themselves as 'Alt'-anything. Feel free to use Alt-L, if you wish...

<O>

Catfish

12-14-17, 04:09 AM

[...] If you are going to call Fox News Alt Right then do you call CNN and MSNBC Alt left?

I have to admit i do not quite understand what is meant with "alt-right". Nazis? Does this extend to the Klu-Klux-clan; or is it only a bit racist and xenophobic and misogynic (read: accepted, in secret).

No, i would say CNN and MSNBC are neutral to left-leaning while Fox Breitbart and Bannon are barking dogs of right-wing populism.
CNN may have lost a bit of credibility, where the latter never had any.

u crank

12-14-17, 07:04 AM

Fox News has long ago shed any pretense of being mainstream and, in fact, makes a point of not wanting to be considered mainstream.

I see absolutely no difference between Fox and MSNBC and CNN other than their political affiliation. There is a slight difference in style because they have target audiences that their programing is aimed at. They all preach to the choir because that is where the money is at. CNN and MSNBC go out of their way to claim that they are non-biased, truthful and accurate but its a case of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" . I just don't believe it.

Their advocacy of Trump and the Trump regime places them pretty much in the Alt-R camp,

And of course their very obvious opposition to Trump and his administration puts CNN and MSNBC in the opposite camp, whatever you want to call it. I wouldn't call it the alt left because the word has little meaning. The progressive left is a much more all encompassing term as it throws everybody in the same pile much the same way as the term alt-right does. Both terms are not very accurate and as such are often used in a derogatory way. Both terms put people in groups in which those people would not put themselves in. Hardly fair.

u crank

12-14-17, 07:24 AM

No, i would say CNN and MSNBC are neutral to left-leaning while Fox Breitbart and Bannon are barking dogs of right-wing populism.
CNN may have lost a bit of credibility, where the latter never had any.

I would have to respectfully disagree with that. All of it.

Here's an article that may shed some light on the disagreement.

The conservative skepticism of the media runs deep.

Believe me, President Donald Trump didn't invent it. Ever since the advent of "the media" as an industrial complex -- large corporate conglomerates based in coastal cities where many of the ad agencies are -- it's been a left-leaning, urban-minded, somewhat elitist outfit with a blind spot for conservative America.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/opinions/conservatives-and-media-distrust-opinion-cupp/index.html

Instead of willing the news to go in a certain direction, we should wait and see if it actually does. Whataboutism isn't journalism. Neither is "look over here!

CNN didn't lose its credibility with its target audience. It's stronger than ever. What they have lost is their political objectivity, if they ever had any.

Catfish

12-14-17, 08:35 AM

"Conservatives lost faith in mainstream media" ?
My heart bleeds.

From the article: "Ever since the advent of "the media" as an industrial complex -- large corporate conglomerates based in coastal cities where many of the ad agencies are -- it's been a left-leaning, urban-minded, somewhat elitist outfit with a blind spot for conservative America."

So the coastal cities are the bad leftist boys. And all of California, of course. And now even Alabama decided to leave the republican path. So the "conservative America" is.. exactly where? In the mid west? Or in Canada, lately?

You quote just of all CNN, which you say is leftist and biased, to support your arguments? This is somehow like with the Trump evangelists, they hate and despise science, but (ab)use scientific titles and universities to support their arguments, when they think they fit their agenda. They openly support Trump and what he does e.g. with the EPA. Closing natural parks and reservates, open them for drilling and exploiting resources.

But at least CNN writes about it. In the very article you mention. It is aware it does not do the best, and admits failure in not recognizing conservative points of view. Show me this with Breitbart!

Fox and Breitbart are owned privately by singulary bosses with rightist mindsets. Those guys have an agenda and built their company around it, picking those news and employees they see fit. I have never seen Fox or Breitbart be the tiniest bit critical of themselves, or being funny without beating around against the "left" wildly. They have bought the truth, and you read this in every self-righteous and hate-dripping article. For them all is political, from dying polar bears, to weapons, to soft ice. It all serves them, and if not it's just warped and twisted until they produced a "fact" against "leftists" out of it.
They have an agenda, and they use assorted and selected facts, myths, gut feeling and whatever primitive sentiment to drive their point home. They try to control, relentlessly and aggressively – the latter is the reason why lots of unbiased normal people with usually common sense are now standing up against them.

CNN or even the Washington Post are a lot different, though i can understand that they are a bit concerned about Trump and what he does. You would have to be deaf dumb and blind not to be concerned of this ..., and his entourage.
What CNN does is ridicule politics and criticizing it, what Bannon does is demonizing and hating half of America's population that does not fit in his world view.

Free journalism has mostly tried to limit power, criticize it, regardless which political colour. Free journalism is mostly not "rightist", nor "leftist".
It is only "left" in the viewpoint of Bannon and the alt-right (whatever the latter really is).

Catfish

12-14-17, 09:08 AM

quote from Quora, at
https://www.quora.com/Are-CNN-and-MSNBC-considered-left-wing
(https://www.quora.com/profile/Iwan-Doherty)
Iwan Doherty (https://www.quora.com/profile/Iwan-Doherty), Editor of The People's News
Answered May 28 (https://www.quora.com/Are-CNN-and-MSNBC-considered-left-wing/answer/Iwan-Doherty)

"Are CNN and MSNBC considered left wing?"

