US Politics Thread 2016-2020 [Archive] - Page 17

vienna

12-26-17, 05:47 PM

So what? Two persons involved in the investigation were found to have exchanged emails and were immediately dealt with when they were discovered; sounds like the Special Counsel was on top of it and acted affirmatively and, until the emails became public, without fanfare or political posturing. It should be noted Mueller has, throughout the investigation process, been extremely mum about the cases, unlike Comey. The presence of two tainted staff members, since dismissed, is not an indictment of Mueller or his investigators/investigations; at the time the news broke, persons in the Trump camp who had been interviewed by or had interaction with the two individuals stated publicly they felt no overt bias or prejudice. There are is a substantially large number of people on the Special Counsel' s staff and the actions of two does not degrade the whole, particularly since they have been excised. Once again it should be pointed out, if the Trump camp actually believes this is all that serious a matter, and are not just desperately grasping at straws to avert what may be inevitable, they should put it on the table and get the GOP-backed, Trump appointed Attorney-General to exercise his powers and conduct a criminal probe. The absence of any such actions while they carp, gripe, and whine publicly either means they are exceedingly and grossly incompetent and impotent, or they realize that, under the glare of open, public scrutiny of going through appropriate legal processes (you know, that due process thing), the fact there is no great case to be made and all the sound and fury is just another distract and deflect tactic by a failing and flailing Trump presidency. Let Mueller finish his mandate and let the courts and ultimately the voters have their say...

Here's another view of the subject, with insight from people who have actually done the work and who have knowledge of the agent involved, a set of knowledge woefully lacking in the Alt-Right press and in the desperate Trump apologists:

'He was thrown to the wolves': Former FBI agents defend ousted Mueller investigator as Trump attacks 'rigged' DOJ --

http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-strzok-mueller-trump-russia-investigation-2017-12

The characterization by Trump and his minions of a "rigged" DOJ is laughable; the AG Sessions is a Trump appointee and Trump himself has the ability to direct the AG to conduct whatever probes onto Clinton or anyone else who Trump has felt slighted by; the fact it is almost a full year into the Trump administration and, while Trump has trumpeted loudly and continuously about it, no actual charges or formal investigations have been initiated; there's only one of two reasons: either there are no viable, winnable cases to be brought, or Trump and his minions are merely loud, empty vessels without merit to their declarations - in a word, impotent...

<O>

Rockstar

12-26-17, 06:08 PM

So what, are you kidding? Since this so called investigation started accusations of bias leading to the dismissal of chief investigators are the first facts I've heard come out of this taxpayer boondoggle. Up until now its just been trolls casting shadows of doubt, presenting more questions and a multitude of what-ifs.

vienna

12-26-17, 06:23 PM

Well, it must be a "so, what?" since neither Trump or his own appointed AG have seen the need to initiate formal investigation(s) into their own allegations and accusations...

...I mean, if they don't seem to think the matter(s) are worth formal criminal investigation(s), why should we care about their bellowing?...

...simply said: "Put Up or Shut Up"...

<O>

Rockstar

12-26-17, 07:26 PM

Put up or shut up, I wish Mueller would follow that advice. Russian collusion was the reason for this investigation. So far no evidence of Russian collusion but two chief investigator have been fired for bias.

Mueller's who ran cover and saved Goodell's and the NFL's butt from a major lawsuit. Indicates to me he's not much of a stand-up guy for truth and justice. He just yes man a puppet who does what he's told. Had he any say I'm sure this tax payer boondoggle err.. I mean investigation into Russian collusion would have been over with a longtime ago. It stink, it politically motivated it has nothing to do with justice. Elections are what's most important to the puppet masters.

vienna

12-26-17, 08:40 PM

Hmm, you seem to have missed quite a bit, particularly facts. Mueller has so far gotten two guilty pleas from a series of indictments, including Trump's former National Security Advisor, and I'd think having a criminal appointed to such a high and sensitive position is in itself a matter of national security concern; so, it would seem Mueller has indeed been effective in his investigations. Add to this two other Trump campaign officials/advisors with Russian ties also indicted and it further indicates tangible progress is being made. In the wings is the probable indictments of Don Jr., who has openly acknowledged the authenticity of email exchanges regarding meetings with Russian operatives regarding election dealings, and of Jared Kushner, who was present at at least one of the meetings and was knowledgeable of and a participant in the aforementioned email exchange and who has, additionally, other ties with Russian entities. It would seem Mueller is doing his job and doing it well...

Not going fast enough for you? Its that nagging thing called due process; a couple of those guys claim innocence and apparently want a day in court to have it proven or disprove and, dang it, if the Constitution doesn't throw up a road block to your desired 'quick resolution' by saying they do, indeed get their day in court...

What is upsetting the Trump camp the most is the fact the investigations are, indeed, finding criminality in the conduct of those around Trump and the fact those charges may very well be proven as true. If there is one thing Trump and his administration and his minions abhor, its truth...

<O>

Rockstar

12-26-17, 09:06 PM

Mr Quatro

12-26-17, 09:38 PM

It might not even be over when it's over I heard a rumor that this investigation by the special investigator Mueller will take much longer than we think.

They have only spent something like 2 million dollars so far on this investigation and that's not much compared to what Russia spent to influence the 2016 election.

Speaking of money ... how much advertising income has been produced by the turmoil of this investigation?

Incalculable, uh? :yep:

vienna

12-26-17, 10:23 PM

If I'm not mistaken Russian collusion was the reason this investigated started but no evidence has been brought forth. Just a few side shows and two investigators fired for bias.

The puppet will continue to dance for his handlers

...and, if I'm not mistaken, the Ken Starr investigation started out to investigate Clinton involvement in Whitewater and all they got was a stained dress, no indictments and a very huge public embarrassment for the GOP...

...and, if I'm not mistaken, the Watergate investigation started out to investigate possible criminality and conspiracy in the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) and wound up finding the Oval Office was the center of the conspiracies and the President (Nixon) was the knowing and willing participant to the crimes...

...and a very huge public embarrassment for the GOP...

I'd say keeping a criminal such as Flynn away from the highest levels of the US government alone makes it worth the effort...

Let the GOP continue to attempt to defend and protect Trump's administration (instead of the Constitution and laws of the US) and I'll just sit here and wait for...

... a very huge public embarrassment for the GOP...

<O>

vienna

12-26-17, 10:25 PM

Rockstar

12-27-17, 01:52 PM

So what you're saying its more about the GOP than anything else?

vienna

12-27-17, 02:15 PM

So what you're saying its more about the GOP than anything else?

Nope. It just happens that the GOP keeps putting itself in these high profile, embarrassing situations. Pity, though; you'd think they'd learn to avoid getting linked so tightly to boondoggles...

<O>

Rockstar

12-27-17, 07:43 PM

em2nought

12-27-17, 08:17 PM

The absolute best thing about President Trump is that he keeps exposing enemies of the American people. Someone that considers a large portion of those people to be deplorable was where he started, and next he exposed the fake news. NATO members not paying their fair share, let's call them out. He's working on exposing the deep state now, something I just had an inkling of. I've never thought anyone taking a government paycheck should be able to vote personally, but I now see it's much, much worse than that.

Next up the U.N., no big thing to expose how anti-USA that organization is, but hey lets do it anyway. :03: It's getting to be a fun ride! Keep bashing those waves against the rock, it's working pretty good so far. :up:

I'm looking forward to Hollywood, but the really big one he needs to tackle is "education", we have got to turn education pro USA, it's been anti-USA for far too long.

Mr Quatro

12-27-17, 09:06 PM

vienna

12-27-17, 09:44 PM

Ohh I see, but again no charges of Russian collusion only unrelated charges of lying to the FBI, conspiracy to launder money and making false statements to FBI agents.Then to top it off, Mueller removes FBI agents over bias anti-Trump text messages.

yep sounds like another boondoggle and national embarrassment costing tax payers a truck load of money.

You're still a bit behind on the facts. The charges are related: Flynn lied about his meetings with Russian operatives as it related to the Trump campaign activities and Trump transition activities. The money laundering may be related if it bears on Manafort's efforts as the then campaign manager for the Trump campaign. The answer to that question won't be fully known until due process runs its course in the courts. All the charges are as related as the charges against Clinton and the charges against Nixon; the prosecutors in those cases found other criminality in the course of their investigations and, as sworn officers of the court and/or law enforcement officials, they are duty bound to report those crimes and, if they hold brief as prosecutors, to pursue judgement of those crimes in court -- again , due process. Am I to presume by your protestations, you are condoning a prosecutor to ignore criminality just because the crimes did not fall into the original scope of an investigation? It is not uncommon for even a patrol office on his beat to check into a situation for one purpose only to find a much larger set of crimes to be in play. By your claims, if an officer checked a house for burglary call and, in peeking through the window, sees a presumably dead body, he should not expand the scope of his investigations because a possible murder falls outside the scope of a burglary investigation. There is this new thing; it's called common sense...

By the way, collusion is not a crime, unless you are speaking of anti-trust law (you see the word in some sports law reportage, but, again, in the framework of anti-trust). No one involved in whatever has transpired in the Trump campaign/transition is going to get charged with collusion. Even Trump seems to be ignorant (as usual) of the fact collusion is not a crime; and given the fact he is so desperate to have an 'official', non-adjudicated, finding of 'non-collusion', one wonders what it is he wants to avoid seeing the light of day and the courts...

Here is a link to a rather good article explaining what collusion is and isn't:

What Is Collusion? Is It Even a Crime? --

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

No matter how Trump and his minions try to spin their "facts", the the real facts and the real truth is actual crimes have been committed and indictments have come down, with more to come; in addition, two guilty pleas have been given; one by a former Trump Foreign Policy Advisor, George Papadopoulos. I am going to make a guess you haven't actually read the court filing of his guilty plea and the details of his stipulation and allocution, so here is a link to a pdf copy of the filing; just by the content of his plea, there is sufficient to warrant a continued probe:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download

It is pretty specific and pretty damning for Papadopolous, and it may be for some of those in the Trump camp with whom he had contact and conduct...

The second guilty plea is Gen. Flynn's; here is a link to the official court filing of his guilty plea, again specific:

https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download

Something to consider about the Flynn guilty plea: it is the result of a plea bargain in which Flynn had other far more serious Federal charges set aside, including conspiring to kidnap a person on US soil and transporting him to the control of a foreign government, all without due process, which, if he had actually done so as the National Security Adviser would have opened him up to possible charges of illegal extraordinary rendition, so he dodged a massive bullet. w, when a a plea bargain is offered to an suspect, the prosecutor lays out the basic case he has against the suspect in order to impress on the person the severity of the charges, the nature of the evidence and/or testimony against the person, and the probable punishments if the charges are taken to trial. Whatever Mueller has on Flynn in relation to the set aside charges, it was sufficiently serious to make Flynn willingly agree to a deal and agree to turns state's evidence and cooperate with the prosecution...

The other side of the coin is this: Mueller gave up prosecuting Flynn on very serious charges, so what was his incentive to do so? Mueller must have his eyes set on far more serious and higher level criminality and feels he can afford to subsume Flynn into his ongoing investigation and prosecution as an asset, and Mueller must feel the price of letting Flynn slide on the more serious charges is worth it;; It will be interesting to see what else is going to develop form Flynn's cooperation...

One thing that has developed is Flynn has apparently lost the defensive support of Trump, who called Flynn a "wonderful man" and who has, in the past decried the 'mistreatment' of Flynn. Now it appears Trump has "lost that loving feeling" and he and his minions are gearing up to smear Flynn's reputation to an extent not even remotely approached by either the prosecutors or the press; in fact, it looks like Trump, et al, are going to take their "Trumped-up" notions to the "lying, mainstream press" in order to save their skins:

From 'wonderful man' to 'liar': Trump legal team readies attack on Flynn's credibility --

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-legal-team-flynn--20171227-story.html

Trump legal team readies attack on Flynn’s credibility --

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2533496

I guess, for Trump, lying is okay if you are doing it for him. Since Flynn did lie for his boss and is now suffering mightily for it, this should be an object lesson for others in the Trump camp: if you cross Trump by telling the truth, he will not have your back, no matter how much of a "wonderful man" he calls you...

<O>

vienna

12-27-17, 09:56 PM

This man does not think that President Trump is a mental case: https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/06/donald-trump-mental-illness-diagnosis/

I helped write the manual for diagnosing mental illness. Donald Trump doesn’t meet the criteria

Quote:
Confusing Trump’s behavior with mental illness unfairly stigmatizes those who are truly mentally ill, underestimates his considerable cunning, and misdirects our efforts at future harm reduction. And the three most frequent armchair diagnoses made for Trump — narcissistic personality disorder, delusional disorder, and dementia — are all badly misinformed.
I fear Trump will come unglued someday if things don't go his way ... more than likely a tweet here or a tweet there or NK pulling his chain. People that dislike Trump are not going to rally to his defense and people that like Trump will continue to stay on their side of the fence.

I fear Trump will come unglued someday if things don't go his way ... more than likely a tweet here or a tweet there or NK pulling his chain. People that dislike Trump are not going to rally to his defense and people that like Trump will continue to stay on their side of the fence.

Re-election does seem like a far far thing away though, uh? :yep:

So, basically, in the quote you provided, Trump is giving the mentally ill a bad name...

The prospect of a fully unhinged Trump is, indeed, worrisome. Having followed the unhinging of Nixon during Watergate, one significant difference between the two is Nixon actually was a far more grounded personality. Nixon was criminal, but not as a result of mental illness or deficiency. Nixon knew the realities and, even though facts and reality took him down in the end, he was not self-delusional. Trump, on the other hand has most tenuous grip on reality; he has his people spoon feeding him "good news" stories about himself and stroking an already massive ego and a highly-distorted sense of self (not at all unlike Kim in NK). Right now, his is still on the remaining bit of his presidential "high". but like all "highs", the crash at the end can be brutal and his strike-back could be equally so...

<O>

em2nought

12-27-17, 10:11 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=55&v=WK_jkPhrddc

Skybird

12-28-17, 02:37 AM

Lets not mix the diagnostical categories of mental illnesses with personality structures, some constellations of which can be seen and described as antisocial, psychopathological, but always judging the destructiveness of this only in social and cutural contexts , because a certain dose of these can be necessary to make you successful in one field - while too much of it makes you a nemesis to thy next. An attacker in football will never fulfill his role as a goal striker if he always plays team-oriented and altruisically passes the ball to somebody else. A certain dose of egoism and confidence is needed. The doctor who cannot cut into a patients body in order not to inure him by that cut and shed his blood, will not cure his patient when surgery indeed is needed for his survival, a certain dose of cold-bloodedness and imperial attitude is necessary. A businessman alwqays playing soft and cooperative with rivals, hrdly can be imagined to ever be realyl successful, and an inventor not believing in his idea and skills, will most likely never earn rewards for his genius.

The trick is: to find a working, constructive mix and balance. And this balance works terribly bad in case of Trump. His business career is more shine than substance, and so are his policies. His personality shows a very strong accentuation of antisocial, psychopathic traits.

Difference made between these things in both the DSM and the ICD, leave a lot of questions and are open for quite some abuse. Also the lack of differences made, are dubious, where they have been eradicated in revisions of the past 30 years - all too often not due to new scientific evidence or medical findings but Zeitgeist vogues and political correctness.

I am no big fan of these manuals, ICD and DSM. Maybe the purely medical chapters in the ICD make more sense (I never cared to check them out, I am no medical doctor), but in the fields of my own former profession, pychology, I am critical of them.

As I said in another thread just a day ago, these manuals were meant to standardize communication in international science exchange, originally they were not that much meant for practice, at least the ICD. It was only to make sure that everybody means the same thing when using a term or diagnostical category, no matter whether he came from Europe, North America or Central Arica. Dysthymia is what the ICD defines it to be, its not what they understand by this term in Chicago, while in Paris they understand this term to mean something different . Whether that category in itself makes sense or not - that is a completely different thing. And politics and popular social opinions interfere heavily here.

Rockstar

12-28-17, 04:01 PM

irrefutable facts:

Rasmussen Poll shows Trump at 46% APPROVE this morning, with 53% DISAPPROVE...

Obama at same exact date first year in presidency?? 46% APPROVE, 53% DISAPPROVE!

irrefutable Mueller boondoggle results:

1. 1 count lying to the FBI, 1 count conspiracy to launder money and 1 count making false statements to FBI agents.

2. Mueller greatly assists defense team by removing FBI chief investigators over their bias anti-Trump text messages.

3. As of 5 December the boondoggle has cost the American taxpayer is 3.2 million dollars.

4. the boondoggle continues...

Rockstar

12-28-17, 05:52 PM

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/nunes-blasts-doj-fbi-for-failure-to-produce-records-relating-to-anti-trump-dossier/ar-BBHsJHY?ocid=spartanntp

Exclusive - House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes is blasting the Department of Justice and the FBI for its “failure to fully produce” documents related to an anti-Trump dossier, saying “at this point it seems the DOJ and FBI need to be investigating themselves.”

The boondoggle continues...

vienna

12-28-17, 07:28 PM

irrefutable facts:

Rasmussen Poll shows Trump at 46% APPROVE this morning, with 53% DISAPPROVE...

Obama at same exact date first year in presidency?? 46% APPROVE, 53% DISAPPROVE!

...

So, basically you're saying Trump is no better than Obama?; and, here I thought you hated Obama... :D

Another bit of irrefutable fact from Rassmussen:

Trump Strongly Approve: 29% ; Strongly Disapprove 44%; it would seem at the core of his "approval", there are fully 17% of the total respondents who have qualms about their approval;

On the disapproval side: Disapprove: 53% ; Strongly Disapprove: 44% ; a difference of only 9% have qualms about their disapproval...

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history

(it does help to link a source when making statements of fact...)...

...

irrefutable Mueller boondoggle results:

1. 1 count lying to the FBI, 1 count conspiracy to launder money and 1 count making false statements to FBI agents.

...

So far. That little nagging thing called due process hasn't played out yet and the fact Mueller has made plea deals at all means the investigation is not over..

Oh, and you have once again failed miserably in the facts department: The charges against Manafort and Gate alone total 12 counts:

Count 1. - Conspiracy Against The United States
Count 2. - Conspiracy To Launder Money
Counts 3.-6. - Failure To File Reports Of Foreign Bank And Financial Accounts For Calendar Years 2011-2014
Counts 7.-9. - Failure To File Reports Of Foreign Bank And Financial Accounts For Calendar Years 2011-2014
Count 10. - Unregistered Agent Of A Foreign Principal
Count 11. - False And Misleading FARA Statements
Count 12. - False Statements

Source: Actual Criminal Court Indictment Filing Against Manafort And Gates -- https://www.justice.gov/file/1007271/download

The above does not include the charges against Flynn and Papdopolous, those to which they plead guilty and those which were deferred pending their cooperation in the investigation...

If your going to declare "irrefutable facts", at least have the decency to use actual facts... :03:

...

2. Mueller greatly assists defense team by removing FBI chief investigators over their bias anti-Trump text messages.

...