Not particularly.

MSNBC might pass just on the left for the world political scale, CNN is pretty centrist.

The point is most of America’s ‘Left’ are simply centrists Liberals, Obama and Hillary certainly on the right of the spectrum on a global scale.
Which is why the rest of the world stands and laughs at the GOP.

MSNBC from when I watched it seemed to support Bernie Sanders, who is one of the few Left politicians in America. If it went on to support any true Left wingers in the Democrats it could brand itself as a voice of Social Democracy, and the American people.

CNN is what most American media networks are. The voice of establishment centrists. Except Fox which is the voice of establishment right wingers. Due to the fact they’re run by rich Americans it is very unlikely they will ever become left wing.

The reason they are considered Left wing is because the GOP has moved so far they can no longer see the center of the spectrum.

Right wing Americans who watch British politics must be cowering behind the sofa at Corbyn’s rise, a man who makes Bernie Sanders look like a Liberal."

Pretty much as I and a good part of the "rest" of the world sees it.

Rockstar

12-14-17, 09:11 AM

Well, if journalism is all about noble causes, science, crusaders for truth and justice. How exactly do they maintain a profit and audience? When I think about people like Carl Bernstein Bob Woodward etc. etc. They did a great job uncovering nefarious politics in the White House. But in between the times when the proverbial blind squirrel finds the nut what exactly do they fill your mind with? I'll tell you its for the most all a big social media gossip rag filled crap. But its that crap which keeps people with boring miserable lives tuned in preferring the smell of one pile of crap over the other or even going as far to tell others how their source of big steaming piles crap doesn't stink.

Catfish

12-14-17, 09:16 AM

https://www.quora.com/Which-media-outlets-in-the-USA-are-right-wing-and-which-are-left-wing

"Right wing media outlets, such as Fox News Network, Rush Limbaugh's show, and others have for years been openly biased, showing favoritism towards Republicans and hostility toward Democrats.

Those media outlets and the Republicans have convinced their viewers, readers, and voters that almost all other news outlets are “liberal, left wing” organizations.
But until recent months and years, most of the media (other than right wing media) was not biased at all, outside their editorial pages and in clearly identified opinion pieces.

Unlike right wing media, other news agencies followed the standards taught in journalism schools, which was to report the news in an unbiased manner by explaining both the pros and cons of a given situation and interviewing people who represent all the opposing sides and viewpoints of any controversial issue. If a Democrat was asked to give a viewpoint, a Republican was also asked to give his or her viewpoint. Words that have “loaded” meanings were avoided in both the headlines and the content of the story, to further avoid bias.

Despite the commonly repeated label of “liberal media,” that right wingers toss around so frequently, there was traditionally almost no such thing as “liberal media” among the major networks, newspapers, and news magazines. But biased “right wing media” has existed for two decades or longer.

Unfortunately, in the past few years some of the previously unbiased media has begun using the tactics of Fox and the other right wingers, which means they sometimes slip the reporters' opinions into “hard news” stories and don't always try to cover all sides and opinions concerning controversial stories. But most still label pure opinion pieces as being “opinions,” which is something Fox and other right wing media don’t always do."

u crank

12-14-17, 09:56 AM

So the coastal cities are the bad leftist boys. And all of California, of course. And now even Alabama decided to leave the republican path.

Have you ever looked at a map of US presidential results? Have a look. I'm not calling them 'bad leftist boys', you are.

As for Alabama, don't get too excited. Good riddance to Moore but that seat will return to the Republicans in 2020. Bet on it.

You quote just of all CNN, which you say is leftist and biased, to support your arguments?

I'm not quoting CNN. The article is an opinion piece by a noted Conservative writer. Editorial disclaimer at top of article.

The views expressed in this commentary are solely hers.
:D

Show me this with Breitbart!

You should stop reading Breitbart. Not good for you. Getting your opinion of what Conservatives think from Breitbart is like getting an opinion of what Liberals think by reading Mein Kampf.

Fox and Breitbart are owned privately by singulary bosses with rightist mindsets. Those guys have an agenda and built their company around it, picking those news and employees they see fit.

Oh I don't disagree at all. But if you don't think that CNN and MSNBC have a similar progressive left agenda and hiring practices you've drunk the kool-aid.
:O:

Mr Quatro

12-14-17, 10:01 AM

I don't remember anything bad ever happening around Christmas time at the White House ... could this be another good year?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpzhQqQ5KUA

Catfish

12-14-17, 10:33 AM

I'm not quoting CNN. The article is an opinion piece by a noted Conservative writer. Editorial disclaimer at top of article.

"S.E. Cupp is a CNN political commentator and the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered," covering contemporary issues on HLN."

But be it as it may, the fact that they let those other-minded opinions stand and publish them, speaks for them.

But if you don't think that CNN and MSNBC have a similar progressive left agenda and hiring practices you've drunk the kool-aid.
:O::roll: This is exactly what i mean, and what is written in both quotes from Quora: The political landscape has shifted so far to the right, that even neutral media are described as being "leftist", "snowflakes" and "libtards" by the right. The jargon has reached a new low, along with open hate, and defamation.

u crank

12-14-17, 11:54 AM

"S.E. Cupp is a CNN political commentator and the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered," covering contemporary issues on HLN."

But be it as it may, the fact that they let those other-minded opinions stand and publish them, speaks for them.

Cupp does not have a show on CNN. Her show is on HLN. Not a very high profile gig. If there was one S.E. Cupp for each Don Lemon on prime time CNN then you might have an argument. The fact is there are none.

This is exactly what i mean, and what is written in both quotes from Quora:

Quora is....Quora is a question-and-answer site where questions are asked, answered, edited and organized by its community of users.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quora

Who is this person, Sharon Taylor that you are quoting from this site and why should I consider her opinion valid? I've never heard of her and can't find anything about her on the web. You've just found some anonymous person who agrees with you.

mapuc

12-14-17, 11:58 AM

Correct me if there is something I may have missed or misunderstood.

If you support Trump-There is news channel, tv-stations, news paper and internet pages which aren't trustworthy .

If you are against Trump- There is news channel, tv-stations, news paper and internet pages which aren't trustworthy

Is that correct ?

Markus

u crank

12-14-17, 12:21 PM

Highbury

12-14-17, 04:04 PM

Mr Quatro

12-14-17, 05:37 PM

Only change I would make is that if you support Trump, only one TV channel is trustworthy. All of the others are biased. :hmmm: :03:

:hmmm:

eddie

12-14-17, 05:53 PM

vienna

12-14-17, 09:30 PM

I came across this article addressing a conspiracy theory about Moore's loss to Jones making the rounds in Alt-Right circles. It gave me a good laugh because I have, in the past, used the same process of questioning the logistics needed to carry out some of the really ludicrous theories as a means of debunking them; this is one of the best breakdowns and putdowns I've seen:

Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory About Alabama Election Gets A Brutal Reality Check --

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/alabama-election-conspiracy-theory_us_5a321692e4b01bdd7659f2ce?ncid=edlinkushp mg00000313

<O>

Catfish

12-15-17, 04:36 AM

Good bye Net Neutrality!! Oh well, its time the telecommunication company's to start screwing the consumer again, has been totally unfair for them,lol We are going to pay for this, in more ways then one, screw this administration, just driven by greed is all.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/analysis-fcc-repealed-net-neutrality-%e2%80%94-heres-what-that-means-for-you/ar-BBGI9jB

Yep, that's a step back. Seems there has been some political pressure applied, in the telecom companies' interest. MAGA!
But what about Microsoft, Google etc.? Their shares just took a hit due to this very decision.

Now a high speed internet line available for everybody, can artificially be switched down to low speed. Until you pay more, for 'premium' speed, 'premium' packages and all that bovine scatology.

Dowly

12-15-17, 05:54 AM

Yep, that's a step back. Seems there has been some political pressure applied, in the telecom companies' interest. MAGA!
But what about Microsoft, Google etc.? Their shares just took a hit due to this very decision.

Now a high speed internet line available for everybody, can artificially be switched down to low speed. Until you pay more, for 'premium' speed, 'premium' packages and all that bovine scatology.

Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.- Donald Trump, November 2014

(Source (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/532608358508167168))

u crank

12-15-17, 09:28 AM

While having a friendly discussion here about the media with Catfish:D I came across this article in Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi about the death of Edward Herman. In 1988 Herman and Noam Chomsky wrote a book called Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. I haven't read it but some of what Taibbi quotes in the RS article are very interesting and alarming. Given the advent of social media, the ability of mass media to manipulate thought has been vastly expanded since 1988.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/matt-taibbi-on-the-death-of-edward-herman-w511766

Herman and Chomsky stressed the concept of worthy and unworthy victims. In Manufacturing Consent, written during the Cold War, the idea was expressed thusly: One Polish priest murdered behind the Iron Curtain earned about a hundred times as much coverage as priests shot in Latin America by American-backed dictatorships.

The Polish priest was the worthy victim, the Latin American priests unworthy.

So Americans learned to be furious about atrocities committed in Soviet client states, but blind to almost exactly similar crimes committed within our own spheres of influence.

According to Herman and Chomsky the current large media outlets are not now nor have they ever been these benign, neutral and trustworthy entities that many of us (and I include myself here) assumed they were. They are corporate interests that operate on two basic principals. Profit for themselves and their advertisers and more discretely the political agendas of the corporate owners. And sometimes these seemingly opposite political views can be set aside for a common goal. Example....

This is how situations like the Iraq War invasion happened, in defiance of all common sense.

Even though a child could see that the government's stated reason for going into Iraq was both insane and a fiction, virtually everyone in the business jumped into the story with both feet.

Round the clock, TV sets were full of current and former generals and/or talking heads from think tanks boosting the war rationale. Antiwar voices were almost totally excluded.

And lastly this disturbing thought. Emphasis is mine.

When Manufacturing Consent was written the major problem was that Americans across the entire political spectrum were being sold a range of myths about the beneficence of American power and government policy.

Today it is not clear who is actually dictating to whom. Is the state dictating to the media, or are global distribution firms dictating the narrative to states?

Pass the roll of tinfoil please. :O:

Catfish

12-15-17, 09:48 AM

While having a friendly discussion here about the media with Catfish:D

Nothing against a good scrap with friends :D

Pass the roll of tinfoil please. :O:

I hereby publicly pass the tinfoil hat to you, u crank.
No seriously, good article..

u crank

12-15-17, 10:04 AM

I hereby publicly pass the tinfoil hat to you, u crank.