Pretty much of a snore; by the time the cases get to the courts, a lot of that will be old news and less impactful, also there has been no concrete evidence of a systemic or deliberate animus throughout the Special Counsel's staff; in fact, the fact Mueller dismissed the two agents involved immediately upon hearing of the situation goes toward proving Mueller is, indeed, making every effort to ensure the investigation proceeds in an impartial manner; consider, also, Mueller's staff is of about 60 or so persons; that means about 2% were found questionable and have been excised; another fact is this: Mueller had in fact removed those persons several months before the removal was made public; Mueller made the removals, not under pressure from outside entities or media exposure, but on his own, fully conforming to the expected role of an impartial administrator. Mueller has conducted hs investigations in a thoroughly professional and dignified manner, without the media circuses and pronouncements so very much a part of the "defense" of those he is investigating...

The laughable, desperate, flailing attempts by Trump and his minions to impugn Mueller and his investigations and to suggest the firings are a lynch pin to derail or defame his work is flawed, since, in a court, the defense would have to prove any animus in the investigation actually harms the defense case(s) of the accused. Does not liking Trump in any way mean Flynn, Papadopolous, Manafort, Gates, and whoever else other than Trump who might face charges and go to trial are being denied an adequate defense? Remember, even if any prosecutor were rabidly and openly antagonistic to any defendant, the decision of the jury and the court will be based on solid, verifiable evidence; its not enough to just say "These guys are criminals!", ya also gotta prove it to the jury and judge. Unless Trump himself is charged, whatever Mueller or anyone else feels about the Chump-In-Chief, it really has no bearing on the current and/or expected indictments. Facts are facts and proof is proof and you gotta have both to win a case and a conviction...

Saying the firing of the agents "helps" Trump is an opinion and not fact; in fact, it is a fallacy...

...

3. As of 5 December the boondoggle has cost the American taxpayer is 3.2 million dollars.

...

Oh, I really like this one; it allows me to dust off some of my accounting skills. USD $3.2M, eh? Well, the Watergate prosecutions cost USD $8M in 1974; if you do the adjustments for inflation, etc., the cost in 2017 dollars is nearly USD $40M; the cost of the Special Prosecutor Ken Starr's investigations into Bill Clinton cost USD $39.2M in 1999; if you do the adjustments for inflation, etc., the cost in 2017 dollars is nearly USD $57.6M; I don't know about anyone else, but in comparison to USD $40M and USD $57.6M, USD $3.2M is dirt cheap, highly efficient work; so far, Mueller is running at only 8% of the Watergate total cost and at only 5% of the Clinton case cost and all Ken Starr got out of it was a stained dress. Mueller, in addition to being known and respected as a diligent, fair, and thorough investigator, is also known as a no-nonsense, frugal administrator; it is severely doubtful he is going to be wasteful of any resources...

Fancy that: the 'irrefutable" -- refuted...

<O>

eddie

12-28-17, 10:28 PM

A recent study of Trump supporters shows that 1 out of 3 who support Trump are just as stupid as the other 2.

em2nought

12-28-17, 10:38 PM

A recent study of Trump supporters shows that 1 out of 3 who support Trump are just as stupid as the other 2.

Perfect example of the elitist attitude that put Trump where he's at. Job well done, thank you! :D

Dowly

12-29-17, 10:44 AM

I'm looking forward to Hollywood, but the really big one he needs to tackle is "education", we have got to turn education pro USA, it's been anti-USA for far too long.Out of curiousity: How is the current education anti-USA?

Platapus

12-29-17, 01:45 PM

Out of curiousity: How is the current education anti-USA?

You know

All that stuff about equality and treating different people with respect. Tolerance even if you don't agree with them. Thinking about more than just what is good for you but what may be good for others. Showing compassion and empathy

All that garbage just has to go.:hmmm:

August

12-29-17, 02:10 PM

You know

All that stuff about equality and treating different people with respect. Tolerance even if you don't agree with them. Thinking about more than just what is good for you but what may be good for others. Showing compassion and empathy

All that garbage just has to go.:hmmm:

Are we talking about the same institutions? The ones with safe speech zones, trigger words and the habit of using threats and violence to silence conservative guest speakers? Those institutions are not about equality and treating people with respect unless they have the correct opinions.

Red Devil

12-29-17, 09:02 PM

Red Devil

12-29-17, 09:06 PM

A recent study of Trump supporters shows that 1 out of 3 who support Trump are just as stupid as the other 2.

correction. A recent fake news CNN study shows ...................

as an outlander, I can look at your sadly sinking country and see truth. Clinton only won California due to a rigged vote. Trump won by POPULAR vote and a massive majority geographically - loive with it. I predict he will get an even bigger majority next time, if he runs. IF the democrats did win, the world is ruined.

vienna

12-30-17, 01:39 PM

I've come into this very late, but astounded at how stupid and bad ass losers americans can be. Its damned unbelievable. Left whingers cant take a defeat on the chin so riot and destory the countries historical monuments.

Let me remind these idiots. Who brought slavery to the USA? Democrats. Who invented the anti negro KKK? Democrats. Its amazing how much they forget that they started. In the 60s it was the left whingers who shouted down with authority!! In the 21C its the democratic lefties shouting if you deny authority you are a Nazi and fascist!! Make you're stupid minds up.

Whilst all this is going on, people are still fighting behind the scenes, undercover, fake news, cry baby politics. And the march of islam has created NO GO cities in the USA. And hillary still walks the streets even though nearly 100 deaths have been attributed to her and her 'foundation' which is sponsored by Soros and Saudi.

And STILL the people of the USA wont listen - bye bye USA, Russia will be the new world power, and I cant wait.

correction. A recent fake news CNN study shows ...................

as an outlander, I can look at your sadly sinking country and see truth. Clinton only won California due to a rigged vote. Trump won by POPULAR vote and a massive majority geographically - loive with it. I predict he will get an even bigger majority next time, if he runs. IF the democrats did win, the world is ruined.

Long on rhetoric, short on facts and proof to back it up...

<O>

vienna

12-30-17, 04:19 PM

The Trump camp have been very vocal on trying to make the case the Russian interference investigations are based solely on the notorious "dossier" and are therefore based on false information. This is despite the fact former Trump campaign manager, advisor, and Russia-connected businessman had been under FBI and intelligence surveillance, including wiretapping, as early as 2014:

Exclusive: US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman --

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/index.html

There is now a report the Russian investigations were jump-started by the indiscretions of one of the persons who have been charged in the Mueller prosecutions, and not one of the real heavy-hitters, at that. This reported slip is reminiscent of how the Watergate investigations took on a whole new track when a low level White House functionary testifying before Congress casually mentioned the Oval Office had a working hidden recording setup. The person in the Russian inquiries who let his loose lips sink the Trump campaign? None other than George Papdopolous, the, until his guilty plea to charges, little known Trump campaign and Trump White House staff member who, in addition to pleading guilty, has also reached a deal to cooperate with the Special Counsel's investigations:

How the Russia Inquiry Began: A Campaign Aide, Drinks and Talk of Political Dirt --

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html

During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.

About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.

Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.

The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.

If Mr. Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. and is now a cooperating witness, was the improbable match that set off a blaze that has consumed the first year of the Trump administration, his saga is also a tale of the Trump campaign in miniature. He was brash, boastful and underqualified, yet he exceeded expectations. And, like the campaign itself, he proved to be a tantalizing target for a Russian influence operation.

Of interest to note in the above, the incident with Papadopolous and the top Australian diplomat in the UK occurred a full month before Trump formally announced his run for the Presidency and several months before the Steele 'dossier' entered into play. Combined with the already ongoing Manafort investigations, the timeline shows the dossier was a later element in what was an already ongoing situation: the dossier didn't come first -- Manafort and Papadopolous came first...

As said before, the biggest problem for Trump and his minions is cold, hard facts and evidence, something in which the Trump/minion efforts to derail, obstruct, or abort the course of law, are very much lacking...

<O>

Rockstar

12-30-17, 05:07 PM

vienna

12-30-17, 05:21 PM

“The challenge — and I’m not picking on reporters — about writing stories about classified information, is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on, and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it. We don’t call the press and say, ‘Hey, you got that thing wrong.’ ”

James Comey

So, now you're quoting someone who Trump has publicly called a liar?... :hmmm: :har:

Then again, the Trump apologists and defenders love to quote him and he is a very, very well known liar, so, I guess, it fits...

<O>

Rockstar

12-30-17, 06:28 PM

Red Devil

12-30-17, 06:57 PM

Long on rhetoric, short on facts and proof to back it up...

<O> it is impossible to provide proof to a democrat

Schroeder

12-30-17, 07:51 PM

it is impossible to provide proof to a democrat
How cheap...:roll:

vienna

12-30-17, 07:56 PM

it is impossible to provide proof to a democrat

Huge problem with that statement...

I'm not a Democrat; I'm an Independent... don't like either party...

However, I do understand your quandary: it's impossible to prove anything if you don't have any real proof...

<O>

vienna

12-30-17, 08:05 PM

The irrefutable fact is Trump did not call Comey a liar in regards to what he said about the media not knowing what they're talking about. Personally I think what Comey said is spot on, wouldn't you agree?

Oh, I don't have a problem with Comey, other than he should have done what Mueller has done: just keep doing your job and don't make any unnecessary public statements or appearances. If your going to argue the comparative veracity of Trump v. Comey, Trump comes up way, way short; Trump has even lied about his lies and then lied about lying about lying about his lies; Trump is a veritable Möbius strip of untruth and deception. I just find it rather odd for anyone to try quoting a person who has been labelled a liar by the person they are trying to defend. It just seems a sort of extension of the Trump Effect: the concept of selective and convenient "truth".

What next? A quote from Kim of NK?... :03:

<O>

Platapus

12-30-17, 08:55 PM

it is impossible to provide proof to a democrat

Making those type of comments does not help the discussion

em2nought

12-31-17, 02:22 AM

Making those type of comments does not help the discussion

Yes, shame on you Red Devil for letting some truth slip from your lips. You know "truth" is neither asked for, or wanted by Democrats. How can someone on our side know "truth" anyway, just a few post back it was claimed we're all idiots. Everybody seemed ok with that, didn't seem to feel that hurt the discussion. :03: Even Democrats discussions need a safe space. :har:

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/202/671/4f4.jpg

Catfish

12-31-17, 06:52 AM

So you felt insulted by people calling you dumb, and electing Trump is your answer? Was he elected because of an inferiority complex? :o

If you are not dumb, how can you respect Trump, Pruitt, and obvious lies?
Denying science because it does not fit in one's world view will not help the US.
But it is not about a real world view or facts, it is only about political power and greed, making money and pushing the industry, and nothing else matters.

u crank

12-31-17, 07:30 AM

..... just a few post back it was claimed we're all idiots. Everybody seemed ok with that, didn't seem to feel that hurt the discussion.

Good point.

So you felt insulted by people calling you dumb, and electing Trump is your answer? Was he elected because of an inferiority complex?

You just did it again.

But it is not about a real world view or facts, it is only about political power and greed, making money and pushing the industry, and nothing else matters.

That's a very broad statement that could easily be applied to any political group in any country in the world.

Catfish

12-31-17, 07:57 AM

[...]You just did it again.

In a way yes, and intentionally. He wrote
"How can someone on our side know "truth" anyway, just a few post back it was claimed we're all idiots."

He only has a problem if he believes those people. I doubt he does, and those people are mostly wrong.
But:
If Trump denies science and experts completely and is proud of it, being publicly proud to be dumb, throwing away all better knowledge – what do you expect people to think about that? A tit-for-tat response towards the "establishment" just out of a gut feeling, now where did i see that before? B.t.w. the real "establishment" is mostly right-wing and conservative, just as a reminder.

By me:
...it is not about a real world view or facts, it is only about political power and greed, making money and pushing the industry, and nothing else matters.

That's a very broad statement that could easily be applied to any political group in any country in the world.

This is true, but i admit i trust e.g. the former EPA more than what it has become under Pruitt/Trump. An agency initially founded to oversee pollution, prevention and ecological protection, has been hijacked by big business, rewriting initially reasonable decisions and laws of decades, in their favour. National parks being reduced to ten percent of their former size, allowing drilling for oil and deforesting in it, tax reductions for industry but not for the common man.. and all this has happens so blatantly that it cries to the heavens.

This has not much to do with republicans or democrats, people should really see through this. And it seems they do:
Google search: What americans think about Pruitt EPA (https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=tNxIWsXsNsey0gWN45TIDw&q=what+americans+think+about+Pruitt+EPA&oq=what+americans+think+about+Pruitt+EPA&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2012.11447.0.12308.37.32.0.5.5.0.109.2366.2 9j3.32.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.15.1069...0j46j0i46k1.0.ak2Wmz_2vsc)

But apparently no one has the power to stand against this, or the sweet revenge against Obama is being preferred, whatever the new president does.

Skybird

12-31-17, 08:01 AM

One thing is certain: Trump splits the American nation and people more than any president ever did before him in modern time. And he intentionally does it, becasue by this he keeps his likers rallied around him - they are under the spell of a very strong wagon fort mentality. Trumo thus cannot afford to allow conflicts leading to forming that wagon fort disappearing. Reagan also was controversial, but he did not aim at raising conflict, he just accepted controversy and conflict as the price for doing it like he did. Trump depends on keeping the fires of conflict burning, he absolutely actively instrumentalisesthem.

Deadlock. I see no way out there any time soon. Trump changes the country, and the consequences will still be felt long after he has gone again.

All this shall not let forgetting however, that there also is another reason for this crisis.The political oppositon is unable to show up with any convincing alternative, and that they send Hilary Clinton into the race was the biggets mistake they could have done. it still woudl have been a mistake if Clinton would have won - for then she would have alienated the losers of the election who now support Trump - even more. She would have had a similiar, comparable effect on US society, like Trump has - just from the other end of the party spectrum.

If the Us voters really would have been clever, they would have completel boycotted the electiosn and punishing both parties by not electing any of them. Instead they voted for getting the bullet instead of getting hanged at the gallow. The better choices would have been to start a fight or to run away.

A swap of all political personell - and the system that genereates it and make sure its always the same kind of party soldiers making it to the top - is needed. And while such a swap is what it is, a revolution, it will not happen.

Groundhog Day.

Red Devil

12-31-17, 08:34 AM

there are two things people should never discuss on forums - Religion and Politics. People can fall out so easily discussing either. Both of which, by the way, I have no affiliations as such, but am a card carrying UKIP member because they are neutral.

I meant no cheap snide remark about being unable to explain anything to a democrat. It just is. They have been blasting the tv channels with their rather silly opinions and screaming that the democratic election was faked. CNN is the worst, especially for fake news. So much so I don't watch it anymore. And that idiot in California, Whoopee (what a stupid name) Goldberg well nuff said.

Why is it that people who use the word Democracy in their title, are the least democratic. N Korea is a prime example, former Democratic Republics of wherever, the same.

My ref to the KKK is down to reading various articles over the years. They started off extreme right, but I think maybe 'fake news' twisted it to the opposite side of the spectrum. I might have been misled by that particular example.

Democrats and the 2017 election. Trump won the vast majority of the USA, red bits that were left (pardon the pun) were California and Florida, I think. California strangely had many dead people voting, now that was on the news last year. Some rich bitch democrat funded a re election in some state and Trump actually increased his vote.

Hillary Clinton. now that is a real weird lady. She allegedly has many deaths to account for, strangely enough, all opponents of hers, or turncoats who blew the whistle on her activities. You should trust her at your peril, she is so dangerous and is funded by Soros and Saudi Arabia; that too is fact and not fake news. Let her lot back in and the USA will become Islamic within 50 years. Apparently there are already Islamic no go areas in the USA, we have a few enclaves here in the UK.

The Clinton Foundation. What is the best way to hoard millions and avoid tax. Pose as a charitable foundation.

Finally, I will leave it at that, I don't want to fall out with anyone. Just remember too, Religion is the route of all evil :/\\!!

u crank

12-31-17, 08:55 AM

In a way yes, and intentionally. He wrote
"How can someone on our side know "truth" anyway, just a few post back it was claimed we're all idiots."

He only has a problem if he believes those people. I doubt he does, and those people are mostly wrong.

I don't care what side you are on or what your beliefs are. Name calling and suggesting that others are less intelligent than you means you are out of arguments. From my point of view it should be avoided. If it can't be avoided then be prepared to get as you give. And don't cry about it.

B.t.w. the real "establishment" is mostly right-wing and conservative, just as a reminder.

Oh my. Well I'm going to have to call you on that. I think you are wrong but since you made the statement you will have to provide some evidence.

Catfish

12-31-17, 11:44 AM

I don't care what side you are on or what your beliefs are. Name calling and suggesting that others are less intelligent than you means you are out of arguments. From my point of view it should be avoided. If it can't be avoided then be prepared to get as you give. And don't cry about it.

Please do not put words in my mouth.
He said that someone gave some Trump supporters names, it was not me. I said that those people are wrong, but that i can understand that some react allergic if people openly admire Trump for rejecting science and blatant lying.
Yes i should know it is different in the US.. regarding relation of voting and political affiliation:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/01/04/solved-why-poor-states-are-red-and-rich-states-are-blue/#5e0d4e491d60

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-do-white-working-class-people-vote-against-their-interests-they-dont/

Von Due

12-31-17, 11:58 AM

I'll just leave this here

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/divide-and-conquer.jpg

Mr Quatro

12-31-17, 12:08 PM

I'll just leave this here

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/divide-and-conquer.jpg

Nice reminder von due :up: We don't all have to agree, but play fair :yep:

http://www.eurasiareview.com/16122017-israels-sunni-shia-divide-and-conquer-strategy-oped/

Britain used divide and conquer to maintain control of its colonies. Now Israel has transformed the strategy into a fine art in its manipulation of its Arab neighbors.

em2nought

12-31-17, 01:27 PM

Article Quote:
Britain used divide and conquer to maintain control of its colonies. Now Israel has transformed the strategy into a fine art in its manipulation of its Arab neighbors.

Darned Israelis not wanting to be exterminated "again", what's their problem? We all know if they let up for one second that's what's going to happen, and I think there are still many in the world that wouldn't be too bothered by that. :hmmm:

Mr Quatro

12-31-17, 03:31 PM

Darned Israelis not wanting to be exterminated "again", what's their problem? We all know if they let up for one second that's what's going to happen, and I think there are still many in the world that wouldn't be too bothered by that. :hmmm:

May 1948 to May 2018 = 70 years

Independence Day "Day of Independence") is the national day of Israel, commemorating the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948.

some people think this will be a testing of Israel's Independence

I'm glad President Trump is on their side (along with his son in law too being Jewish) 2018 will be a trying year. I would be surprised if nothing happens and as always the USA will have to take sides. :yep:

u crank

01-01-18, 02:21 PM

Please do not put words in my mouth.

That was not my intention and I apologize.

As to the links you posted, I'm having a hard time connecting that to your original statement.

B.t.w. the real "establishment" is mostly right-wing and conservative, just as a reminder.

I think your idea of establishment and mine might differ.

Merriam-Websters' definition....

An established order of society: such as
a : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation)
b : a controlling group

In the United States I don't think that group is "mostly right-wing and conservative". But I am willing to be enlightened. :D

Catfish

01-01-18, 04:02 PM

As far as i have understood that, the "red states" are actually richer by households and consumption, while the "blue" states only seem to be rich from outside and statistics because of big business (net worth/corporations), but not by the income or the consuption of the common people.
Which is why the author in the first link makes up the thesis that
"The richer people, by the only standard that actually matters, that consumption, are voting right wing, the poorer are voting left."
:hmmm:

em2nought

01-01-18, 06:02 PM

https://pics.me.me/give-amana-fish-you-feed-him-for-a-day-teach-560532.png

vienna

01-02-18, 05:34 PM

The New Year starts off with a couple of big laughs, the first courtesy of Roy Moore's "Jewish lawyer" (I mean, if you can't trust a lawyer...)...:

The Jewish attorney that Roy Moore's wife touted employing in an attempt to fight off claims of anti-semitism is actually a longtime friend and supporter of Senator-elect Doug Jones, who defeated Moore last month.

Roy Moore's Jewish lawyer voted for Doug Jones, raised money for his campaign --

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/02/roy-moores-jewish-lawyer-voted-for-doug-jones-raised-money-for-his-campaign.html

The second is from the always humble, and very truthful, Big Yella Guy:

Trump Says He’s the Reason There Were No Plane-Crash Deaths Last Year (He Wasn’t) --

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-plane-crashes-safety-airlines-767985

Social media users mock Trump for taking credit for air-travel safety record --

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/367026-social-media-mocks-trump-for-tweet-taking-credit-for-air-travel

Trump Takes Credit for Air Safety System Run by Obama Holdover --

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/trump-takes-credit-for-air-safety-system-run-by-obama-holdover

What next? Trump taking credit for the not having hd a war with the UK since 1813?... :haha:

<O>

vienna

01-02-18, 06:49 PM

I've already posted the exact texts of Special Counsel Mueller's Grand Jury authorized indictments of Manafort and Gates, as well as the exact texts of the plea agreements allocuted to by Flynn and Papdopolous, irrefutable proof of the exact extent of the investigation so far, yet there has been a question about the scope of Mueller's investigation. Mueller was appointed by Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod Rosenstein, acting in place of Atty. Gen. Sessions, who recused himself from the Russia investigations over conflict of interest concerns; Rosenstein, himself, is a Trump appointee, and his appointment was confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate. Here is a link to the official Justice Dept. posting of Mueller's appointment as Special Counsel by Rothstein:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

Below is a quote directly from the text:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

In the appointment order, reference is made to 28 C.F.R. § 600.4, (Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.}) which fully defines the role, duties, responsibilities and scope of the Special counsel, in terms of Jurisdiction:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4

§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.

(a) Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

(b) Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.

(c) Civil and administrative jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.

The scope of the mandate of a Special Counsel is very broad and encompassing. Nothing thus far known of the actions of SC Mueller has exceeded his legal mandate as prescribed and/or proscribed by Federal Law...

In case you may have wondered if Sessions can tip off persons under possible investigation, or even Trump, himself, the text of 28 C.F.R. § 600.6 puts the investigation(s) by Special Counsel outside of the purview of the Atty. Gen., if the SC should so determine:

28 CFR 600.6 - Powers and authority.

Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.

The last sentence in the above gives a firm legal standing for not sharing information, if the SC so decides...

All the above is not "fake news": it is firm, solid Federal Law, as writ. The bellyaching of the Trump defenders (why they are defending Trump when he is not known to be a subject of an investigation is a greater mystery) does not hold water in the face of solid law and, as usual, in the face of cold, hard facts...

<O>

u crank

01-03-18, 06:22 AM

Exclusive: US government wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman --

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/index.html

There is now a report the Russian investigations were jump-started by the indiscretions of one of the persons who have been charged in the Mueller prosecutions, and not one of the real heavy-hitters, at that. This reported slip is reminiscent of how the Watergate investigations took on a whole new track when a low level White House functionary testifying before Congress casually mentioned the Oval Office had a working hidden recording setup. The person in the Russian inquiries who let his loose lips sink the Trump campaign? None other than George Papdopolous, the, until his guilty plea to charges, little known Trump campaign and Trump White House staff member who, in addition to pleading guilty, has also reached a deal to cooperate with the Special Counsel's investigations:

http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/455036/new-york-times-trump-russia-collusion-narrative-reset-george-papadopoulos-carter-page

There is no evidence that Papadopoulos or the Trump campaign was ever shown or given any of the emails the Kremlin purportedly had. The evidence, in fact, undermines the collusion narrative: If the Trump campaign had to learn, through Papadopoulos, that Russia supposedly had thousands of emails damaging to Clinton, that would necessarily mean the Trump campaign had nothing to do with Russia’s acquisition of the emails. This, no doubt, is why Mueller permitted Papadopoulos to plead guilty to a mere process crime — lying in an FBI interview. If there were evidence of an actual collusion conspiracy, Papadopoulos would have been pressured to admit guilt to it. He wasn’t.

Even a cursory FBI investigation of Papadopoulos would have illustrated how implausible it was that he could have been integral to a Trump-Russia plot. Anonymous intelligence and law-enforcement officials have been leaking collusion information to the Times and other media outlets since before Trump won the November 2016 election — that’s why we’ve spent the last year-plus hearing all about Page, Manafort, Flynn, et al. If Papadopoulos had really been the impetus for the investigation way back in July 2016, what are the chances that we would never have heard his name mentioned until after his guilty plea was announced 15 months later? What are the chances that we’d only now be learning that he was the real stimulus for the investigation? I’d put it at less than none.

There’s another interesting word that does not appear in the Times’ extensive Papadopoulos report: surveillance. Despite being “so alarmed” by young Papadopoulos’s barroom braggadocio with the Australian diplomat, and his claimed Russia connections, there is no indication that the Obama Justice Department and FBI ever sought a FISA-court warrant to spy on him.

No, the FISA warrant was sought for Carter Page, after his trip to Moscow. The trip the Times used to say incited the Trump-Russia probe.

vienna

01-03-18, 09:41 PM

Yet anther of Trump's initiatives has bitten the dust: the Commission Trump ordered to investigate alleged, and widely debunked, mass voter fraud was quietly disbanded by anther order signed by Trump, a sharp contrast to the fanfare accompanying its inception; not with a bang, but with a whimper...

Trump signs order disbanding voter fraud commission --

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-signs-order-disbanding-voter-fraud-commission-000033812--politics.html

Trump abolishes controversial voter fraud panel --

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/03/trump-signs-order-disbanding-voter-fraud-commission/

Trump abolishes controversial commission studying alleged voter fraud --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-abolishes-controversial-commission-studying-voter-fraud/2018/01/03/665b1878-f0e2-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html?utm_term=.3b10bdd639e1

I do believe it may be official: the Detroit Tigers, the San Francisco Giants and, even, the Cleveland Browns have had better seasons than Trump... :haha:

<O>

Jimbuna

01-04-18, 06:43 AM

^ Thread merged-US politics.

Jimbuna

01-04-18, 09:33 AM

US President Donald Trump's lawyers have written to his former strategist Steve Bannon, saying he has violated a non-disclosure agreement.

The cease-and-desist notice accuses Mr Bannon of defaming the president in speaking to author Michael Wolff.

Wolff's forthcoming tell-all book describes the president as being unprepared for the job.

Mr Trump responded by saying Mr Bannon had "lost his mind" after losing his White House position.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42563443

You know, I'm thinking this and all the other stories mus be a great source of entertainment to Russia and China in particular.

Rockstar

01-04-18, 09:53 AM

And like clockwork the new book hits the streets which is filled with controversy, drama, rumor, hearsay. As some have written people :are breathlessly awaiting a new book promising to damage the presidency as they anticipate their 2018 talking points". Oh, and it will help boost book sales too.

vienna

01-04-18, 04:47 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42563443

You know, I'm thinking this and all the other stories mus be a great source of entertainment to Russia and China in particular.

My thoughts exactly. Russia and China don't have to even lift a finger anymore to damage the US: Trump and his minions are doing all the heavy lifting. I wouldn't be surprised RUS and CHN biggest concern right now is the possibility (probability) Trump will be forced from office; particularly RUS, given all the work they put in to create this mess in DC...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwMRkt770vc

<O>

em2nought

01-04-18, 05:16 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwMRkt770vc

I don't think calling Trump voters "Nazis" is going to work out any better for your side than calling them "deplorables" did. :yeah:

vienna

01-04-18, 05:16 PM

Trump is still a great salesman:

The Latest: Trump book publisher moves up release date --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/the-latest-trump-blasts-bannon-saying-he-lost-his-mind/2018/01/03/8d3bc126-f101-11e7-95e3-eff284e71c8d_story.html?utm_term=.5e3d83cefa30

WASHINGTON — The Latest on a new book about President Donald Trump (all times local):

4:40 p.m.

The publisher of a new book about President Donald Trump’s first year in office apparently isn’t cowed by demands to halt publication — it is moving up the date the book comes out.

Henry Holt and Co. says in a statement that it will move up the release date of Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury” four days, to Jan. 5, citing “unprecedented demand.”

Trump attorney Charles Harder has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Wolff and Steve Rubin, president and publisher of Henry Holt. It demands a halt to publication of the book or excerpts.

“Fire and Fury” paints a derogatory portrait of Trump, describing him as an undisciplined man-child who didn’t actually want to win the White House.

Wolff himself is tweeting: “Here we go. You can buy it (and read it) tomorrow. Thank you, Mr. President.”

__

Given Trump has a long, long history of rattling sabres and threatening lawsuits and then backing down or settling, it doesn't look like his umbrage is going anywhere...

<O>

vienna

01-04-18, 07:20 PM

Remember when the Trump-GOP Tax Plan was passed a little while back? Remember when Trump loudly and boastfully bellowed about how major US firms were going to give employees large bonuses and create more jobs as a result of the Tax Plan? Remember how it was all "sunshine, lollipops and rainbows"? Remember how AT&T was proudly in the forefront of all the glad-handing? Remember?...

Well, there doesn't seem to be the same volume level when it comes to the reality and the facts:

AT&T, touting bonuses and investment fueled by tax reform, quietly lays off thousands --

https://www.indystar.com/story/money/2018/01/02/t-touting-bonuses-and-investment-fueled/992690001/

When AT&T Inc. announced it would hand out holiday bonuses to 200,000 workers thanks to Congress' recent tax overhaul, the company's statement failed to mention a separate, yet notable, personnel matter: Many employees will be getting laid off in the coming weeks.

AT&T is eliminating thousands of jobs across the U.S., including 30 in Central Indiana, according to Communications Workers of America, the union that represents AT&T employees. The company is cutting nearly 12 percent of its technicians who install U-verse and DirectTV in the Indianapolis area, according to union figures.

Moments after Congress passed a Republican-backed tax overhaul that will save corporations billions of dollars per year, AT&T was the first major company to draw a link between the bill and benefits for workers. AT&T said it would give $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 employees and invest $1 billion in the U.S. next year.

“This tax reform will drive economic growth and create good-paying jobs," AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson said Dec. 20.

But Larry Robbins, vice president of Communications Workers of America Local 4900, said AT&T was publicly forecasting employment growth while privately notifying employees they would be losing their jobs in the new year.

As I've said before, facts, reality, and truth seem to be the undoing of Trump's much touted "successes"...

<O>

Rockstar

01-04-18, 09:27 PM

I reject your reality and insert my own.

Trump may (or not) have boasted and bellowed. But his praise of AT&T was in response to the promises AT&T made. It was AT&T not Trump who boasted with promises to invest more, hand out bonuses and hire more people if congress passed tax cuts. Further proven by the irrefutable fact the Communications Workers of America union is suing AT&T not the president.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/att-sued-over-layoffs-after-promising-more-investment-because-of-tax-cut/

http://about.att.com/story/att_to_invest_an_additional_1_billion_in_the_unite d_states_if_competitive_tax_rate_enacted.html

Now it has been said Trump is anti-union and it has also been said AT&T took actions contrary to their promises to breakup the union. :hmmm:

ikalugin

01-05-18, 05:00 AM

If we go with the whole "Russia made Trump win" narrative (which I disagree with and view it as a counter productive to US national interests) then Trump being removed from office would still be within the perceived Russian policy as it creates political instability in US.

Rockstar

01-05-18, 09:44 AM

Oh we create most of our own problems. By blaming them on Russia we get to deny any all responsibilty for them.

Dowly

01-05-18, 01:18 PM

https://i.imgur.com/nmT9bzC.jpg

August

01-05-18, 11:46 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=111&v=P843ju6YYI4

Gerald

01-08-18, 08:07 PM

LOS ANGELES — Nearly 200,000 people from El Salvador who have been allowed to live in the United States for more than a decade must leave the country, government officials announced Monday. It is the Trump administration’s latest reversal of years of immigration policies and one of the most consequential to date.

Homeland security officials said that they were ending a humanitarian program, known as Temporary Protected Status, for Salvadorans who have been allowed to live and work legally in the United States since a pair of devastating earthquakes struck their country in 2001.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/us/salvadorans-tps-end.html?ribbon-ad-idx=3&src=trending

A lot.:o

Jimbuna: I am losing count of the number of threads that you create that I am having to merge because of almost identical topic content. This is the latest which is clearly of a US political nature.

August

01-08-18, 09:42 PM

"Temporary" Protected Status since 2001? Why has this temporary program allowed to continue to exist for a decade and a half?

HW3

01-09-18, 02:32 AM

Sounds like past administrations dropped the ball on ending this. :Kaleun_Applaud:

u crank

01-09-18, 05:59 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/08/politics/temporary-protected-status-el-salvador/index.html

The termination will come with an 18-month delay, as the administration also recently did in ending other recent Temporary Protected Status for other countries. That time will allow individuals who have lived under the status to either seek other means of staying in the US or prepare to leave. The delay means the more than 250,000 TPS protectees will have until September 9, 2019, to either find a different way to stay in the US or prepare to leave.

Platapus

01-09-18, 08:11 AM

Sounds like past administrations dropped the ball on ending this. :Kaleun_Applaud:
Not really. The Bush Jr and Obama administrations renewed this program multiple times.

The latest renewal was 81 FR 44645 and was implemented in 2016. This regulation renewed the Temporary Protected Status(TPS) for 18 months from September 10, 2016 through March 9, 2018.

All the Trump administration is doing is not choosing to issue a further renewal.

Dowly

01-09-18, 05:20 PM

Senate Democrats just released full testimony on the Trump-Russia dossier. Here's what's in it (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/09/sen-dianne-feinstein-unilaterally-releases-fusion-gps-testimony.html)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Tuesday released the full transcript from Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

"The innuendo and misinformation circulating about the transcript are part of a deeply troubling effort to undermine the investigation into potential collusion and obstruction of justice," Feinstein said in a statement. "The only way to set the record straight is to make the transcript public."

vienna

01-09-18, 07:23 PM

I'm in the process of reading the full transcript, right now. Here is a link to an article comparing the testimony given to Congress with Trump's public comments about the dossier:

‘It’s not a fabrication’: Six times the firm behind the infamous dossier contradicted Trump’s claims --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/09/its-not-a-fabrication-six-times-the-company-behind-the-trump-russia-dossier-contradicted-trump/?utm_term=.a3db4042a480

<O>

vienna

01-09-18, 07:56 PM

As a bit of background on the release of the Senate committee's transcript of the GPS founder's testimony, here is the original op-ed piece published in the NY Times by Glenn R. Simpson and Peter Fritsch, the founders of the research firm Fusion GPS, citing why they wanted the transcript(s) released:

The Republicans’ Fake Investigations --

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/02/opinion/republicans-investigation-fusion-gps.html

'Human source' in Trump orbit contacted FBI, Fusion GPS co-founder told senators --

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/09/feinstein-releases-transcript-of-interview-with-fusion-gps-co-founder-329573

The testimony of there being a humint source for the FBI and that the source is someone in Trump's camp certainly makes matters a bit more interesting; it also gives a bit more substance to my theory there was significantly more scrutiny of the Trump campaign than has been known; the reaction of Gen. Flynn when the roof came crashing down on him, a bit of a deer-in-the-headlights look, seemed to indicate there was a source or sources of inside information, either humint or some sort of technical observation; we do know former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort had been under surveillance since at least 2014 and we also know he was wiretapped during some portion of the time since then and it would not be out of reason to suspect others in the Trump campaign were likewise surveilled particularly given some of their backgrounds and/or by virtue of their contacts with Manafort. Curioser and curiouser...

<O>

Méo

01-09-18, 08:11 PM

"Temporary" Protected Status since 2001? Why has this temporary program allowed to continue to exist for a decade and a half?

Sounds like past administrations dropped the ball on ending this. :Kaleun_Applaud:

What you seem to forget is that they often do dirty and underpaid jobs that nobody wants.

August

01-09-18, 08:57 PM

What you seem to forget is that they often do dirty and underpaid jobs that nobody wants.

"Jobs that nobody wants" is a myth. I don't care where you are from if you are hungry enough there is no job too dirty or underpaid.

Méo

01-09-18, 09:09 PM

"Jobs that nobody wants" is a myth. I don't care where you are from if you are hungry enough there is no job too dirty or underpaid.

So whether it is U.S. or Canada, it's clear that there too many people that are not hungry enough...;)

Or maybe they are not enough to fill the gap? :hmmm:

August

01-09-18, 09:48 PM

So whether it is U.S. or Canada, it's clear that there too many people that are not hungry enough...;)

Or maybe they are not enough to fill the gap? :hmmm:

Says who? I think this whole too good for the job concept is a bunch of bull. There is no legal job in this country that is so bad that only starving refugees will accept it. Prove me wrong.

Rockstar

01-09-18, 09:49 PM

I'll say it again. Open borders, global economy, and the push for universal health care does, in my opinion, have much to do with the National Security Study Memorandum 200.

Thirteen countries are named in the report as particularly problematic with respect to US security interests: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. The countries are projected to create 47 percent of all world population growth.

Méo

01-09-18, 11:54 PM

Prove me wrong.

"Jobs that nobody wants" is a myth.

I would like to see you elaborate on your ''myth'' to many U.S. farmers.

And I wonder why this has been created a long time ago...

The H-2A temporary agricultural program establishes a means for agricultural employers who anticipate a shortage of domestic workers to bring non-immigrant foreign workers to the U.S. to perform agricultural labor or services of a temporary or seasonal nature.[1] In 2015 there were approximately 140,000 total temporary agricultural workers under this visa program. Terms of work can be as short as a month or two or as long as 10 months in most cases, although there are some special procedures that allow workers to stay longer than 10 months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-2A_visa

---

The reality is that reports of deportations has farmers scared like I’ve never seen before.

“If they just stopped contributing to the workforce, we’d have a major crisis,”

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/can-americas-farms-survive-the-threat-of-deportations/529008/

August

01-10-18, 08:38 AM

I would like to see you elaborate on your ''myth'' to many U.S. farmers.

A shortage of workers does not equal "nobody wants the job". We have worker shortages in well paying high tech fields too and it's about profit.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/the-bogus-high-tech-worker-sho

The Bogus High-Tech Worker Shortage: How Guest Workers Lower US Wages

And I wonder why this has been created a long time ago...Because some employers find it easier to oppress foreign workers than domestic ones.