Thank you Sir. I shall have it back to you shortly. :03:

Mr Quatro

12-15-17, 12:31 PM

I hope Trump tells him to confess the truth too or sue the hell out of the girls who said that he did what they said he did:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-alabama/trump-urges-moore-to-concede-alabama-senate-race-idUSKBN1E91XO

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump called on fellow Republican Roy Moore on Friday to concede to Democrat Doug Jones in the Alabama U.S. Senate race, following the party’s stinging loss in the southern U.S. state earlier this week.

ikalugin

12-16-17, 06:45 AM

I heard you like the AI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR-TqHWexJI
So 2nd amendment?

Catfish

12-16-17, 06:53 AM

^ Annyone who read 'Second variety' (=film 'Screamers') by Philip K. Dick will know what real AI means, in weapons.

I just doubt that some politicians do (or even can) read, or that any dictator or military dickhead gives a doh about the implications.

ikalugin

12-16-17, 07:18 AM

There were more sci-fi books on the topic than the 2nd variety.

I have seen the case being made for autonomous weapons.

However my question was different - in the age of autonomous weapons, would 2nd amendment matter?

Catfish

12-16-17, 07:23 AM

^ [cynical mode]
As long as those drones do not carry their weapons concealed...
Also drones are invented by people/US citizens, so when the AI runs wild, or becomes self-conscious and decides to kill people, it is after all still people that kill, not weapons.
[/cynical mode]

ikalugin

12-16-17, 08:09 AM

Doesnt need to be self aware and malicious, humans (ie the state) could use the autonomous weapons to kill other humans (ie opposition).

Would the right to own fire arms allow the citizenry to meaningfully oppose the state?

vienna

12-16-17, 02:09 PM

I don't think the 2nd Amendment would apply to drones: much in the same way the 2nd does not stand in the way of prohibition of individual possession of heavy fire power (heavy machine guns, a lot of full auto weapons, etc), the same would/will probably apply to armed drones...

<O>

ikalugin

12-16-17, 03:01 PM

Makes one wonder thought if 2nd amendment is usefull.

mapuc

12-16-17, 04:00 PM

About this 2nd amendment

If the author of these amendment could see how USA looks today in good and bad.

Would they have made this 2nd amendment or would it be different ?

Markus

August

12-17-17, 03:20 PM

The thing about the right to keep and bear arms is that they, along with every other right codified in the Bill of Rights, are inalienable. IE they are not granted by a government but the BoR represents a recognition by government that they exist independent of government.

Now maybe modern technology has indeed evolved to the point that any insurrection would be crushed but that is no justification for surrendering the means for resisting any more than the right to free speech is no longer useful because the government can silence a person at will or because they have the ability to beat down someones door there is no longer a useful need for the right to privacy.

Gerald

12-18-17, 09:14 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump will declare that China and Russia are competitors seeking to challenge U.S. power and erode its security and prosperity, in a national security strategy he will lay out in a speech on Monday.“They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence,” according to excerpts of Trump’s strategy released by the White House.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-nationalsecurity/trump-in-strategy-document-to-cite-china-russia-as-competitors-idUSKBN1EC109

IS GOOD.:)

Jimbuna

12-18-17, 01:37 PM

Threads merged....US politics.

vienna

12-18-17, 02:52 PM

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-nationalsecurity/trump-in-strategy-document-to-cite-china-russia-as-competitors-idUSKBN1EC109

IS GOOD.:)

Ooo... He's gonna get called into Headmaster Putin's office!...

<O>

Gerald

12-21-17, 03:31 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. Congress on Thursday advanced stopgap legislation to keep the federal government operating past Friday when funding expires, seeking to avert a self-inflicted disaster shortly before the Christmas holiday season.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-shutdown/u-s-house-unveils-new-stopgap-funding-bill-to-avert-shutdown-idUSKBN1EF1MZ

Again?:hmmm:

Skybird

12-21-17, 03:54 PM

The ultimate confession of that money is seen as an irrelevance of zero value. In principle the assassination of the idea of bartering and trading, pricing and value, demand and supply, valuable and non-valuable.

If I stand in line at the supermarket and then find I am too short on money for all thwe stings on my arms - I do not conclude that I must put back some things, no - I simply take some leafs of paper , write "banknote" and a wanted number on them, and then "pay" with these.

No cashier in any store would ever accept that. But politicians demand to do right like this all the time. Because they know $h!t about the essence of money, and are clueless on how a producing economy is run.

Gamers know this trick. They call it "infinite money cheat" or "god mode". Doing so spoils the game. Doing so ruins the world.

August

12-21-17, 07:25 PM

Skybird

12-21-17, 09:30 PM

The whole stageplay has everything and all to do with it.

Jimbuna

12-22-17, 07:03 AM

Again?:hmmm:

Threads merged again....US politics.

vienna

12-22-17, 03:15 PM

Hmm...

All that corporate generosity after the tax bill was passed...

Real generosity...or more "swamp" corruption?:

Corporate America's tax-cut generosity: Is it real? --

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/12/22/corporate-americas-tax-cut-generosity-real/975497001/

After Congress passed the sweeping tax cuts Wednesday, AT&T and Comcast said they would award one-time $1,000 bonuses to a total of more than 300,000 non-management employees. Wells Fargo and Fifth Third Bancorp said they’ll raise their base pay to $15 an hour. Wells Fargo also is setting aside $400 million for charitable donations next year and 2% of its after-tax profit for philanthropy in 2019, while Fifth Third is tossing in a $1,000 bonus for workers. Boeing is moving ahead with $300 million in investments, including $100 million in corporate giving.