For example:

The use of migrant workers in the US seafood supply chain has led to the creation of exploitative conditions that are equivalent to forced labor, according to a report released (http://asia.floorwage.org/workersvoices/reports/raising-the-floor-for-supply-chain-workers-perspective-from-u-s-seafood-supply-chains/view) on Wednesday.
The report was released by the National Guestworker Alliance (NGA) and is based on previous findings as well as interviews with 126 seafood processing workers in New Bedford, Massachusetts, and a range of in-depth case studies.
In order to succeed in a highly competitive global market, US seafood processors have increasingly come to rely on temporary labor. Such workers include H-2B visa laborers as well as undocumented workers. Their immigration status makes these workers vulnerable to exploitation. The NGA found that these workers were unlikely to report abuse on the job due to threats from employers not to hire them in subsequent seasons and sponsor them for H-2B visa. Undocumented workers have been threatened with immigration enforcement.
“This new research exposes a reality that workers know all too well,” said Daniel Castellanos, former H-2B guest worker and a co-founder of the NGA. “Seafood processing workers are routinely subjected to severe forms of exploitation by companies producing cheap seafood for major retailers and food distributors like Walmart. And when they speak out or try to resist abuse, they are punished severely for it.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/08/us-seafood-workers-abuse-immgration-temporary-labor

mapuc

01-10-18, 01:11 PM

So whether it is U.S. or Canada, it's clear that there too many people that are not hungry enough...;)

Or maybe they are not enough to fill the gap? :hmmm:

I think August is right here and I will give you an example from Denmark.

Some years ago some companies was accused of using underpaid Polish workers. The leaders of these companies said that there weren't any Danes who wanted this job.

Some Journalist from a Danish news paper went undercover and started to investigate and research this.

It turned out that they had received hundreds of job application from Danes.

I know this is about US politics. However this "Danes/Swedes/Germans/and so on, don't want these jobs is a lie, and is a problem worldwide.

Markus

vienna

01-10-18, 04:05 PM

A big factor is not the willingness to do "dirty work", it is willingness to do the dirty work for substandard wages. US workers are loathe to do anything for minimum wage, much less for below minimum, which is where the immigrant workers fit in; if doing the "dirty work" were paid at a level of, say, 1-1/2 times minimum or higher, there might be an incentive for US workers to take those jobs...

All the talk of the immigrant workers has pretty much focused on the workers, themselves, and very, very little on the hiring entities, who are quite often violating Federal laws and regulations by hiring migrants. If there was a serious effort to hold the hiring parties responsible for adhering to long-existing laws, the incentive for immigrants to come to the US would be vastly reduced; people won't go where there are few or no jobs available to them. If you look at the way immigration laws regarding hiring are enforced, you would see a sort of 'blind eye' situation in play; there are laws prohibiting the employment of non-citizens or undocumented workers, but the enforcement against the employers is almost non-existent or very shoddy. As an example, there does exist a system for the verification of legal emplolyability status, but the use of the system, by law, is entirely voluntary: make it mandatory, make compliance a documented, and verified process, and, most importantly, make noncompliance punishable by hefty fines, sanctions, or, in extreme violation, jail time...

Why is the employment verification system voluntary and not mandatory? The employers who have profited from the use of non-eligible migrant labor such as farms, hotels, restaurants, and other places need workers for the "dirty work" have lobbied long and hard, at great expense, to keep their low-cost workforce and to avoid having to comply with existing laws...

<O>

vienna

01-10-18, 04:19 PM

Mueller adds veteran cyber prosecutor to special-counsel team --

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mueller-adds-veteran-cyber-prosecutor-to-special-counsel-team/2018/01/10/860f3364-f585-11e7-b34a-b85626af34ef_story.html?utm_term=.f6bae950780a

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has added a veteran cyber prosecutor to his team, filling what has long been a gap in expertise and potentially signaling a recent focus on computer crimes.

Ryan K. Dickey was assigned to Mueller’s team in early November from the Justice Department’s computer crime and intellectual-property section, said a spokesman for the special counsel’s office. He joined 16 other lawyers who are highly respected by their peers but who have come under fire from Republicans wary of some of their political contributions to Democrats.

Dickey’s addition is particularly notable because he is the first publicly known member of the team specializing solely in cyber issues. The others’ expertise is mainly in a variety of white-collar crimes, including fraud, money laundering and public corruption, though Mueller also has appellate specialists and one of the government’s foremost experts in criminal law.

...

Dickey, who previously worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, has participated in a number of high-profile computer-crime prosecutions — including the ongoing case against the file-sharing site Megaupload and the investigation of the Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer.”

<O>

em2nought

01-10-18, 04:30 PM

A big factor is not the willingness to do "dirty work", it is willingness to do the dirty work for substandard wages.
<O>

Nope, the real factor is a government that's willing to give away taxes I paid to people who know they can get "free" money so why work for it. The same as military contractors know that if they run over budget the government will give them my money to pay for it. As long as votes can be bought we are eventually doomed because someday I'm going to run out of money, if I don't leave and take it with me first.

https://pics.me.me/give-a-man-a-fish-and-you-feed-him-for-21966107.png

vienna

01-10-18, 04:53 PM

Nope, the real factor is a government that's willing to give away taxes I paid to people who know they can get "free" money so why work for it. The same as military contractors know that if they run over budget the government will give them my money to pay for it. As long as votes can be bought we are eventually doomed because someday I'm going to run out of money, if I don't leave and take it with me first.

https://pics.me.me/give-a-man-a-fish-and-you-feed-him-for-21966107.png

For the record, I said substandard wages is a big factor, not the only factor. It is still a fact people come here looking for jobs and the employers of those people and the Federal government have a cozy little "blind eye" arrangement facilitating the spread of the problem. As an example, there has been a recent increase in immigrants returning to Mexico because that's where the jobs are becoming plentiful, thanks to the creation of new manufacturing plants in Mexico. And who are creating those new plants and new jobs? Foreign (to Mexico) businesses who are looking for cheap labor and proximity to their prime market, the US. Foremost amongst the firms setting up shop in Mexico are US corporations looking to avoid paying US workers higher wages and benefits; why hire a US worker when you can get a Mexican or other worker who will do the same job for much less and with fewer to none of the benefits and perks US workers demand and with almost no repercussions for violating basic work conditions? The US firms may also be looking to avoid having to deal with US labor laws, safety requirements, environmental requirements, etc., but the very largest expenditure has long been wages and benefits and moving out of the US is the best way US firms see as a coping strategy...

<O>

Méo

01-11-18, 12:59 AM

I didn't think I had to specify this.

I would like to see you elaborate on your ''myth'' to many U.S. farmers.

And I wonder why this has been created a long time ago...

The H-2A temporary agricultural program establishes a means for agricultural employers who anticipate a shortage of domestic workers to bring non-immigrant foreign workers to the U.S. to perform agricultural labor or services of a temporary or seasonal nature.[1] In 2015 there were approximately 140,000 total temporary agricultural workers under this visa program. Terms of work can be as short as a month or two or as long as 10 months in most cases, although there are some special procedures that allow workers to stay longer than 10 months.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-2A_visa

---

The reality is that reports of deportations has farmers scared like I’ve never seen before.

“If they just stopped contributing to the workforce, we’d have a major crisis,”

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/can-americas-farms-survive-the-threat-of-deportations/529008/

So let me rephrase this:

"Jobs that nobody wants"

''Jobs that are the least appealing.''

Agricultural jobs offer you:

- minimum wage

- A completely different lifestyle with a lot more than 8 hours/day, very few entertainment of any kind, limited access to a lot of services (internet, public places, medical center, etc.)

- Hard and repetitive physical work.

- Less chance of finding a life partner (for city citizen at least).

and the list could probably go on...

And this is nothing new, since the begining of the industrialization populations began quitting rural areas for cities in the hope of a better tomorrow. So it's no wonder that many agricultural employers have a hard time finding the sufficient workforce and turn overseas to fill the gap and probably put a lot of pression on governments to accept it.

Personally I've never known (or heard of) anyone whose dream was to work on a farm (unless they inherit from their parents).

Of course if I had really no choice I would do it, but it would take a huge crisis I guess, which is something ''nobody wants.''

FullMetalADCAP

01-11-18, 01:41 AM

It's the same old "I got mine so screw you" mentality that causes people to say that people should be happy to work minimum wage jobs, which IMHO amounts to theft by the rich who way underpay their employees compared to what they earn. If they had to work for minimum wage they wouldn't like it either. Certainly the rich can afford to pay people more than they do. And I'm not a leftist or even a democrat. I'm a registered conservative and don't believe in socialism. But the US political spectrum is so polarized with neither side wanting to compromise and meet in the middle. It's a never ending tug of war and it only results in a weak nation overall.

For instance, most people's wages haven't gone up in years. But this doesn't stop grocery stores from hiking up prices on products. And when you ask them why beef went up a whole dollar or two they respond that gas prices went up. But then when gas prices drop back down they don't reduce the price on the beef. They keep it at the inflated rate and just rake in tons of profit.

Cigna dental has increased their dental premium $10. Was paying $66 a month for me and my kids and now it's $76 after being a loyal customer for 3 years without a missed payment. And I'm just one person they raised the premium on. They have millions of customers and $10 is a HUGE profit gain for them when you consider the millions they hit with this increased rate. I can only imagine the CEO needed a new yacht or mega mansion. Why not raise it a nickel? I'm sure that would still be a gain for them. $10 is a HUGE jump for the average customer.

And $5 or more for a pack of cigarettes? Ridiculous robbery! Crazy fleecing of consumers. Pretty much a mega tax on the poor since it's shown that poorer people tend to smoke cigarettes. Get'em hooked on an addictive drug then tax the **** outta em and then blame them and say, "You don't have to smoke!" in a condescending way. See, they don't want to help you. They want to bankrupt and hurt you. It's pure and simple greed. It's got to stop! Real lives are affected and it's like everyone is just a heartless money-grubbing jerk these days giving each other the middle finger saying "I got mine screw you!" The world is losing it's humanity.

And it's true that many are born with parents who got all the right connections and their kids end up well off in life and those who grew up poor tend to end up poor for life. It isn't right. And I don't like the idea of a society in which failure comes with stiff economical penalties to coerce people into doing work. That level of coercion is like holding a gun to someone's head and saying "Work or starve!" How is that not absolute slavery? Why should anyone have to do anything just to get food? Especially in a society that has made hunting illegal unless you pay the tax. The powers that be have made it so you HAVE TO work for them just to survive. Otherwise you're breaking some law. Hell, you can't even be homeless anymore without breaking the law. Jailed for squatting or trespassing since some rich person owns all the land. And why don't you ever see homeless in the rich parts of town? Because the rich have more control over the cops and have the cops run them back into the poor part of town so the rich don't even have to see the homeless people in society. They live in a bubble world where they have slaves work for them and pay them peanuts while they wine and dine on the finest of everything like the gluttonous sacks of sin they are!

While it's easy to accuse many of being lazy sloths, there's way more gluttons in this society. Ain't nobody innocent. But some humanity and hospitality would do everyone a lot of good. Just such a nasty world these days. It's really sad.

The money system is just pure evil and makes people very evil and selfish. And those who don't want to play the game are accused of being lazy by those who play the game to "have it all."

Whatever happened to this level of compassion? How about we all stop playing the game and tear it up! The rich and powerful are only so because we choose to allow them to be. That can change. Tear it up!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hbIPpNKXYI

August

01-11-18, 02:34 PM

I didn't think I had to specify this.

So let me rephrase this:

''Jobs that are the least appealing.''

And I didn't think I would have to specify that the problems are exactly the same for both jobs.

As far as relative desirability goes all else being equal (pay) i'd take a fruit picker over a fish packer job any day. If you have ever been downwind of a fish packing facility or a cannery you'd know why.

Skybird

01-12-18, 09:20 AM

One of the many lessons of the recent presidential election campaign and its repugnant outcome is that the age of identity liberalism must be brought to an end. Hillary Clinton was at her best and most uplifting when she spoke about American interests in world affairs and how they relate to our understanding of democracy. But when it came to life at home, she tended on the campaign trail to lose that large vision and slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop. This was a strategic mistake. If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. If you don’t, those left out will notice and feel excluded. Which, as the data show, was exactly what happened with the white working class and those with strong religious convictions. Fully two-thirds of white voters without college degrees voted for Donald Trump, as did over 80 percent of white evangelicals.
(...)
the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life. At a very young age our children are being encouraged to talk about their individual identities, even before they have them. By the time they reach college many assume that diversity discourse exhausts political discourse, and have shockingly little to say about such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good. In large part this is because of high school history curriculums, which anachronistically project the identity politics of today back onto the past, creating a distorted picture of the major forces and individuals that shaped our country. (The achievements of women’s rights movements, for instance, were real and important, but you cannot understand them if you do not first understand the founding fathers’ achievement in establishing a system of government based on the guarantee of rights.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-liberalism.html

Mr Quatro

01-12-18, 11:20 AM

Dowly

01-12-18, 03:09 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTzqvrBFXww
:salute:

Rockstar

01-12-18, 03:49 PM

Had to laugh when I heard it said Trump called Haiti a ' ****hole' country. Ive been there more times than I care to count and I have to agree it is exactly as it he is said to have described it.

Rockstar

01-12-18, 03:52 PM

Even more of a laugh when Mudd comes out full tilt pandering mode even going so far to equating calling countries ****holes to mocking physical appearances of people.

August

01-12-18, 04:02 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTzqvrBFXww
:salute:

Geez liberals are upset over something a repub has done or said, whodathunkit!

Méo

01-12-18, 06:50 PM

As far as relative desirability goes all else being equal (pay) i'd take a fruit picker over a fish packer job any day. If you have ever been downwind of a fish packing facility or a cannery you'd know why.

Alright, but I was not arguing about which is the worse job.

In my first post, I was simply pointing out that the situation is more complex than just getting them out of the country. It also comes with a drawback, which is a substantial lack of workforce in some industries.

Btw, there is a similar visa program here in Canada.

August

01-12-18, 10:29 PM

Alright, but I was not arguing about which is the worse job.

Neither was I really.

In my first post, I was simply pointing out that the situation is more complex than just getting them out of the country. It also comes with a drawback, which is a substantial lack of workforce in some industries.

I agree with you but what you said was:

What you seem to forget is that they often do dirty and underpaid jobs that nobody wants.

The only part I disagree with there is the absolutism of it. It's not all migrant labor in those fields and factories. Fish packing plants in New Bedford as well as Californian orchards have American citizens working there right along side migrants in the same nasty conditions for the same crappy pay.

STEED

01-13-18, 06:09 AM

https://media.makeameme.org/created/you-know-when-5a59e8.jpg

Highbury

01-14-18, 12:00 PM

The only part I disagree with there is the absolutism of it. It's not all migrant labor in those fields and factories. Fish packing plants in New Bedford as well as Californian orchards have American citizens working there right along side migrants in the same nasty conditions for the same crappy pay.

Also, migrants from poorer countries are not always laborers. Many of then move to Western countries for better schooling, not just minimum wage jobs.

Rockstar

01-14-18, 12:12 PM

And as many here do where I live. Go on to find for themselves and family a better life, great opportunity and wealth. Just like my family did when they came to the U.S. from Norway :O:

August

01-14-18, 01:45 PM

And as many here do where I live. Go on to find for themselves and family a better life, great opportunity and wealth. Just like my family did when they came to the U.S. from Norway :O:

As I imagine just about everyone's ancestors did, at least beside those who were brought here in chains, but it was a lot easier back then to accept masses of immigrants when there was a vast frontier to send them out to.
Nowadays immigrants have to fit into existing communities and therefore I think we should be a little more selective about who we let in.

Catfish

01-14-18, 01:56 PM

[...]
Nowadays immigrants have to fit into existing communities and therefore I think we should be a little more selective about who we let in.

Well the first settlers did not exactly fit into indian communities, so nowadays you sure got to be careful :D

August

01-14-18, 02:34 PM

Well the first settlers did not exactly fit into indian communities, so nowadays you sure got to be careful :D

Exactly.

You cannot ignore several millennia of human nature and history just because of modern utopian notions. Large scale mixing of human societies has always caused strife and the more disparate they are the worse the clash, nor is the result equally bad for all sides.

em2nought

01-14-18, 04:36 PM

Well the first settlers did not exactly fit into indian communities, so nowadays you sure got to be careful :D

Letting all those new immigrants in all willy nilly didn't work out so well for the Indians did it? :hmmm:

August

01-15-18, 01:39 PM

The first Uranium One indictment handed down and with a real Russian connection no less. Money laundering and wire fraud.

The Uranium One investigation centers on the Obama administration's clearing of a business deal that allowed a Russian nuclear firm to buy a Canadian uranium mining company with assets in the U.S.In the indictment, prosecutors accuse Lambert of hiding the payments to the Russian official by using code words such as “lucky figures,” “lucky numbers” and “cake.” The official Lambert was accused of bribing works at a subsidiary of Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corp.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Congress in 2010 that no uranium at either facility purchased by the Russian company could be exported. Still, some of the uranium mined after the deal made it as far away as Europe, The Hill reported in November.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said at the time that it was "disturbing" to see that some of the yellowcake uranium had made its way overseas despite promises from the U.S. government to the contrary.
"The more that surfaces about this deal, the more questions it raises," Grassley said in a statement.
"It now appears that despite pledges to the contrary, U.S. uranium made its way overseas as a part of the Uranium One deal," Grassley said in the statement. "What’s more disturbing, those transactions were apparently made possible by various Obama Administration agencies while the Democrat-controlled Congress turned a blind eye."

http://thehill.com/policy/international/368953-grand-jury-indicts-maryland-executive-in-uranium-one-deal-report

Bleiente

01-15-18, 09:59 PM

https://image.ibb.co/e2C5Mm/Trumpeltier.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)

"Jack" is now awake... :D

Bleiente

01-15-18, 10:04 PM

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/ermittlungen-wegen-russland-affaere-behinderte-donald-trump-die-justiz/20664998.html

:k_confused:

Bleiente

01-15-18, 10:23 PM

Hahaha - if these two *******s already say so... :har:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/ex-praesidenten-bush-ueber-donald-trump-angeber-der-keine-ahnung-hat-a-1176510.html

Bleiente

01-15-18, 10:29 PM

https://www.stern.de/politik/ausland/donald-trumps-erstes-amtsjahr--zahl-der-jobs-in-der-us-autoindustrie-gesunken-7419048.html

:doh:

Bleiente

01-15-18, 10:31 PM

http://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/politik/Senator-wirft-Donald-Trump-rassistische-Wortwahl-vor-id42964786.html

:timeout:

Reece

01-15-18, 11:18 PM

Some English sites would be nice!:doh:

em2nought

01-16-18, 04:09 AM

hehe
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f9/7f/37/f97f37a4b496e04b196a318383eeb894.jpg

Dowly

01-16-18, 04:18 AM

The first Uranium One indictment handed down and with a real Russian connection no less. Money laundering and wire fraud.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/368953-grand-jury-indicts-maryland-executive-in-uranium-one-deal-report
I don't think that has anything to do with the Uranium One investigation (isn't it on hold atm?). This investigation seems to have started already under Obama and is about US business figures throwing money at the Russians, not the other way around.

Jimbuna

01-16-18, 05:16 AM

Thread locked awaiting an editorial decision.

Skybird

01-16-18, 06:03 PM

German-French TV channel ARTE today broadcasted this two-part documentation on why and how Russia/Putin probably has interfered with the US elections.

Trump fans will hate it. Clinton fans will like it, though not as much as Trump fans hate it. To me the story, as it is being told here, makes quite some sense. Putin and Trump get blamed most, but Obama and Clinton get their share, too.