But is it a coincidence the companies that quickly announced plans after the tax bill passed have received presidential scrutiny?

President Trump has opposed AT&T’s $85 billion deal to buy Time Warner, saying it’s “not good for the country” because prices are likely to go up. The Justice Department is suing to block the merger. The president also has taken aim at Wells Fargo with a tweet that suggested the bank, which has been dogged by a fake accounts scandal, could see its penalties “substantially increased.” And Trump, as president-elect, was critical of Boeing and threatened to cancel a deal for a new Air Force One due to cost concerns. The president also blasted Comcast/NBC Universal on the campaign trail for “trying to poison the mind of the American voter.”

“It is interesting to note that the tidal wave of such announcements are from employers under the gun from government scrutiny and which have been specifically targeted by the president,” Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor of leadership at Yale School of Management, told USA TODAY.

Interesting, indeed, how 'coincidentally', and quickly, the very corporations with issues needing assistance from the GOP president and the GOP Congress leapt forward; one could even say it might even look, oh, I don't know, what's the word?; "choreographed", "pre-planned", "staged"?...

Gee, I wonder if those corporations will have their 'problems' with the government solved in the coming year?...

<O>

Catfish

12-22-17, 03:26 PM

"anticipatory obedience" ?

vienna

12-22-17, 04:13 PM

"obeisance to tyranny"?

<O>

Catfish

12-22-17, 04:20 PM

August

12-22-17, 04:31 PM

Seems so.
Also, some words are now forbidden to be used by agencies.

http://www.iflscience.com/policy/the-trump-administration-just-banned-the-cdc-from-using-these-seven-words/

Ideologically-driven censorship reminds me of George Orwell's "1984"
"Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end, we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

:haha: I think if the dem media were to report that Trump had grown fangs and was on the roof of the White House howling at the moon "according to anonymous sources" you'd believe it without question.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the CDC, has denied the report, calling it a "complete mischaracterization" of conversations about the annual budget. The CDC says that the words are not banned and that the organization remains "committed to our public health mission as a science-and evidence-based institution."The Post report is based on an account from an anonymous source who was present for a 90-minute briefing about the annual budget and said "other CDC officials confirmed the existence of a list of forbidden words."

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/20/572242449/as-cdc-denies-banning-words-hrc-projects-disputed-terms-on-trumps-d-c-hotel

vienna

12-22-17, 04:45 PM

There's been one thing that keeps tripping up Trump and his minions: cold, hard facts. Even when Trump or his minions are actually caught in a lie or gross misrepresentation, they seem to think all they have to do is shriek "Fake News!!" and they are shielded from reality. Pity there is so much evidence of their deceits due to nagging little things like video and audio recording. Its really, really hard for something to be "fake" if the "real" is there to be seen or heard; just ask this Trump-appointed mook, who happens to be an official diplomatic representative of our country, and who got caught not only lying outright in denying something he had stated previously, he also got caught lying about his lie and trying to foist it off as "Fake News!!"; I guess the stupidity, ignorance, and duplicity really does trickle down in the Trump administration:

Trump’s ambassador to the Netherlands just got caught lying about the Dutch --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12/22/trumps-ambassador-to-the-netherlands-just-got-caught-lying-about-the-dutch/?utm_term=.748578ec57e8

Gives a whole new twist to the words "ugly American"...

I kinda like the final two paragraphs in the article:

After Trump announced Hoekstra's appointment, Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant observed that Trump “put a Dutchman in the Netherlands — but it is a Dutchman from the Netherlands of the ’50s.”

Of the appointment, liberal politician Sophie in ’t Veld said: “We are looking forward with interest to cooperating with Mr. Hoekstra. We will certainly remind him his roots lie in a country that values tolerance, equality and inclusion. … We expect the representative of our friend and ally the United States to fully and wholly respect our values and to show that respect in all his acts and words.”

<O>

Catfish

12-22-17, 05:05 PM

No hoax, August. The EPA under Pruitt has already changed words Trump dislikes, months ago. Now censorship is spreading to other agencies.

Reuters:
"Employees at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have seen directives from the newly minted leadership seeking to limit how they communicate to the public, according to multiple sources.
The moves have reinforced concerns that Trump, a climate change doubter, could seek to sideline scientific research showing that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, as well as the career staffers at the agencies that conduct much of this research."

Independent:
"The report is the latest episode where the Trump administration has apparently tried to ban certain terms or words, notably climate change.

• In August, the UK-based Guardianreported that the staff at the U.S. Department of Agriculture had been told they must use the term "weather extremes" instead of "climate change."

• In September, The Washington Postreported a former Trump campaign aide in charge of vetting Environmental Protection Agency grants instructed EPA grant officers to eliminate references to "climate change" in the subject in solicitations."