"Putin's Revenge", produced and broadcasted first by PBS:

part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5LZlNcDFkQ

part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErQgykkH_2Y

Who is PBS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS

Who is the film maker Michael Kirk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kirk

Alternative links to the main film:
http://www.pbs.org/video/putins-revenge-mzz1lp/
http://www.pbs.org/video/putins-revenge-part-two-wpsiq2/

vienna

01-16-18, 06:32 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZSR6xUHf-4

The whole matter has gotten even more ridiculous; the White House and the Trump defenders have gone from, at first, not denying to denying to trying to play with the wording ("It was 'house' not 'hole'...) to now using an old Watergate chestnut: over-specificity. During the Watergate investigations and hearing, witnesses (in some cases, persons who would actually become defendants) sought to evade actually answering truthfully or completely by using a high degree of specifics in order to parse the questions as finely as possible and to avoid actually addressing the intent of the questions. There was one witness who took it to a fine degree when he started his answer to a question with "To the best of my knowledge, at that point in time, to the best of my recollection...". College students, during the Watergate investigations, started drinking games where they would take a shot every time one of the above, and other such phrases was uttered...

Earlier today, I heard some White House spokeshole using a variant of the Watergate ploy when answering a press question about Trump's remarks; it went along the lines of 'Trump did not use those terms in regard to a specific country nor did he use the remarks, specifically...'; so, now they are not really denying Trump used the terms, just that he didn't use them specifically...

Somehow, I specifically don't think a specifically rational person would buy that specific excuse...

<O>

vienna

01-16-18, 07:09 PM

Confessions of a Trump voter --

http://www.stltoday.com/opinion/columnists/confessions-of-a-trump-voter/article_62ec80de-1039-51be-a011-a0256307a4a0.html

<O>

u crank

01-16-18, 07:36 PM

From the article....

Today, I can’t apologize enough to my fellow Americans who I only sought to protect from the Hillary Clinton crime syndicate with my vote. I was wrought with fear Clinton would steal even more money from us and eventually bankrupt the country. In hindsight, I can’t help but think a Hillary Clinton-run America might very well end up penniless, but we would still have our most important national treasure intact: our dignity.

Dignity or poverty...tough choice. :har:

vienna

01-16-18, 07:48 PM

From the article....

Dignity or poverty...tough choice. :har:

You mean like the economic mess GOP President GW Bush left behind? Neither poverty nor dignity...

I'd rather be poor and have my dignity, ethics, compassion and morals intact rather than be...

...Trump...

<O>

u crank

01-16-18, 08:24 PM

There has been an administration between Bush and Trump. If you can't fix the problem in eight years, how much time does it take? Did things get better or worse under Obama? Would a Clinton administration have made things better or worse?

I'd rather feed my children, make my mortgage payments and send my kids to college than worry about virtue signaling and phony moral outrage. To believe that the current president, of whom I am not a fan of, is any less corrupt that any previous president necessitates a partisan bias. Period.

That guy regrets voting for Trump. How many people regret voting for Hillary?

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/09/20/poll-more-hillary-voters-regret-their-2016-vote-than-trump-voters-n2384155

vienna

01-16-18, 09:54 PM

Hmm.. let's see...

GOP President GW Bush fails to enact any sort of viable, common sense economic policy or safeguards against big businesses and bid financial institutions mismanaging and plundering the economy, leading to the worst recession in US history since the Great Depression of 1929, in turn leading to massive layoffs, record unemployment, record bankruptcies, and the most bank failures sine 1929. That is what was handed to his successor, who, in 2009, happened to be Obama; cut forward to 2017: Obama hands over an economy that is solid, with very low unemployment and a fairly high degree of consumer confidence to his successor, who happens to be Trump, giving Trump a distinct advantage Obama, or anyone else who would have succeeded GW Bush, didn't have; so what has Trump done so far?; he has removed most of the safeguards and common sense policies put in place to prevent a repeat of 2008 and he has basically give free reign to the big businesses and big financial institutions to reinstate and expand upon the very practices causing the Great Recession. He's kind of like the guy who manages a bank where the former manager beefed up anti-robbery measures and decides the anti-robbery measures are too 'cumbersome' on the advice of the potential bank robbers...

I don't know; maybe you found the Great Recession enjoyable; in that case, you more than like have a great deal of 'joy' coming your way...

As far as regretting voting for Hillary (whom, BTW, I didn't vote for), the vast majority of Americans really don't give her a second thought; you might not be aware, but Hillary is not in the White House, and that's not "fake news". Its not important in any way how many people regret voting for Hillary; that's all past and done; like the Wicked Witch of the West, she "has no power here". In fact, the only function she currently serves is to be a distracting 'straw man' used by Trump and his minions to deflect from their own failing, idiocies and shortcomings. What she does now o, even, what she did before doesn't really matter in the governance of this country. In the unlikely event Trump survives his first term, in 2020 the question will be what has the GOP and Trump done to better the nation and all the phony finger-pointing at Hillary or any other 'straw man' will not hide the failures. The GOP is already in trouble: their Senate majority has gone from 54-46 to 51-49 in the space of just 2 years and in the House, the GOP already has over 30 of their House members opting to not run again; this, coupled with the fact several of the still running GOP Senate and House members are either facing runs in districts won by Hillary in 2016 or in districts where some of the 'improvements' enacted by the Trump administration, most notably health care, are or will be having negative impacts on those voters lives. But this is what the GOP has thrown in with and there is the old saying: "Lay down with dogs, wake up with fleas"...

It is not import how many voters regretted voting for Hillary; if they did vote for her, I don't suspect they'll readily vote for Trump or his minions as an option. What's more important to the GOP is how many of their own voters regret voting for Trump and who they will vote for now in the upcoming mid-terms and, later, in 2020...

EDIT: You should also keep in mind fewer voters voted for Trump than Hillary or the other independent candidates; there's not a lot of a margin for voter loss...

<O>

u crank

01-17-18, 08:40 AM

GOP President GW Bush fails to enact any sort of viable, common sense economic policy or safeguards against big businesses and bid financial institutions mismanaging and plundering the economy, leading to the worst recession in US history since the Great Depression of 1929, in turn leading to massive layoffs, record unemployment, record bankruptcies, and the most bank failures sine 1929.

If you are going give us a history lesson please tell the whole story. No one doubts the Bush administrations failures in that regard but..it is also common knowledge that the Clinton administrations' deregulation policies played a major roll in the financial crisis of 2008.

I don't know; maybe you found the Great Recession enjoyable..

I lost a job I hope to stay in until retirement and a pension in 2009. Thanks Bubba.

As far as regretting voting for Hillary....

I think we've had this discusion before. Nothing happens in politics that isn't connected to the comedy of errors that procedded it. That would include the last election and the players in that election. Hillary is still around and has attacked the President more than once. If only she would go away. Sorry but you cannot mention Trumps' victory without her name coming up and the subsequent controversies.

In fact, the only function she currently serves is to be a distracting 'straw man' used by Trump and his minions to deflect from their own failing, idiocies and shortcomings.

This was just last week on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/20/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-poll-analysis/index.html

And besides it makes for good and endless discusion. Which I like.:D

So here is my offshore Canadian viewpoint for the day.

Do I think Donald Trump should be president. No. Why? Three reasons. 1. Not qualified. 2. Wrong temperment 3. Smell of coruption.

Do I think Hillary Clinton should have been president. No. Same three reasons.

I also think I have a pretty good idea why Trump is president. There are a lot of reasons and this is one of them.

“One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don’t share a common baseline of facts. What the Russians exploited, but it was already here, is we are operating in completely different information universes. If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you listen to NPR.”

Barack Obama Jan. 2018

There it is. That arrogance and smugness. That dismissal of people with a different political opinion. He's done it before and he is still doing it. I don't even think he realizes it but that attitude is one important reason why Donald Trump is eating Big Macks in the oval office.

vienna

01-18-18, 05:41 PM

If you are going give us a history lesson please tell the whole story. No one doubts the Bush administrations failures in that regard but..it is also common knowledge that the Clinton administrations' deregulation policies played a major roll in the financial crisis of 2008.

...

If you really want to go into the history of deregulation, it is well to remember deregulation has been one of the keystones of the GOP since FDR imposed corrective regulation to right the mess of The Great Depression. In the decades since, the GOP has, at every turn, very actively sought to eliminate regulation, even in the face of the fact a lot of regulations are in place to prevent excesses by particular businesses and their leaders. In recent history: Under Reagan, the GOP deregulated airlines and the result is the mess we see now with poor service and mounting prices and fees; they also, starting under Reagan and carried on into GHW Bush, deregulated the savings and loan industry and the result was the collapse of S&Ls and the biggest recession until 2008's debacle. It is true some of the deregulation resulting in a lot of the excesses leading to 2008 were enacted under Clinton, but it should also be noted they were passed at the insistence of the GOP Congressional contingent (remember the Great GOP Contract with (on?) America?) and was forced through by the GOP as part of a compromise package where Clinton got some of his programs passed and the GOP got their deregulation. At the time, the GOP said the deregulation would work because the financial sector had learned its lessons and would be very strictly 'self-regulating'; how the GOP leadership managed to keep a straight face every time they uttered 'self-regulating' is, indeed, impressive. Not only was the financial sector in no way 'self-regulating', they were actively inventing new ways to enrich themselves at the expense of the middle-class. Compounding the lack of accountability was the GW Bush Administration's further loosening the reins on corporate irresponsibility by eliminating more regulations, refusing to enforce those they could not revoke, and even appointing person to head regulatory agencies or boards who had no intention of fulfilling their obligations under law. The real estate financing and general financial sectors were left to 'self-regulate' and the result was The Great Recession...

Sometimes regulation may seem onerous or unnecessary, but I am always reminded how, on some of my past projects, when creating new procedures we used to use the phrases "Coffee is Hot" or "Shower Hair Dryer" when trying to plan for possible end-user screw-ups; it may seem silly to put the words "Coffee is Hot" on actual hot coffee or put the warning "Do Not Use Hair Dryer in Shower" in hair dryer instructions, but there are doofusses out there who actually need to be planned for in order to minimize your own liability and hold them accountable for their own actions. For those who do know coffee is hot and hair dryers should not be used in a shower, such admonitions have no effect on their normal daily conduct. Likewise, for those who are not inclined to 'game' systems or laws, regulations have no effect, but for those who are self-styled 'smartest guys in the room' and for whom accountability is anathema, regulation serves to ensure they will be appropriately held in rein and, if the do engage in excess, they will answer...

...

I lost a job I hope to stay in until retirement and a pension in 2009. Thanks Bubba.

...

I'm sorry to hear about that and I know an awful lot of people who were in that same state. I made the unfortunate decision, in late 2008, after completing a difficult project, to take some time off and recoup. Virtually overnight, I found myself suddenly too old, too under-educated, not in the right demographic and a host of other reasons, all of which were not an issue before, why I was suddenly unqualified for positions in which I had decades of experience and knowledge. I guess if you can get a fresh out of college inexperienced MBA who will work for less than someone with long experience but no college degree (in my case, just a high school diploma), the bargain is in the payslip not the effectiveness. Ah, the glories of 'self-regulation'...

...

I think we've had this discusion before. Nothing happens in politics that isn't connected to the comedy of errors that procedded it. That would include the last election and the players in that election. Hillary is still around and has attacked the President more than once. If only she would go away. Sorry but you cannot mention Trumps' victory without her name coming up and the subsequent controversies.

...

Actually, the person who keeps bring Hillary & Co. into the public arena is Trump, himself. At every opportunity, particularly when he desperately needs a distraction or deflection, he raises up the Pants Suited One as his straw man/whipping boy/far-fetched exoneration attempt. Trump is still smarting that the majority of the class didn't vote him for Prom King and fumes about it continuously, sometimes in situations that are completely out of context: Mr. Trump, what about the NK crisis? DT: 'What about Lying Hillary?'; Mr. Trump, what about the Russian connection to people in your administration? DT: 'Why isn't Lying Hillary being investigated?'; Mr. Trump, what about your on-going failures in enacting your programs? DT: 'What about the voter fraud that gave Hillary the popular victory?', and so on...

Prior Presidents have basically avoided mentioning a prior administration since it is a lose-lose situation. If you criticize, it looks like you're making excuses to cove your own failings and that makes you look "sad, weak"; if you in any way speak in approbation, you risk have the electorate make a favorable comparison of the prior administration in comparison to your own, making the electorate long for 'the good old days' before. The best tack is to just ignore the outside elements, thereby not giving them a public interest foothold, and strive to make your own mark devoid of risky comparisons or unnecessary conflict...

As far as the media is concerned, they will mainly react when they see an opportunity to stoke controversy. If Trump ignored Hillary and did not rise to the media baiting him, they would soon tire and move on to something else. If this case, Trump is the architect of his own miseries...

...

I also think I have a pretty good idea why Trump is president. There are a lot of reasons and this is one of them.

...

There it is. That arrogance and smugness. That dismissal of people with a different political opinion. He's done it before and he is still doing it. I don't even think he realizes it but that attitude is one important reason why Donald Trump is eating Big Macks in the oval office.

I would be willing to bet arrogance was not very high on the reasons people voted for Trump and I am sure the Trump victory had very much less to do with anti-arrogance (Trump is the Master of Arrogance) than with good, old-fashioned gaming of a system. Gaming has been going on for a long-time; when Obama one his second term, the GOP strategists were shocked into near apoplexy because they thought they had gamed the Electoral College votes enough to deny Obama a second term, even if he won the popular vote; I recall watching Dick Cheney and Carl Rove, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, on the Election Night after the results came in; they as much as insinuated Obama's camp had rigged the election; I think they only thing that stopped them from going further was common sense and the knowledge they, in turn would be asked why they were so certain they would have won...

Again, arrogance is not at all a major factor, although it does serve well as a weak cover for the real reasons. I do not ever recall looking at a ballot, seeing two candidates and thinking, "Well, Jones has got no experience, has no knowledge of issues or a solid platform; Smith has loads of experience, a strong knowledge of issues, a track record of solid accomplishments and a solid platform, but he is arrogant, so I'll vote for Jones..."...

...

There it is. That arrogance and smugness. That dismissal of people with a different political opinion. He's done it before and he is still doing it. I don't even think he realizes it but that attitude is one important reason why Donald Trump is eating Big Macks in the oval office.

As far as "dismissal of people with a different political opinion.", well, you have to make up your mind: is arrogance a laudable asset or a damnable liability? This statement you made "There it is. That arrogance and smugness. That dismissal of people with a different political opinion. He's done it before and he is still doing it.", stands as a very apt description of Trump; so which is it? By your metric, giving arrogance as a major, disqualifying failing, Trump is not long for the Oval Office...

<O>

vienna

01-18-18, 06:41 PM

The investigation into Russian influence on the 2016 Election just took an interesting twist:

FBI investigating whether Russian money went to NRA to help Trump --

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article195231139.html

Curiouser and curiouser...

<O>

Rockstar

01-19-18, 11:38 AM

News flash.... no, its not interesting.

Dowly

01-19-18, 12:12 PM

@Rockstar: Unless you have some inside information, you can't know if it is true or not.

Rockstar

01-19-18, 01:04 PM

Your right Dowly, I saw the error of my ways and deleted the post. I'm giving one trick ponies a bad name, sorry.

Rockstar

01-19-18, 01:06 PM

@Rockstar: Unless you have some inside information, you can't know if it is true or not.

Also, In regards to the article he didn't say it was the truth, he said it was interesting.

mapuc

01-19-18, 04:07 PM

Yesterday I heard something interesting on the radio.

It is well known that each President of the USA is more or less "not-so-much-loved"

This guy who was working with public relation or something like that

Gave us a lot of example of how the media manipulated videos and other things related to President Trump.

One of the example he use was from Mr. Trumps visit to Japan
The media had cut out 5-10 sec and thereby making Trump look like a....when he emptied the whole box of food to the fish-
These 5 -10 sec who was cut away showed the Japanese Minister doing exactly the same before Trump.

As he said to give the ordinary people a bad view on the President.

This made me sad.
A news paper, TV-stations or Radio -shall present the news in a neutral way.

Markus

em2nought

01-19-18, 05:20 PM

As he said to give the ordinary people a bad view on the President.

This made me sad.
A news paper, TV-stations or Radio -shall present the news in a neutral way.

Markus

Welcome to the party pal :03:
https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/die-hard-quotes.jpg?quality=100&w=650

Skybird

01-20-18, 06:38 AM

Shutdown.

If it stays that, an earthquake will haunt the American state and society. And still:

You cannot endlessly spend more than you earn. If the apple costs one Taler, and you have thrre Talers, how many apples can you buy? Heck, every first class school kid can answer that question. Only greedy adults make this a complicated thing.

Can the circumstance that many Americans and families will be hit by a continuing shutdown, be an excuse for always buying five apples while having only three Talers, and 2 are added to the debt bill?

The answer is very clear. No, this cannt be an excuse forever. Not in America, not in any other country. The West lives and overspends as if money means NOTHING anymore, and by that we learn to think that nothing is worth anything anymore. We make claims, we think claiming gives us right - that we need to earn, that we need to save before spending, that we need to acchieve things: that is much harder to comprehend for many Wetserners now. Always claiming, always taking, always demanding instead. Even intentionally forming your life'S plan on this flawed logic. The others owe to us. The others must maintain us. The state (the others, in the end), have to spend for us. I want it - that already gives me claim for it.

Politicians do not correct this, they do not teahc people how wriong this thinking is. Instead, they motivate people additonally to think like this, pushing them deeper into dependency. Bigger dependency: more power for the political caste. The polit-priests.

Of course, a reflective self-analysis most likely will not take place. One will try to find political deals to bypass the problem, and start overspending again. The question what America wants, is more important than what America can afford. The Wants shall be the priority of politics, not the Cans. Money is nothing. Just add to the debts, cannot hurt to do so, right?

In America, or anywhere else: its a criminal system, and the actors all should serve life behind iron bars. Them, and all their economic experts and monetarian gurus. And the people shall feel ashamed that they legitimise and tolerate this gangster operetta on and on and on.

For in principle it is so very simple: if you have three talers and the apple costs 1 Taler, you can only buy none, one, two or three apples, but not four or more.Telling you can, means to talk drivel. Maybe some farmer lends oyu an additonal apple. But if he is clever, he demands you to pay your debt by the end of the week. If he is clever, he points his shotgun at you next time you come and do not pay your debt but demand another apple for free.

Only idiots, unscrupulous parasites and gangsters think that debts must not be paid back, and that you can always take without giving back.

Skybird

01-20-18, 07:37 AM

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

Alexis de Tocqueville

Jimbuna

01-20-18, 08:14 AM

It is the first shutdown ever to happen while the same party, the Republicans, controls Congress and the White House.

The impasse will affect hundreds of thousands of federal workers, and the recriminations have already begun.

President Donald Trump accused Democrats of putting politics above the interests of the American people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42757091

Trump will not be happy having this on his CV (resume in the US?).

Rockstar

01-20-18, 09:00 AM

Party politics gotta love it.

Been through several shutdowns and they aren't that big of a deal really. Long live the party!

https://39uhx2trii4zt1im-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Baby_carriage_crying_Fortepan_19896-900x330.jpg

Skybird

01-20-18, 10:29 AM

Been through several shutdowns and they aren't that big of a deal really.
Except for those who now have no income anymore, I would assume...?