And so on.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-epa/trump-administration-seeks-to-muzzle-u-s-agency-employees-idUSKBN15822X

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-words/trump-administration-bans-selected-words-at-health-agencies-paper-idUSKBN1EB014

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/16/cdc-banned-words-fetus-transgender-diversity

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-administration-forbid-words-centers-for-disease-control-and-prevention-fetus-transgender-a8113996.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/16/transgender-fetus-science-based-cdc-list-banned-words-per-report/957996001/

@August I do not want to anger you, or impose something to you (would not be successfull anyway i know :haha: ), but i find this alarming. Maybe it's all not so bad as it looks? I really don't know for sure, but for me this all fits togehter in a bad way, or so i think.

vienna

12-22-17, 05:50 PM

I heard a report on the CDC matter yesterday where it was suggested the imposition of a ban on certain words was not a 'top down' act but an effort by some in the CDC to try and avert projects and initiatives from being dismissed or halted out of hand by Trump and his minions because they saw certain 'trigger' words; its sort of like you'd like to extend or start a program, but if you do use certain words or phrases known to be anathema to the Trump administration, either by the administration directly and explicitly proscribing those words or phrases, or felt to be even possibly be taboo to the administration's ideology, you might have an otherwise broadly beneficial program terminated or not started at all just because of the 'trigger'. It is sad when the free flow of ideas and solutions is clogged with the petty and narrow prejudices...

<O>

August

12-22-17, 08:00 PM

@August I do not want to anger you, or impose something to you (would not be successfull anyway i know :haha: ), but i find this alarming. Maybe it's all not so bad as it looks? I really don't know for sure, but for me this all fits togehter in a bad way, or so i think.

I'm not angry Catfish. Mostly amused really. Trumps detractors dislike him so intensely that they will believe just about anything and i'm sure that this is just another attempt at political mudslinging.

I mean can you show me some actual proof of any of this? Some published documents, written orders, covert video, Wikileaks, anything? Anonymous sources quoted by hostile media organizations, who then quote each other (half your links quote the same WP story), imo really aren't something that one should put much stock into.

Mr Quatro

12-22-17, 08:33 PM

There's a difference in fake news and mis-leading news:

Trump says he's not firing Mueller, but the media keep insisting he might

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/22/trump-says-hes-not-firing-mueller-but-media-keep-insisting-might.html

The Washington Post, jumping on Warner’s remarks, ran a story yesterday titled "The Growing Specter of Robert Mueller’s Firing." The article declares that “the environment for attempting to fire Mueller is clearly improving.”

Here’s a Bloomberg piece titled "What Might Happen If Trump Orders Mueller Fired."

The media mindset was perfect captured by a Chicago Tribune column with the headline: "Trump Says He Won’t Fire Bob Mueller. Don’t Believe Him."

Now, will Trump pull a 'Nixon' and seal his doom by firing Mueller?...

See how fear can mis-lead?

Rockstar

12-23-17, 02:56 PM

As I said, they keep their audience tuned-in and salivating by simply telling them what they wanna hear.

vienna

12-23-17, 02:56 PM

Its not fear or misleading. The actual fact is Trump has already had an FBI Director removed who was conducting an active investigation into the Trump campaign and its Russian connections and contacts. Please note: I said "Trump Campaign"; I have said before, many times, Trump, himself, had not been personally implicated in the transactions and contacts of his campaign and/or transition team. I also have said I believe if anything he will probably choose to resign if the investigation and charges get close to his office door. Given what is known so far, Don Jr. and Jared Kushner are very, very likely to be charged in the case; in Don Jr.'s case, he has himself released incriminating emails that make it almost impossible he can escape charges; Kushner, in addition to being a party mentioned specifically in those Don Jr. emails, has considerable problems related to his 'memory problems' in reporting his contacts and meetings on security background forms, required by Federal law and, if omissions are made or statements falsified, the charges would be perjury and lying to the FBI; how Kushner hasn't had his security clearance lifted yet is a source of wonder...

In the media stories, the anonymous sources are the usual suspects: people in positions close to or in the Trump camp who are speaking to the press. Why are they anonymous? Well, job security is a prime motive as well as the desire to avoid retribution from the Trump camp; also, it is in the best interest of the press to maintain the anonymity of their sources: if you've got someone on the inside, who could provide you with even more information, why would you expose them and lose a valuable source?...

The quality of sourced information is dependent on having multiple sources; the Washington Post and other large and high visibility media do not publish on the basis of just one source, especially if the subject of a report is some one or some entity of a high profile: the cost of a serious error in reportage can be devastating. The Post, in fact, has used as many as nearly a dozen separate sources to substantiate reports involving the Russian investigation and/or the Trump campaign/administration. Given how much the Trump administration has sought to deflect and distract from their woes by trying to cast a shadow on the media, the end result has been a sort of overkill in substantiation by the media. In an ironic twist, the Trump administration has strengthened the media's reportage by the act of attacking the media...

Consideration should be given to a possible, and, in some cases, probable source of information for the media: the Trump camp itself. It has been a very long time tactic, at all levels of political government, to have some information deliberately 'leaked' as a means of determining what possible ramifications may result from a considered or planned course of action; want to find out what the possible public reaction to firing the Special Counsel might be? Just 'leak', via someone in your camp, the idea it is being considered and gauge the reaction; if its bad, then you have 'plausible deniability'; if its good, then you can confidently go forward. This is an old trick, been around for many, many decades, and wouldn't be surprising if it were happening now. There is also the art of an inside the camp false flag 'leak' as a 'red herring' or as a means of creating chaos and confusion; given how much Trump has relied on chaos as a means to obfuscate in the past, this is not really farfetched at all...