Rockstar

01-20-18, 10:47 AM

If someone can refrain from buying the latest video games and cell phones they should be able to weather any storm. But frankly the impact on peoples finances of the big bad shutdown should be minimal. Its hard to find anyone who's not getting paid. People at a CONUS AFEES or NEX and civilian yardbirds might not be but that's about it from what I can tell.

When I was active duty we still got paid. The only change really was anything we purchased must be deemed as mission essential to keep the ship running.

Heck I'm a retiree and the eagle still poops the 1st of the month.

em2nought

01-20-18, 11:07 AM

So from this article I conclude that 78% of the population are idiots. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-02/78-us-workers-are-living-paycheck-paycheck-71-them-are-debt

Explains how Hillary was able to get as many votes as she did.

If you live paycheck to paycheck, big bad business is not responsible. You are! YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE!

Unless you have some underlying medical factor, then you get a pass.

Buddahaid

01-20-18, 12:36 PM

That's it of course! It must be exhausting knowing everything.

Platapus

01-20-18, 12:49 PM

Contractors and FFRDC's will be affected as we still have to perform the work but the companies are self-funding at risk.

While the government employees will almost certainly be getting back pay during the shut down, the same can't be said for contractors and FFRDCs. The government might back fund the companies, but might not.

I do feel for the smaller contracting companies that might not have the float to cover.

Last time this happened, we had to take vacation and in many cases had to borrow vacation time. It's awesome when the children in congress shut down the government right after the holiday season.

Hopefully this won't last too long. It might be done by Monday if we are lucky.

razark

01-20-18, 01:07 PM

Last time this happened, we had to take vacation and in many cases had to borrow vacation time.
Last time, our company authorized vacation time, but after it dragged on for a while told us we were no longer able to. By that point, my department was cleared to cover some of our duties, so we were able to work from home. After it was over, the company replaced our vacation time.

But now, new contract, new company. We'll see what happens when we get our orders Monday.

Platapus

01-20-18, 01:27 PM

I am sure that corporations will make what ever decision is in the best interest of their employees and not just focus on short term profits.

vienna

01-20-18, 02:02 PM

I am sure that corporations will make what ever decision is in the best interest of their employees and not just focus on short term profits.

:har:

<O>

Schroeder

01-20-18, 02:18 PM

I am sure that corporations will make what ever decision is in the best interest of their employees and not just focus on short term profits.
Good one.:haha::up:

mapuc

01-20-18, 04:13 PM

No paycheck for government employees I have heard throughout the day

Rest assure you government and you politician will receive their regular paycheck.

Markus

STEED

01-20-18, 05:55 PM

https://media.makeameme.org/created/america-has-shut.jpg

Platapus

01-20-18, 06:07 PM

vienna

01-20-18, 07:17 PM

Mick Mulvaney, director of The Office of Management and Budget. “I found out for the first time last night that the person who technically shuts down the government down is me, which is kind of cool,”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/20/16913284/mulvaney-shutdown-cool

Government shutdown is "kinda cool"?

Sigh.

Whaddya expect? Mulvaney is another one of those "stellar" Trump appointments, where actual knowledge of what they're supposed to administer is optional and, by current examples, highly discouraged. He used to be vocally anti-deficit, but when Trump appointed him to the OMB, he puckered up real good, planted a big one on Trumps ample posterior, and found no problem at all with the deficit-busting effects of the Trump/GOP tax "reforms"...

<O>

August

01-21-18, 10:43 AM

Government shutdown is "kinda cool"?

Sigh.

Human nature. Anyone who says it's not cool to wield that kind of power is lying.

Rockstar

01-21-18, 11:36 AM

True, I was thinking the same thing. When you come to realize your full authority has been called upon you sometimes say things like that during holy crap moments. He said what was on his mind.

I probably would have said something very similar had I been in his shoes. Trying to overcome the shaking in my hands as I wrote the email to all departments to make preparations to shut it down.

Weasel665

01-21-18, 12:00 PM

No paycheck for government employees I have heard throughout the day

Rest assure you government and you politician will receive their regular paycheck.

Markus

I've been a federal employee since 1993 and have lived through several of these. Once back to work I was always paid for time not worked during Shutdown Furlough. The Administrative Furlough in 2013 federal employees were not paid for 88 hours over a several month time frame.:o

em2nought

01-21-18, 12:02 PM

What conservative wouldn't think it was "kinda cool" to shut down the government, but then we don't live paycheck to paycheck. :03:

Rockstar

01-21-18, 01:32 PM

If any contractors are out of a job during the shutdown they could always go to California.

California's bullet train (and biggest boondoggle) is over budget by billions (with no end in sight)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/californias-bullet-train-and-biggest-boondoggle-is-over-budget-by-billions/ar-AAuUBOc?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Platapus

01-21-18, 02:37 PM

Now it is being reported that Trump wants the Senate to use the "nuclear option". This man is truly unable to think strategically. All he seems to do is react.

Buddahaid

01-21-18, 02:53 PM

Trump must be the easiest well known person on the planet to goad.
http://www.lonestarnorth.com/Pics%20Mike/FLORIDA/homosassa/splatter_9670.jpg

mapuc

01-21-18, 03:22 PM

Now it is being reported that Trump wants the Senate to use the "nuclear option". This man is truly unable to think strategically. All he seems to do is react.

What is this "nuclear option" ?

Markus

Platapus

01-21-18, 03:34 PM

What is this "nuclear option" ?

Markus

The Senate has the authority to establish the rules for how the Senate operates. Currently, there is a requirement for 60 votes (2/3rd majority) to pass the budget. Congress can, if they wish, vote to change the Senate rules to allow a 51 vote (simple majority). This has been dubbed the nuclear option as it is a very drastic act to take.

Two large problems with evoking the Nuclear option

1. When your party loses the majority in the Senate, the opposing party can take advantage of the 51 vote rule and do stuff you don't want.

2. There is a very real fear of what is called "Tyranny of the majority"where very important decisions can be made by a simple majority at the expense or disadvantage of the minority. This can be significant in a society, like the US, where not only are there only two major political parties, but the nation is pretty much split evenly.

There were very good reasons why the Senate required 60 votes for important stuff. It ensured that it would take more than a simple majority and would, for practical purposes, require compromise within the parties in the Senate.

It is a short sighted solution and can have long lasting consequences.

It has been said that Democracy is two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

Good if you are a wolf, not so good if you are a lamb.

mapuc

01-21-18, 03:50 PM

@ Platapus. Thank you for explaining it for me.

Markus

Rockstar

01-21-18, 05:42 PM

Well you know what they say: "what comes around goes around"

Its unfortunate because Trump suggests the "nuclear option" everyone has a coronary over the anticipated end to freedom democracy and the world as we know it. :roll:

A little over three (closer to 4 now) years ago, Senator Mitch McConnell stood on the Senate floor and issued a warning to the Democrats who then controlled the majority.

“I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you’ll regret this,” McConnell, then the minority leader, told them. “And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.”

At the urging of Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats had just voted along strict party lines to change the rules of the Senate, deploying what had become known in Washington as “the nuclear option.”

But I do wholeheartedly agree with Senator McConnell's desire not to press the button. But if he did it wouldn't be the first time a party decided to do such a thing. And guess what happened when they did, the sun still came up the next day and people still got on with their lives.

u crank

01-22-18, 07:29 AM

As far as "dismissal of people with a different political opinion.", well, you have to make up your mind: is arrogance a laudable asset or a damnable liability?

That depends on who said it and what they said and more significantly why they said it.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

It is what I said it is. That dismissal of people with a different political opinion. It's talking down to people to get other people to vote for you. I don't care who's doing it is a mistake and bad political strategy. It's certainlly nothing new but I think that it was a factor in Clintons' loss. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the goal is to get people to vote for you. The arrogance comes from the fact that they think it's alright to say things like that because of a belief in a moral superiority. And that seems to be prevalent in US politics.

..stands as a very apt description of Trump; so which is it? By your metric, giving arrogance as a major, disqualifying failing, Trump is not long for the Oval Office...

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that for Trump, ignorance is a bigger factor than arrogance.

vienna

01-22-18, 02:42 PM

That depends on who said it and what they said and more significantly why they said it.

It is what I said it is. That dismissal of people with a different political opinion. It's talking down to people to get other people to vote for you. I don't care who's doing it is a mistake and bad political strategy. It's certainlly nothing new but I think that it was a factor in Clintons' loss. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the goal is to get people to vote for you. The arrogance comes from the fact that they think it's alright to say things like that because of a belief in a moral superiority. And that seems to be prevalent in US politics.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that for Trump, ignorance is a bigger factor than arrogance.

A point of clarification:

The post you made included four quotes; the first has my name attached and the last three do not; the fourth is an actual quote from my previous post; the second and third quotes are not mine and you have given no attribution as to the source; the way your post is structured, it gives the appearance the second and third quotes are attributable to myself and they are most definitely not from me and most certainly do not reflect my opinion(s). This gives the additional appearance of an attempt to "pad' your argument by using quotes of dubious attribution in an effort to diminish the original (my) argument. I am hoping your posting was an inadvertent error and not a considered act...

The arrogance was indeed present during the campaign, but it was also indeed present in both parties. What is particularly troubling is the arrogance continues and has been magnified by Trump and his minions, quite often without any factual basis, or, as you put it "ignorance". Ignorance at the Executive Office level is inexcusable on its own, but arrogant ignorance is beyond inexcusable and that is what the Trump administration has embraced...

<O>

u crank

01-22-18, 03:12 PM

A point of clarification:

The post you made included four quotes; the first has my name attached and the last three do not; the fourth is an actual quote from my previous post; the second and third quotes are not mine and you have given no attribution as to the source; the way your post is structured, it gives the appearance the second and third quotes are attributable to myself and they are most definitely not from me and most certainly do not reflect my opinion(s). This gives the additional appearance of an attempt to "pad' your argument by using quotes of dubious attribution in an effort to diminish the original (my) argument. I am hoping your posting was an inadvertent error and not a considered act...

I apologize for any misunderstanding there. Certainly not my intention. I would have thought that those quotes and who said them were widely known by anyone following US politics. But you are right, I should have included the proper references.

For the record...

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Sen. Barack Obama April 2008.

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic — Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Hillary Clinton September 9, 2016.

vienna

01-22-18, 03:23 PM

I apologize for any misunderstanding there. Certainly not my intention. I would have thought that those quotes and who said them were widely known by anyone following US politics. But you are right, I should have included the proper references.

For the record...

No problems and thanks. I pretty much sussed it was an inadvertence and not deliberate, but I wanted the clarification since others might not, perhaps, be as aware of the sources... :salute:

<O>

em2nought

01-22-18, 07:55 PM

Guess who caved? :up:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUHbcLgUQAAT8vF.jpg

Rockstar

01-22-18, 08:51 PM

Lost FBI Texts Could Form Basis for Motion to Dismiss in Trump Team Fight Against Russia Probe

by Rachel Stockman & Ronn Blitzer | 10:09 am, January 22nd, 2018

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/lost-fbi-texts-could-form-basis-for-motion-to-dismiss-in-trump-team-fight-against-russia-probe/

Months of text messages don’t just accidentally disappear. One past conversation between Strzok and Page indicated that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew there would be no charges filed against Clinton well before that investigation ended. Given the significant evidence of impropriety in the Clinton case, a foregone conclusion of innocence before the FBI wrapped up their investigation looks shady at best. Trump’s lawyers will surely argue that after those messages came to light, the DOJ intentionally “lost” those five months’ worth of other messages.

vienna

01-22-18, 09:49 PM

Meh. Trump's lawyers could argue related to the FBI texts, but can they prove the texts went missing intentionally; proof is what courts pretty much insist on, you know, like, evidence...

The main problem Trump, and by extension the GOP, has in trying to make the argument the FBI/Mueller probes are politically motivated is the fact there are three known triggers for the probes; the first was the well-known 'dossier', originally commissioned by GOP opponents to a Trump nomination; the second was the tip from an Australian diplomat to whom Trump campaign advisor Georg Popdopolus drunkenly spilled the beans about the campaign having access to hacked Clinton emails; the third, and the perhaps most damaging to the Trump/GOP claim of political motivation, is the tip given to the FBI by a person in the Trump circle, a tip that came to light when the head of the firm commissioned to gather the data used in the 'dossier' testified the FBI informed him they already had the information he related to the FBI from the Trump insider's tip and met with the Fusion GPS head in order to get corroboration of the insider's tip...

What we have in all this are chains of events running in parallel, three separate sources acting on the old "see something, say something" path of responsible action, not at all acting in concert or in knowledge of each others' disclosures to the FBI; with three separate and distinct sources of expressed concern (one of them being someone within the Trump camp), it would be a dereliction for the FBI to have not launched an investigation. We know who are the persons involved in the Fusion GPS 'dossier', and we know the name of the Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer; it will be interesting to see who the Trump insider is...

As I've said before, there is nothing fully known at this time that ties Trump directly to the whole Russia mess and, if he had just done the smart move and just kept quiet and stayed out of it, he wouldn't be where he is; unless there is a whopping 'smoking gun' related to Trump and Russia, this won't directly cost him his office. However, in a truly 'shoots himself in the rump' Trump move, Trump has left himself open to obstruction of justice charges over the firing of Comey, a decidedly politically motivated action; if it turns out to be true he did take further by personally dictating the memo/statement containing false information and released to the press as an effort to derail further investigation (which really didn't work), then he is very vulnerable to possible action...

A little while back, there were reports Mueller may ask to depose Trump about subjects being covered in Mueller's investigations. At first Trump indicated he would be more than willing to be deposed; then, in true Trump fashion, he began to hem and haw and fudge about doing a deposition; at last reports, it looks like Trump has lost his enthusiasm about meeting with Mueller, particularly under oath. This link is to an article perhaps explaining why Trump and his lawyers have lost their nerve:

Trump Under Oath Is a Different Person --

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/trump-is-going-to-be-deposed-but-not-that-way-louise-mensch/550073/

From the above:

As The Washington Post noted in a 2016 piece, Trump’s tendency to back off his most obviously fake statements was especially pronounced in a December 2007 deposition. Trump had sued the journalist and author Tim O’Brien, who had written a book saying Trump’s net worth was far less than the billions he claimed. Trump sued O’Brien for libel and defamation. The Post found 30 occasions in that deposition alone where Trump admitted to making false statements.

This being Trump, the acolyte of “truthful hyperbole,” he couldn’t let go entirely. Instead, he found repeated ways to explain his untruths. Why had he claimed to own 50 percent of a business when he only owned 30? Because Trump hadn’t had to put up cash upfront, he said, “the 30 percent equates to much more than 30 percent.” Why had Trump claimed to have been paid $1 million for a speech when, as he acknowledged under oath, he’d actually received $400,000? He had decided that the value to his brand made up another 600 grand.

Was it true that Trump had not received any loans from his father, as he’d told O’Brien? Under oath, he offered a different story: “I think a small amount a long time ago. I think it was like in the $9 million range.” Why had he inflated his net worth? The reason, he said, was that it varied, and just not with the market. “My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings,” Trump said.

Trump had an explanation that would telegraph his approach when he later decided to run for president: “I’m no different from a politician running for office. You always want to put the best foot forward.”

Yet at other times, Trump simply conceded he’d been wrong. Faced with a public statement that membership at a golf course had cost $300,000, 50 percent higher than the real figure—as a Trump Organization document stated. “Correct,” Trump said. He also excused errors in a book published under his name, saying, “I read it very quickly,” even though he was credited as author.

Trump’s suit against O’Brien was dismissed.

The rare aptitude for honesty is not the only thing that’s notable about Trump’s demeanor in depositions. In most cases, videos of his appearances are not available. In a suit over Trump University, for example, transcripts of two depositions were released, but Judge Gonzalo Curiel (yes, the one Trump said was biased against him because of his Mexican heritage) blocked the release of the videos. But in the Trump Hotel case, videos were released.

The article brought to mind a lawyer friend and former boss of mine who was assigned a client by his then firm who was 'eccentric', to be kind, and would make wild statements in sworn depositions and then deny the statements and then deny his denials; my friend got so fed up, he requested to be removed from the case, but no one else in the firm wanted to take on the crazy client, so my friend quit the firm (he got a much better position afterward at another firm); it must be a goodly piece of a Dantean Circle of Hell to have a deranged client...

<O>

Mr Quatro

01-23-18, 01:00 PM

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...-russia-probe/

Quote:
Months of text messages don’t just accidentally disappear. One past conversation between Strzok and Page indicated that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch knew there would be no charges filed against Clinton well before that investigation ended. Given the significant evidence of impropriety in the Clinton case, a foregone conclusion of innocence before the FBI wrapped up their investigation looks shady at best. Trump’s lawyers will surely argue that after those messages came to light, the DOJ intentionally “lost” those five months’ worth of other messages.

the hypocrisy of it all is so self evident ... What if the President's side, his aides, his family, his election people had the same results of months of text messages missing from the Russian investigation?

I love my country, but someone is doing a cover up and investigating the WH to see if they are involved in a cover up. :o

I pray the FBI and the Justice department get back to doing the great job they have been known to do. :yep:

August

01-23-18, 03:12 PM

vienna

01-23-18, 04:07 PM

According to the texts just released it looks like Comey lied to Congress when he said he hadn't briefed Obama about the Trump dossier.

I think this Democrat house of cards is about to come down around their ears.

...however, there seems to be a house with a shakier foundation. It is exceedingly rare when a sitting Attorney-General is interviewed by the FBI, or any investigative entity, about possible obstruction of justice committed by a sitting President:

Comey and Sessions Are Questioned for Hours in Russia Inquiry --

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/us/politics/jeff-sessions-special-counsel-russia.html?referer=

It should be noted lying to the FBI, with or without being under oath, during the course of an active investigation, is a Federal crime...

<O>

vienna

01-23-18, 04:09 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWVTtuxW6Fg

<O>

August

01-23-18, 06:21 PM

Lost FBI Texts

Lost FBI texts
Lost IRS emails
and of course 30k lost Hillary emails.

See a pattern?

Rockstar

01-23-18, 06:50 PM

:yep:

Politics and politicians can be brutal. Especially for all those fan boys lead astray by mere assertions.

vienna

01-23-18, 08:54 PM

According to the texts just released it looks like Comey lied to Congress when he said he hadn't briefed Obama about the Trump dossier.

I think this Democrat house of cards is about to come down around their ears.

As a clarification: both Trump and Obama were presented with the "dossier" and other intel regarding Russian interference concurrently by intelligence officials from multiple agencies in January of 2017; what Obama saw, Trump saw as the briefings were identical. It is entirely possible Comey did not personally attend the briefing with either Trump or Obama and the FBI was represented by a lower level representative, an occurrence not at all unusual in government circles, much in the same way Congressional committee members very often do not attend non-hearing interviews of witnesses and a Special Counsel/Prosecutor may not be at every interview of witnesses. So, the FBI may have briefed Obama, but not necessarily with Comey present in which case Comey would be truthful in saying he did not personally brief Obama. If you have verifiable information to substantiate Comey personally briefing Obama, I would be interested in hearing it...

<O>

em2nought

01-23-18, 10:32 PM

Lost FBI texts
Lost IRS emails
and of course 30k lost Hillary emails.

See a pattern?