The possibility of Trump firing the Special Counsel is real enough that two bipartisan measures, one in each House, are being considered to put controls on the means by which a Special Counsel can be removed from an investigation. In today's divisive political climate, when you can get members of both parties to agree on anything, it is significant and, apparently, the threat of a Trump firing is considered very significant...and that cold fact is not fear or "fake news"...

In all of this, here is chance for all of us to be brutally honest: if it were a DEM President or his camp who was behaving in this manner, would the GOP be equally condoning of this behavior or would they be screaming for a hanging? I am of no party, so I say if its bad enough to be dealt with seriously for one party, it should be so dealt with to all parties. I'm still waiting to join a party which will actually walk the walk and not just talk the talk...

As said before, so far there is no direct personal link between Russian efforts to influence the 2016 Election and Trump, and I doubt he will be impeached for direct Russian collusion. Trump, faced with indictments coming to his office door for those around him, including family members, and a call for much closer scrutiny of his personal finances, will probably opt to resign rather than face those possibilities as a means to shield himself. Remember, Nixon walked out of the Oval Office with a pardon and no repercussions and he was listed as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Watergate charges filing; Trump could look at that past experience and, to save what will be left of his 'legacy', take the exit...

Only an idiot and buffoon would try to fire the Special Counsel at this point in the investigation, but, then, again, we are talking about Trump...

Here is something I came across about a matter that still might come back to bite the Trump administration big time; it is very interesting, and detailed, reading:

Is Donald Trump’s Dark Russian Secret Hiding in Deutsche Bank’s Vaults? --

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/12/29/donald-trump-russia-secret-deutsche-bank-753780.html

On the campaign trail—and well before he became a candidate—Trump’s praise of Putin was effusive and unwavering. He called him a strong leader and claimed they’d spoken and gotten along well. His fidelity to Russia’s president has continued in the White House, even as he lambasted other world leaders, turned on aides and allies, fired the head of the FBI and publicly humiliated his attorney general. Shunning Putin would have been the savvy political move, but he has refused to do so.

And then there are the people in the president’s inner circle. Wherever you look, there is a link to Russia. His pick for secretary of state? Rex Tillerson, a figure known and trusted in Moscow, and recipient of the country’s Order of Friendship. Former national security adviser? Flynn, a beneficiary of undeclared Russian money. Campaign manager? Manafort, longtime confidant to ex–Soviet oligarchs. Foreign policy adviser? Carter Page, whom Russia tried to recruit as a spy. Commerce secretary? Wilbur Ross, an entrepreneur with Russia-connected investments. Personal lawyer? Cohen, who sent emails to Putin’s press secretary. Business partner? Sater, who sent Flynn a plan to lift Russian sanctions. And so on.

It was almost as if Putin had picked Trump’s Cabinet. The U.S. president, of course, did the choosing, but the pattern of all these individuals, and their alignment with Russian interests, forms a constellation. Call it Ursa Major. A big Russian bear Robert Mueller is now hunting—at Deutsche Bank and beyond.

mapuc

12-23-17, 03:27 PM

A little wondering.

I have been told by some friends on FB and others.

A campaign staff who runs their "own" agenda without the leaders knowledge would be fired on the spot and would have difficult to get another job in helping others politicians

So have the campaign staff for Trump been running their own business without trumps knowledge or was this campaign staff 110 % loyal to Trump-meaning they wouldn't do anything without Trumps approval ?

Markus

Mr Quatro

12-23-17, 03:27 PM

Rockstar

12-23-17, 03:46 PM

vienna

12-23-17, 04:32 PM

Very good vienna I knew you would try and defend yourself, but as bad as you make Trump out to be ...

He is still the POTUS and has said out loud and in the press that he has no intentions of firing special prosecutor Mueller.

If your looking for dirt on Trump try searching the internet for the fact that Donald Trump owes Turkey 5 billion dollars for a loan.

He may be POTUS, but he has only been POTUS for less than a year; he has, however, been a well-known liar for his entire life, so he's had more experience and honed craft in that aspect of his life. As pointed out, it is not uncommon for politicos to intentionally 'leak' something to gauge possible responses and repercussions to a considered act; what makes you so sure Trump and his minions didn't do the same thing regarding a possible firing of Mueller? Or, possibly, someone in Trump's camp might be so motivated to 'leak' as a means of dissuading Trump from firing Mueller. Either way, Trump can now puff and huff in faux umbrage and rail away. Of course, you might be right, that is, if you actually believe Trump is an honest and principled person; evidence, past and present seems to argue strongly against that view...

The Turkey scandal really has no direct impact on Trump, personally, and will have more impact on Gen. Flynn and is being addressed as part of Flynn's deal with Mueller. Flynn actually faced a charge of conspiracy to kidnap, but, as part of the plea deal, the charge is deferred; Flynn's kidnap Target? A Turkish opponent of Erdogan that Flynn offered to kidnap and export back to Turkey. The problem Trump has is he has a somewhat close relationship with Turkey and its questionable Preside Erdogan, so he may have to deal officially against someone who is a friend. If he cuts Erdogan, et al, what could be viewed as any slack, he faces questions here at home. Other than that, Trump, really has no direct connection...