How many places does this guy work at? Jeez :03:
http://img.playbuzz.com/image/upload/f_auto,fl_lossy,q_auto/cdn/31883bfc-6b8e-48a7-b7f3-33a187130fc6/25d382f1-1c8b-4c90-89aa-674d852af17d.jpg

Mr Quatro

01-23-18, 11:08 PM

If you have verifiable information to substantiate Comey personally briefing Obama, I would be interested in hearing it...

<O>

Does August need a lawyer? :haha:

em2nought

01-23-18, 11:22 PM

To elaborate (maybe NSFW)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ifXHrIdCnU

August

01-24-18, 12:24 PM

Does August need a lawyer? :haha:

Probably not (at least for that) :), but apparently somebody else does need to brush up on his reading comprehension skills just a tad.

According to the texts just released it looks like Comey lied to Congress when he said he hadn't briefed Obama about the Trump dossier

August

01-24-18, 12:27 PM

To elaborate (maybe NSFW)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ifXHrIdCnU

That was hilarious! :salute:

vienna

01-24-18, 02:02 PM

Probably not (at least for that) :), but apparently somebody else does need to brush up on his reading comprehension skills just a tad.

No, comprehended quite well, actually. All that was asked for was the source of his statement(s). Since August, and others, are so often dismissive of reports regarding anything Trump that contains 'unnamed sources' and such, I was rather hoping he might have something a bit more substantive for his post's claim there is any indication Comey had lied about his interactions, or lack thereof, with Obama. I would somewhat expect such claims to be held to the same set of standards imposed of reports about the Trump mess; just a simple request...

As far as August needing a lawyer, I don't recall him ever mentioning having contact with Russian operatives or being a member of the Trump's inner circle...

...however, Mueller isn't finished with his investigations...yet... :03: :D

<O>

vienna

01-24-18, 03:46 PM

This was reported three hours ago by Fox News as their own exclusive story:

Thousands of FBI cellphones affected by glitch that lost Strzok-Page texts, officials say --

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/24/thousands-fbi-cellphones-affected-by-glitch-that-lost-strzok-page-texts-officials-say.html

The gap in records covered a crucial period, raising suspicion among GOP lawmakers as to how those messages disappeared.

But Fox News is told that the glitch affected the phones of “nearly” 10 percent of the FBI’s 35,000 employees.

Senior Department of Justice officials told Fox News they are "taking steps" to possibly recover the texts from the appropriate cellphone carriers. The same officials told Fox News they are also making every effort to track down the physical cellphones in question so they could be subject to a forensic review.

The missing messages have also caused problems for the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General.

So, the "gap" was not isolated. The report notes "nearly" 10% of the FBI's 35,000 employees were hit by the glitch, or, roughly, 3,500 other cases of the same occurrence; additionally, the article notes the DOJ-IG's office was likewise afflicted...

...and, I mean, ya gotta trust this report, cause, ya know, Fox News never lies and, beside, Trump really, really likes and trusts Fox News, even with unspecified "federal law enforcement officials" as a source...

<O>

ikalugin

01-25-18, 04:38 AM

Russian hackers, when?

Rockstar

01-26-18, 01:59 PM

No hackers and the investigation has long since wandered of the reservation of original intent. As I said at the outset and still insist its a political boondoggle perpetuated by media and party fan boys. Its good for business, good for the party long live the party

vienna

01-27-18, 03:43 PM

The investigation was never intended to be confined to a single aspect or alleged crime and, in fact, under long standing Federal Law, can be extraordinarily broad in scope if the Special Counsel finds evidence of other possible crimes; the fact is the Bill Clinton Special Prosecutor probe started off as an investigation into the Whitewater dealings, and, finding no joy there, Ken Starr went off to other threads until he came up with the stained blue dress and Clinton's denials; this is no different than that situation, nor any different than any of the other Special Prosecutor/Counsel investigations in that none of them are restricted as to scope. If you want to see an actual description, under Federal Law, of the duties and responsibilities of a Special Counsel, it is here in this link (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2534579&postcount=4057)...

It has been amusing watching and listening to the Far Right and other Trump supporters and minions flail about wildly in there effort to salvage their guy's sinking ship, even as he drills holes in the hull, himself. The "secret society" debacle was particularly laughable; maybe they can compensate by shooting up an empty pizza joint again. Although their efforts thus far have yielded no appreciable results, other than embarrassing Sen Ron Johnson, there is an interesting possibility of the GOP thwarting the prosecution of some of those who may be indicted or tried; this is something that could be called the "Ollie North Effect". A great many people believe Ollie North was actually pardoned by President GHW Bush, along with a number of other Iran-Contra figures; the actual truth is North was never given a Presidential pardon and had his case dismissed for retrial because the DOJ lost leverage against North and witnesses in their case when Bush issued the pardons of the other conspirators. North had been tried on charges and was found guilty at trial of the charges against him; however, on appeal, a judge determined some of the evidence against North was compromised by public airing of some details in open hearings held by the House and Senate in their probe of the Iran-Contra scandal. If the pardons had not been issued, the testimony and the remaining 'untainted' evidence would have most very likely resulted in a re-conviction of North. There is a possible danger of likewise tainting evidence and testimony in the current Russia investigations in the same way as in the North case. If you noticed, several of the witnesses called in the Congressional Hearings have asked to give their testimony in closed sessions rather than in public; part of this is due to sensitive intelligence concerns, but part of it also appears to be an effort to avoid possible tainting of possible evidence in the event of trials. The effort seems to be supported by most members, from both parties, of Congressional committees. The glaring exception has been the actions and activities of GOP House member and Chair of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes. He has already been under fire for his overt actions to give classified information gleaned in closed door hearings to the Trump administration and for his continuing efforts to derail the House investigations. He has just in recent days been the target of another call for an investigation of the ethics of his recent actions by a nonpartisan Congressional watchdog group. Part of this new call has been over a "Secret Memo" Nunes and his staff have manufactured alleging misconduct by the DOJ/FBI and has been shown to other House members under pledge of confidentiality (some of the memo's source material is actual, highly classified intel), but Nunes has refused to allow the Senate, the Justice Department, the White House or the public to see the contents of the memo. Some of the House GOP members who have read the "memo" have made claims it contains 'bombshell' revelations of misconduct, yet most of those GOP House members also admit they have not read any of the underlying intel sources cited in the memo in order to verify the context or veracity of the "memo"'s claims, in effect having them make ill-informed or uninformed judgements on the "memo". Beyond the fact Nunes has displayed a reckless disregard for the rule of law and the need to preserve and protect the integrity of ongoing investigations, and that pretty much anything Nunes says should be taken with great skepticism, Nunes does pose a threat of having the same effect of 'nullifying' testimony and/or evidence in much the same manner as occurred with the "North Effect". The other members of both the Senate and the House committees investigating the Russia matter have shown great responsibility in making every effort to ensure they do not hinder, tamper with, or 'nullify' their, or any other, legitimate scrutiny of the issues, individuals, motives, or wrongdoings involved. Nunes has already been suspended from his Chairmanship once and has been rebuked by GOP House leadership for his actions; it may be time to take him out of the process again...

Battle over secret Nunes memo could come to a head next week --

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article196966409.html

In the end, Nunes' "Secret Memo" will most likely meet the same fate as the "Secret Society". What is not so secret is the absurd lengths to which the Trump minions will go to try and salvage a sinking scow...

<O>

August

01-31-18, 10:07 PM

Seems our president knocked one out of the park last night.
http://www.businessinsider.com/polls-trump-approval-state-of-the-union-speech-loved-2018-1

Meanwhile the Democrats managed to make themselves look like petty children. https://pjmedia.com/trending/5-times-democrats-should-have-stood-and-clapped-during-trumps-state-of-the-union-but-didnt/

That long prayed for Blue Wave is looking less wave-like. :)

Rockstar

01-31-18, 10:19 PM

USA! USA! USA!

Gutiérrez has left the building!

how fekking petty and childish, still though good for a laugh

bwhahahahaha :har:

Was Kennedy drooling?

Anyone watch whats her faces response on BET?

You cant get this anywhere else man this is quality comedy/

Oh ya almost forgot: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican memo alleging anti-Trump bias at the FBI and U.S. Justice department is likely to be released on Thursday, an official of President Donald Trumps administration said on Wednesday.
The FBI said earlier on Wednesday it had "grave concerns" about the accuracy of the top-secret House Intelligence Committee memo, challenging President Donald Trump's pledge to release it.

Grave concerns, really? If there's nothing to hide why worry right?

Rockstar

01-31-18, 10:31 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8i8gHu6zGY

Dowly

02-01-18, 02:57 AM

Grave concerns, really? If there's nothing to hide why worry right?

Answered by your own quote:

Oh ya almost forgot: WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Republican memo alleging anti-Trump bias at the FBI and U.S. Justice department is likely to be released on Thursday, an official of President Donald Trumps administration said on Wednesday.
The FBI said earlier on Wednesday it had "grave concerns" about the accuracy of the top-secret House Intelligence Committee memo, challenging President Donald Trump's pledge to release it.

Republicans also blocked IC democrats from releasing their counter-memo.
If there's nothing to hide... :roll:

Catfish

02-01-18, 05:09 AM

You can screw up all, as long as you have your rhetorics right. I, me, what I did, lol. Nothing of what he boasted about has been done or created by him or his new laws, it was all done by his predecessor(s). He uses buzzwords and rhetorics and lies, and all applaud.

Good link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/31/trumps-speech-miserable-democrats-response-to-it

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2018/jan/30/the-kind-of-night-donald-trump-loves-best-when-he-can-applaud-himself

"No matter that Trump presented an economic agenda that, if actually implemented, would probably bankrupt the country – hello big government! No matter that Trump connected legal immigrants to MS-13 gangsters and called for an overthrow of the age-old immigration system. No matter even that Trump called upon Congress “to empower every cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers – and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people” – hello Big Brother!

On Tuesday evening, Trump finally became the president of the whole Republican party. It shows how far the normalization of radical right ideas has come."

Democrats.. “The longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.” (Bannon)

Cutting taxes for industry is ok, but as we all know wealth does not trickle down, and nothing will improve for the common worker.
And where will all the money to finance national guards, veteran pensions, military etc. come from, now?
But since the EPA will be shut down, and natural reservations being reduced to 20 percent of their former area, at least there's less money needed for environmental protection.

August

02-01-18, 08:21 AM

Republicans also blocked IC democrats from releasing their counter-memo.
If there's nothing to hide... :roll:

You mean the counter memo that has been released to the full house for their review? Do you mean the counter memo written by Democrats who fought tooth and nail to prevent the rest of congress from even seeing the one it attempts to counter? As far as I know neither this "Chewbacca" counter memo or the original has been released to the public yet.

Like you said if there is nothing to hide... :roll:

Mr Quatro

02-01-18, 01:32 PM

You mean the counter memo that has been released to the full house for their review? Do you mean the counter memo written by Democrats who fought tooth and nail to prevent the rest of congress from even seeing the one it attempts to counter? As far as I know neither this "Chewbacca" counter memo or the original has been released to the public yet.

Like you said if there is nothing to hide... :roll:

The fact remains that the revelation of this memo will embarrass the Federal Bureau of Investigation and divide our country and the administration even more. The point in time that is waiting for us all is the admission of guilt or the act of asking for forgiveness from the parties that be :yep:

August

02-01-18, 03:36 PM

The fact remains that the revelation of this memo will embarrass the Federal Bureau of Investigation and divide our country and the administration even more. The point in time that is waiting for us all is the admission of guilt or the act of asking for forgiveness from the parties that be :yep:

I say that if the FBI wants to play king maker then they need to be embarrassed and embarrassed in a very big way, preferably with prison terms for some of the main players and maybe further regulations to prevent or at least inhibit that type of behavior in the future.

As for dividing the country well that is what the Democrats have been doing ever since they lost the election with their calls for "resistance". Trump has tried to reach out to them on a few occasions already the latest being at the SOTU by offering to extend DACA to 1.8 million illegals instead of just the 850k so called "dreamers" and with a real path to citizenship to boot but so far the Dems aren't willing to negotiate at all.

Platapus

02-01-18, 03:56 PM

Trump has a very good team of speech writers and evidently he is capable of reading what others tell him to say.

We will have to see if his actions match his speech writers.

August

02-01-18, 06:15 PM

Very interesting article on the House Intelligence Committees memo:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456003/devin-nunes-fisa-memo-positioning-ahead-its-release

Since before the Republican-led committee voted (along partisan lines) to seek the memo’s declassification and publication, the FBI has been complaining that it was not permitted to review the memo. As I explained last week, this was a very unpersuasive complaint. Having stonewalled the committee’s information requests for several months, the Bureau and Justice Department are hardly well positioned to complain about being denied access; the committee, by contrast, has every reason to believe they would have slow-walked any review in order to delay matters further.

All that aside, the FBI was guaranteed access to the memo before its publication because of the rules of the process. Once the committee voted to disclose, that gave the president five days to object. During that five days, Trump’s own appointees at the FBI and DOJ would have the chance to pore over the memo and make their objections and policy arguments to their principal, the president, and to the rest of the Trump national-security team. This tells us the real objection was not that they were barred from reviewing the memo; it is that they were barred from reviewing it on a schedule that would make it more difficult to derail publication.

vienna

02-01-18, 08:01 PM

The above is an op-ed piece, not a totally accurate depiction of facts, and there is a difference between fact and opinion. The fact is, from the beginning of Nunes' little ploy, the FBI and other interested intelligence agencies, have not argued against the release of the memo on grounds it would prove to be an embarrassment or that it would "prove" agency malfeasance, rather the objection has been due to Nunes unilaterally making use of highly classified intel and data; the use of this data, other than the obvious fact it is classified for reasons and should not be disseminated recklessly, poses a danger of revealing not only the conduct of on-going investigations, but, also, data with the potential of endangering the proper process of those investigations. Nunes, and his staff, have assembled a sort of FrankenMemo, stitching together cherry-picked snippets of other documents and reports which, again, are highly classified for reason, and are now presenting this patchwork document as some sort of cogent, well-structured document. The underlying classified documents are privy to only a few members of Congress, in either house; in fact, many of the GOP House members, other than on the Intel Committee, who have most vocally touted the "value" of the memo have very little to no knowledge of the actual content, context, or provenance on those underlying 'support' documents: they are making statements of "fact" on data of which they have no knowledge of or understanding. The fact Nunes and his GOP cohorts have absolutely refused to share the memo's contents either with DEM congressional members or any of the intelligence agencies involved is a very high indicator of how little confidence they have in the document. An argument could be made Nunes, et al, are trying to protect the integrity of sensitive intel, but that flies in the face of the fact Nunes is not adverse to openly trying to use sensitive intel to advance his, and other's, particular agenda; you can't say you're trying to protect secrets if you are openly using those same secrets. It should also be noted members of Congress from both houses, and both parties, who are actually familiar with the nature and/or content of the underlying documents have been openly critical of the reckless release of such information...

Of note is the claim the copy of the memo sent to Trump for review is not identical to the memo reviewed and voted on by the House Intelligence Committee; why is that?. Why did Nunes send an altered version of the previously voted on memo to Trump without clearing the emendations with fellow committee members, including fellow members of his own GOP? What is Nunes trying to hide and why is he doing so in such a furtive manner? There is more than a little stench to Nunes' manipulations...

That the memo does contain highly classified and sensitive information not intended for general view is attested to by the fact there are any redactions, redactions apparently agreed to not only by The FBI, et al, but also by the White House; if there was any real information revealing malfeasance, do you really think Trump would hesitate to shout such from the rooftops?...

Then there is the fact the HIC GOP members have blocked any effort by the DEM members to issue a memo of their own addressing any omissions of fact, correcting any vague references, or rebutting any claims made in the Nunes FrankenMemo. Why is the GOP so frightened of open discourse on a matter which they, themselves, have initiated and seem determined to pursue? Why are they so obviously apprehensive about any discussion or review of this document? Again, what are they so desperate to hide?...

I have heard reports Trump, in his petty feud with the FBI, is toying with the idea of releasing the memo without the security redactions; I thought he is adamantly opposed to leaks, particularly those affecting national security; if the reports turn out to be true, what does that say about someone who would sacrifice the security of the nation to save his political heinie?...

First, there was the whole FBI "secret society" 'scandal' the GOP tried to foist on the public as a means of distracting from the Russia investigations; that fell apart once the actual, full texts of the emails in question were made public, another case of actual facts trumping the "facts' of the Trump minions. Now, there is another GOP-manufactured "fact" made up of out of context "data" selectively gathered which they are fearful of having held to scrutiny of any kind. I somehow have the sense Nunes' folly will be in the dust bin along with those "secret society" emails. The problem for the GOP is they have once again bought in to the snake oil of the Trump minions and have set themselves up for another embarrassment...

Nunes is a loose cannon who really never should have been made Chairman of the Intelligence Committee by the GOP: he has no prior actual experience in high level intelligence matters, does not even possess a law, government or poli-sci degree (he holds a Masters Degree in Agriculture), and has been criticized before for his inept handling of committee matters; how he ever got the necessary high-level security clearances to view classified material is a really good question, particularly since he doesn't even seem to have a common sense grasp of the sensitive nature of the committee's function or purpose. I have, in a previous post, expressed concern for the placing of persons, of either party, in positions affecting national security without the necessary abilities to perform adequately and/or safely and Nunes is a case in point...

BTW, I'm going to venture a guess the Nunes Memo will be released at the close of business on Friday, as so many other potential embarrassments or humiliations are handled...

<O>

Rockstar

02-02-18, 08:49 AM

"The above is an op-ed piece, not a totally accurate depiction of facts, and there is a difference between fact and opinion."

Then begin by telling us that you have the facts? You now know what's highly classified and what's not? :har:

Aren't you just as interested in getting to the bottom of possible police corruption in the FBI as you are in possibility of foreign nations corrupting our political process? Or is it just get Trump?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-lefts-rage-and-trumps-peril-1517530358

The Democrats in the chamber were slumped, glowery. They had chosen to act out unbroken disdain so as to please the rising left of their party, which was watching and would review their faces. Some of them were poorly lit and seemed not resolute but Draculaic. The women of the party mostly dressed in black, because nothing says moral seriousness like coordinating your outfits.
Here it should be said of the rising left of the Democratic Party that they are numerous, committed, and have all the energy—it’s true. But they operate at a disadvantage they cannot see, and it is that they are loveless. The social justice warriors, the advancers of identity politics and gender politics, the young who’ve just discovered socialism—they run on rage.

August

02-02-18, 09:50 AM

http://www.pilotspub.org/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=10973

Rockstar

02-02-18, 10:39 AM

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/371973-release-the-memo-lets-stop-pretending-that-democrats-are-the-defenders-of

.... Confused now? Well, don’t be.

When Democrats do it, it’s “courageous.” When Republicans do it, well, it’s “treasonous.”

Inexcusable actions by senior level officials at the FBI and DOJ deserve public scrutiny. The potential politicization of independent law enforcement entities is a damn serious allegation.

Delay the release of the GOP memo until it can be timed for a simultaneous release with the Democratic counter-memo. Make certain both are stringently scrubbed and appropriately redacted in order to ensure the safety of sources and protection of sensitive techniques and methods.
And then stop disingenuously pretending that the Democrats are the defenders of the FBI.

Doubt what I’m saying? Just ask our colleagues at the CIA."