For those not familiar with the Turkey situation, here is another detailed article on the scandal:

Why the Trump Team May Be Worried About a Billion-Dollar Money Laundering Case --

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/12/15/trump-worried-money-laundering-case-735259.html

A little wondering.

I have been told by some friends on FB and others.

A campaign staff who runs their "own" agenda without the leaders knowledge would be fired on the spot and would have difficult to get another job in helping others politicians

So have the campaign staff for Trump been running their own business without trumps knowledge or was this campaign staff 110 % loyal to Trump-meaning they wouldn't do anything without Trumps approval ?

Markus

Rogue staff has been a situation and problem that has happened several times before in US Presidential history. Nixon tried to foist off the idea his staff acted without his knowledge or consent, a lie which was exposed when the Watergate White House Tapes became public. The Iran-Contra Affair is another example; the Reagan administration maintained Reagan had no direct knowledge or consent in the unlawful activities of close Regan associates and no solid, reasonably irrefutable evidence has come to light to prove otherwise, although many believe activities at that high a level in the White House could not have happened without the President's knowledge...

As far as being fired on the spot, well, that depends; look how long it for Trump to fire Flynn, even in the face of strong evidence. Even Nixon was loath to fire his Chief Of Staff, H.R. Haldeman and Counsel/Domestic Affairs Assistant and the evidence against them was irrefutable. Any member of a staff can go rogue and how soon they are fired is dependent on how soon their transgressions or crimes are discovered and the President's disposition towards terminating their employ...

As far as being unemployable, past experience has shown a lot of persons involved in questionable activities as part of a political campaign or administration have rebounded and been able to continue to function in the political arena. Sometimes those individuals have contacts, insights, or strategic planning knowledge some candidates or officials may see as particularly useful and, hence, turn a blind eye to their 'flaws'...

<O>

Skybird

12-23-17, 04:49 PM

There are always ways for the top management to get lower ranks doing things without telling them explicitly that they want them to do these things. And there is always a way how to get something done without telling explicitly that one wants it to get done. It is naive to then assume that just because explicit notes and records of such orders ever being given are not revealed, such orders indeed were not given. Naive - or intentionally blind on one eye. Right because the offender knows of the danger if written notes on his command get found, he will avoid to goive them in a way that such eviodence will be created. It would be stupid to create such evidence whule knowing how dangerous it is.

Media are extremly low quality in general these days, but discrediting the Trump-critical ones while ignoring and remaining silent about the many occasions when Trumpo bend, broke, distorted the truth himself in his statements, and told fairy tales about thing sin the world that little kids stopped crying when listening to him, is double standards as well.

One thing ic clear. Trump will not allow Mueller to continue if Mueller becomes too threatening for him. Trump would not be Trump if he would just surrender then and wait for his fate getting sealed. No matter what he does - you will hardly ever find a written note by Trump, saying "Get me rid of this bastard Mueller". But he wuill get rid of him, this way or any other way. A smear campaign. Forged eivdneces aga8inst him. Deiscrditting him at all costs. Right pout telling lies about him. And why not juzst telling lies? These days, many believe them in oure self-defence. Especially when it is Trump telling them. Else they would suffer a monumental blow to thewir ego if needing to realise they followed a liar and fraudster and imposter instead of the figure of light they thought he would be. The idols you will to follow, always tell more about you then about the idol. It says something about your hopes in good - and about your weaknesses regarding what ammount if lies you accept to still believe in your bid to just hold tight to your belief in this idol, and your effort to deny reality.

ikalugin

12-24-17, 06:11 AM

An individual is not guilty, unless proven to be so in the court of law and with due process.

Unless there is hard evidence that an individual issued illegal orders then said individual could not be punished by law for it.

(Anon) reports are not such evidence, because then (anon) individuals would falsify their claims to gain something without loosing anything, as, for example, Soviet 1930s or present day feminist experience shows.

vienna

12-24-17, 05:23 PM

So far, the only people who have been punished are the ones who have made plea deals and have plead guilty to lesser charges in return for their cooperation in investigations. I have heard of no one being in any way punished for a criminal offense without due process in the ongoing investigations. The purpose of an investigation is not to punish, but to verify or debunk any allegations brought forth. As far as anonymous sources and their role in investigations, far, far more often than not, the official investigators know exactly who those sources are and, if not, can almost always find ways to compel the disclosure of the source or verify the information provided by the source independent of the source. Remember, not only does the condition of "innocent until proven guilty" hold, so does the need for the investigators to find probative, substantial evidence and for the prosecutors or a Grand Jury to determine if the proof is viable and rises to the level of being prosecutable under current law. It is the duty of investigators, particularly law enforcement investigators, to follow all leads and to separate the false from the true. The assumption of innocence before proof of guilt is not, in any way, a substantive reason to delay, defer or terminate investigations into possible or probable criminal wrong doing. Do you stop or not investigate at all a burglary merely because a suspect is assumed to be innocent? What you do is conduct an investigation, determine the facts, and either exonerate or charge the suspect. Even if you charge the suspect, he is not considered guilty until either the suspect confesses (or plea deals) or the suspect is found guilty. That is what is due process. To 'exonerate' a suspect before due process is just as wrong as 'convicting' a suspect before due process. What we are seeing now is the actual process of due process...

<O>