Skybird

02-02-18, 10:51 AM

I do not buy neither side's arugments and claims here. What I see is a total and complete system failure, caused by intentional and deliberate sabotage of the system both in its practical procedures and idealistic intentions. I also see the demonstration of a fundamental design flaw in the system itself.

I do not think that the American civil society and political entity will ever recover from the damage done in these years. This damage also lives by its own inner dynamic now. It will live on and continue to do damage even if actors would agree to no longer spill oil into already burning fires. Which they never will agree to do anyway.

Trump is not the cause, but a symptom - and a catalysator: due to what he does, and due to his enemies' reactions to him. The process began already years and decades ago. Under and due to Trump however it has been hilarioulsy accelerated in speed and momentum.

The United States of America, as history knew it and as they were designed to be and have been meant, are no more. And they will never return.

In geographically varying variations, the same erosion process can be seen throughout the Western political landscape.

Rockstar

02-02-18, 11:14 AM

I believe right after 9-11 one of the arguments against the new warrantless surveillance. Was how easily it could be used by politicians to damage an opponent or gain inside information.

Mr Quatro

02-02-18, 11:40 AM

Well it's Friday already and the memo isn't out yet just the beach being hit with in coming shells: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-accuses-fbi-doj-of-favoring-democrats-ahead-of-memo-release/

President Trump on Friday suggested that the FBI and Justice Department have favored Democrats over Republicans in the process that is expected to lead to the release of a Republican memo alleging abuses of a surveillance law. Mr. Trump tweeted that they have "politicized the sacred investigative process" but added that "rank & file are great people."

CBS News' Major Garrett reports that the White House expected to inform Congress probably Friday that Mr. Trump is "okay" with publishing the memo prepared by the Republican staff on the House Intelligence Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Devin Nunes, R-California.

Will the memo be forgotten if Trump has in fact done anything wrong?

mapuc

02-02-18, 01:27 PM

Heard about this memo a couples of weeks ago. Read a little about it here in this thread and in other places.

Me, who have not enough knowledge, can't say if it's true or not.
For me it's more interesting to read what ordinary people have to say about this

And there's a different depending if you are pro-trump or anti-trump.

Markus

August

02-02-18, 03:32 PM

Interesting statistic:

The language used by President Donald Trump in his first ever State of the Union speech on Tuesday contrasted sharply with the words of former President Barack Obama when he addressed Congress in 2010. According to a transcript of the speech released by CNN, Trump referred to himself in the first person singular 30 times. He said the word “I” 29 times, in addition to adding one “me.”

Obama, when he delivered his first State of the Union, used “some version of ‘I’ or ‘me’ nearly 100 times,” wrote Dan Gainor, the vice president for business and culture at the Media Research Center. In an op-ed for Fox News, Gainor wrote that Obama made these “I” or “me” references nearly four times as often as Trump did. “Obama’s 2010 speech was littered with “I” or a contraction in some form or another — 88 times, with another 10 “me,” Gainor wrote. In one sentence, for example, Obama managed to say the word “I” four times. “But when I ran for president, I promised I wouldn’t just do what was popular, I would do what was necessary,” the then-president said.

There was only one time, meanwhile, when Trump said “I” twice in the same sentence, according to Gainor. As Gainor noted, mainstream media outlets often accuse Trump of having a massive ego. A recent headline from Vanity Fair read, “Will Trump’s ego launch a nuclear war?” Moreover, Politico tried to connect the president’s ego to alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. But if their speeches are any indication, it’s Obama, not Trump, who was obsessed with himself, Gainor suggested. A 2009 study from NewsBusters, a division of the MRC, claimed that in his first 41 speeches as president, Obama mentioned himself 1,198 times.

Trump’s Tuesday address could not have been more different. In addition to limiting his usage of “I” and “me,” Trump made a point of saying the words “we” or “our.” According to The Daily Caller, Trump said “we” 129 times, and “our” 104 times. “As long as we are proud of who we are and what we are fighting for, there is nothing we cannot achieve,” Trump said near the end of his 80-minute long address.

“As long as we have confidence in our values, faith in our citizens, and trust in our God, we will never fail.” “Our families will thrive. Our people will prosper. And our nation will forever be safe and strong and proud and mighty and free,” he added, emphasizing the importance of coming together as Americans and celebrating our shared heritage.
https://www.westernjournal.com/heres-many-times-trump-said-first-sotu-address-compare-obamas/?utm_source=idealmedia&utm_medium=referral

Rockstar

02-02-18, 04:02 PM

Que Maxine and Joe to tell their citizen followers 'we' doesnt include them. Sad

Mr Quatro

02-02-18, 06:12 PM

Now we get an edited version of the house version that was approved to be released to the white house :D

What a joke ... makes Trump look good for what is going to make him look bad ...

We get to hear it all again before the next election ... I'm tired of hearing it now. This is grown men playing politics, which has nothing to do with by the people for the people blah blah :o

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/b95cdf51-8bd1-345f-a301-3ec84c778db9/ss_video%3A-rep.-schiff%3A-nunes.html

As the White House decided they will release a controversial GOP secret memo. Overnight the leading Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee treated there were matier real changes to the memo currently being reviewed by the White House's legal counsel. Making it different from the one the house committee voted along party lines to release the chairman and architect of the memo congressman Meehan as a spokesman. Responded saying the claim was simply a strange attempt to stop its release.

Rockstar

02-02-18, 08:37 PM

Oh man this is getting good.

Nunes, who co-wrote the memo with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), said he didn't want to release the memo, but he had an obligation to the American people when he saw FISA abuse.

"They wouldn't have received a warrant without the dossier," Nunes said. "The dossier was presented to the court as if it was true. The court was not told that the Democrats actually paid for this."

He said it's wrong that the FBI used opposition research -- paid for by the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign -- to secure surveillance on at least one Trump associate.

As for allegations about collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, Nunes noted that much of the information in the dossier came from Russian sources.

"So there's clear evidence of collusion with the Russians," Nunes said. "It just happens to be with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee."

Booooooondoggle!! :har:

Rockstar

02-02-18, 10:03 PM

Mr Quatro

02-02-18, 10:25 PM

So if any here used the dossier as a basis for their own arguments against the president. Would that then make them DNC political trolls on Putin's payroll and guilty of colluding with the Russians as well?

Where's the DNC political troll who can answer this?

I'm glad you and vinnea can figure it out ... I' m lost now :yep:

I will still watch the outcome on the morning talk shows and even CNN, but I sure don't trust them.

PS I respect August too even though he is prejudice for Trump at least this forum is not all one sided :o

August

02-02-18, 11:04 PM

PS I respect August too even though he is prejudice for Trump at least this forum is not all one sided :o

Well thank you but for the record I am not prejudiced for Trump. I didn't vote for the guy and only came around to support him as last year progressed because he continues to piss off all the right people.

Buddahaid

02-02-18, 11:59 PM

Well thank you but for the record I am not prejudiced for Trump. I didn't vote for the guy and only came around to support him as last year progressed because he continues to piss off all the right people.

I thought his brand was to piss off everybody. :hmmm:

Rockstar

02-03-18, 08:42 AM

I'm glad you and vinnea can figure it out ... I' m lost now :yep:

I will still watch the outcome on the morning talk shows and even CNN, but I sure don't trust them.

PS I respect August too even though he is prejudice for Trump at least this forum is not all one sided :o

The only thing I've figured out is this whole ordeal has from the get go been nothing but a boondoggle and turned into a shameful display of divisive, embarrassing long live the party politics. I mean really can anyone with an ounce of common sense really blame an outsider like Russia for this debacle?

mapuc

02-03-18, 12:15 PM

This is pure speculation

If it is true what it says in this Memo, what's going to happen ?

Markus

August

02-03-18, 12:37 PM

I thought his brand was to piss off everybody. :hmmm:

Good thing we don't elect brands then eh?

Mr Quatro

02-03-18, 01:43 PM

This is pure speculation

If it is true what it says in this Memo, what's going to happen ?

Markus

Dow plunges more than 650 points as selloff roils markets

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-dow-jones-stock-market-falls-20180202-story.html

Hawk66

02-03-18, 03:26 PM

McCain is right: This whole show (is it sth different ?), which is currently going on in the West (not only in the US) has only one winner: Putin

And I would add one further winner: China

It's all so ridiculous that I have no words for it...

The western governments and societies are not preparing for the future like in the past. They try to solve current challenges with old recipes (which partly had already not worked then)...The only exception maybe is Macron who at least seems to understand that looking forward is the right answer and not looking back...

Building walls, creating import taxes for washing machines, leaving EU, new crazy parties (AFD in Germany)...that seems to be the maximum creativity achieved by current leaders...well done....we are ready for the 21th century, I would say ^^

vienna

02-03-18, 03:30 PM

Good thing we don't elect brands then eh?

Selling the "brand" has been going on for a long time...

https://productimages.worldofbooks.com/014003191X.jpg

http://www.ibtauris.com/-/media/Images/9781780768281.ashx

The big difference now with Trump is the con artist salesman is not the one pushing pushing the candidate: he is the candidate...

<O>

vienna

02-03-18, 04:22 PM

I just noticed a lot of mentions of and/or opinions on the Nunes Memo, but no one has actually posted the memo itself, leading me to wonder how many of those expressing views either for or against have actually read the Memo? Of course there are those for whom 'TLDR' is a way of life and there are those who prefer to have 'their own' opinions spoon fed to them by whatever pundit/news source/party organ to which they subscribe, but there may be some who like to formulate their views based on empirical evidence, you know, making up one's own mind based on gathered facts; for those, here is a link to The House Intelligence Committee's posting of the Nunes Memo:

https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/memo_and_white_house_letter.pdf

To give the memo a bit of context and elaboration, here are a couple of links for annotated versions of the Nunes Memo:

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/02/01/what-is-in-the-nunes-memo-fbi-released-analysis/?lo=ap_c2

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/02/us/politics/nunes-memo-gop-fbi-annotated.html

There is no claim made the annotations are the full story or explanation regarding the memo, nor is any claim made for an unbiased representation; the only claim made by me is there is no substitute for an informed, reasoned, and aware judgement based on review of available material from varied sources...

<O>

u crank

02-03-18, 05:14 PM

I just noticed a lot of mentions of and/or opinions on the Nunes Memo, but no one has actually posted the memo itself, leading me to wonder how many of those expressing views either for or against have actually read the Memo? Of course there are those for whom 'TLDR' is a way of life and there are those who prefer to have 'their own' opinions spoon fed to them by whatever pundit/news source/party organ to which they subscribe, but there may be some who like to formulate their views based on empirical evidence, you know, making up one's own mind based on gathered facts; for those, here is a link to The House Intelligence Committee's posting of the Nunes Memo:

I read the 'memo' just minutes after it was made available. Read it twice, it's only four pages. Frankly it was not a big surprise as most of it is just a summation of what we already knew or suspected. And that is that some very troubling accusations are being made about the Obama administration and the DOJ and the FBI during that administration. It's funny because if the Clinton email 'matter' had never happened, this would look completely different. But the fact that you have some of the same cast of characters involved in both cases makes a person wonder. Not sure what the outcome will be but I suspect that this little drama is just getting started.

Pass the popcorn.

mapuc

02-03-18, 06:00 PM

I haven't read it. I have more interest in reading ordinary people's argument for and against this memo.

Markus

Rockstar

02-03-18, 07:00 PM

I read it, IMO its not about Trump being vindicated or Muellers investigation of Trump. In fact I see it as an entirely separate issue, about abuse of power and corruption at high levels of government.

vienna

02-03-18, 07:55 PM

August

02-03-18, 08:16 PM

Democrats caught in another lie:

Adam Schiff, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, among seemingly dozens of Democrats, not to mention half the mainstream media, had been warning us for days that the release of the memo authored by Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee would place our national security at grave risk. "Sources and methods" would be revealed. Now that we have seen the memo, it's clear that was an absolutely bald-faced lie of the most obvious sort. Nothing in it impacts national security in the slightest. There's no mention whatsoever of any "sources and methods."
Unless they were lobotomized, those Democrats and their dependable PR team (aka the media) must have realized they were blatantly lying to the American public. Evidently, they didn't care. How're we now supposed to trust what these people say about anything? Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Their latest meme is "cherry picking." The memo was cherry-picked and therefore to be ignored. That's like saying a murderer who has a clean driving record and is a good cook is not a murderer. Whatever else happened, the FBI clearly used a slanderous fictional document to get a FISA ruling to surveil Carter Page without telling the court the document was a pack of lies paid for by the Clinton campaign and written by a creepy spy with old-line Soviet connections. And they did it multiple times.

So what was up here below the surface? It can't just be the "evil party" trying to live up to its nickname, although that certainly happened.
It seems this particular lie was a last line of defense — for now — against a coming potential Armageddon for their party. This memo, bad as it is, is apparently only the first of many, a small percentage of what is to come. And the Democrats know it.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/democrats-lie-baldly-memo/

Catfish

02-04-18, 05:48 AM

http://www.hillarybeattrump.org/home/2017/11/16/clinton-and-merkel-achieve-world-peace-by-syncing-menstrual-cycles

Rockstar

02-04-18, 07:18 AM

I totally agree: Trump and his minions need to be dumped ASAP... :03: :D

<O>

No, it should have been work together and support the presidency from day one.
And though I believe the memo was intended to bring to the publics attention abuse and corruption in high levels of government. It may very well have a huge impact on the current investigation.

edit: I got a feeling however it will suffer the Kaepernick effect.

mapuc

02-05-18, 06:44 PM

From what I have heard the Dem have released some type of counter memo

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-targets-top-democrat-adam-schiff-ahead-push/story?id=52847337

Markus

vienna

02-05-18, 07:26 PM

Yes, the House Intelligence Committee voted unanimously (all DEM and GOP members) to authorize the release of the DEM memo and send it to Trump's desk for final approval; now it all depends on if Trump has the guts to release it to the public or will he try to weasel out by trying to find some spurious reason to halt the release; it would be a high degree of irony if he tried to cite 'national security' as a reason not to release... or maybe he can find some way of blaming Obama or Hillary...

Regarding the claims about the Steele Dossier made in the Nunes Memo, this will give a preview of what may be coming in the DEM Memo:

All the logical holes in the GOP memo about the Trump dossier --

https://qz.com/1197014/all-the-holes-in-the-nunes-memo-about-the-trump-dossier/

<O>

August

02-05-18, 08:48 PM

Ah yes the Counter Memo. The one written by the same people who claimed that releasing the Nunes memo would cause irreparable harm to national security. We all breathlessly wait.

em2nought

02-05-18, 10:13 PM

Bernie Sanders makes noises about running in 2020 and look what happens to the markets. LMAO :har:

Mr Quatro

02-06-18, 11:46 AM

Bernie Sanders makes noises about running in 2020 and look what happens to the markets. LMAO :har:

Bernie would've done better than Hillary for sure in 2016, but that's in hindsight, uh?

As for the stock market going up and up during the Trump administration since he was elected has baffled many and now headed down appears to be to the undermining of the intelligence community with the GOP memo.

However i'm sure someone else will put a different spin on why the stock market has dropped so far (right now it was headed back up this morning).

August

02-06-18, 12:44 PM

Interesting comment in this article:

Democrats allege that, given Carter Page’s familiarity with Russians, it was logical for the Obama administration to use the dossier’s references to him to substantiate FISA warrants.

But is not the opposite more likely true? He was apparently known to intelligence agencies for years (supposedly under investigation variously by the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), and he may have been the object of a 2014 FISA warrant. But such intelligence agents were never able to bring charges against him, and it appears he even cooperated with American intelligence in gathering info against the Russians.

So why would the FBI and DOJ, suddenly in 2016, believe that mention of Page’s name in an unverified opposition-research dossier warranted four FISA warrants to find wrongdoing? After all, if he was so well known to the FBI for so many years, during which they never charged him with being a Russian agent, and if the FBI nonetheless still regarded him as suspicious in 2016, why not simply go to a regular court to obtain a warrant to wiretap him?

Such a court, of course, would be less secretive, not known for a 99 percent approval rate, subject to far more deliberation, and less useful for surveilling Trump associates. A more likely supposition is that it was not Page’s past flirtations with the Russians (who supposedly dubbed him an “idiot”) that abruptly brought him back into the sights of the DOJ and FBI in 2016. Instead, it was his brief and minor relationship with Trump, and his appearance in a bogus dossier, that offered useful pretexts for court-ordered surveillance sweeps and indirect targeting of possible Trump associates.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456134/fisagate-boomerangs-democrats-hillary-obama

Platapus

02-06-18, 06:44 PM

Looks like Trump is envious of KJU and Putin as it seems he wants his very own military parade
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/372634-pentagon-planning-grand-military-parade-for-trump-report

The Pentagon has reportedly begun planning a military parade at the request of President Trump (http://thehill.com/people/donald-trump).
Trump repeatedly has expressed an interest in holding a display of America’s military might, and upped his calls for a parade after witnessing (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/351216-trump-im-considering-holding-a-military-parade-in-dc-on-fourth-of) the Bastille Day celebrations on a trip to France last summer.
The Washington Post reported (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-marching-orders-to-the-pentagon-plan-a-grand-military-parade/2018/02/06/9e19ca88-0b55-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html?utm_term=.8bc9b81ce8c4) Monday that at recent meeting between Trump and top military officials, Trump’s wishes were “suddenly heard as a presidential directive.”
“The marching orders were: I want a parade like the one in France,” one military official told the Washington Post on the condition of anonymity. “This is being worked at the highest levels of the military.”
A White House official told the Post that the planning was still in the “brainstorming” stages, and that there is “no meat on the bones” as of yet.
White House chief of staff John Kelly (http://thehill.com/people/john-kelly) is reportedly involved in the planning of the parade. Pentagon officials are pushing for the parade to be tied to Veteran’s Day, rather than Independence Day or Memorial Day, because it would appear to be less tied to Trump.
Officials told the Post that they do not yet know how they will cover the cost of the parade, which could reach millions of dollars.
I suppose he really doesn't care about the cost and the logistics involved.

vienna

02-06-18, 07:59 PM

So why would the FBI and DOJ, suddenly in 2016, believe that mention of Page’s name in an unverified opposition-research dossier warranted four FISA warrants to find wrongdoing? After all, if he was so well known to the FBI for so many years, during which they never charged him with being a Russian agent, and if the FBI nonetheless still regarded him as suspicious in 2016, why not simply go to a regular court to obtain a warrant to wiretap him?

The above from the National Review article cited by August is an interesting question; perhaps there is a really simple answer: context. What has happened, over the last couple of years, is a confluence of several individual factors making up a whole with ominous consequences. Individually, Flynn, Manafort, Page, Kushner, and others are simply unprincipled opportunists who were making shady backroom deals to line their own pockets. However, they have became part of the whole that was the Trump campaign, and, later, the Trump Administration and that is where the problem, and the larger criminality, sits. Page was on the FBI, and others, radar, but before his connection to the Trump campaign, he was just another suspected white collar criminal. Page became of interest to the extent it elevated to a FISA-level when it was noted by the FBI, CIA, and others, that he was now in the company of Flynn, Manafort, Kushner, et al, who also were individually suspect by investigators, some more than others, but all, nonetheless, suspect. There may not have been a formal 'conspiracy' by those individuals to commit illegalities collectively, but the effect has been for them to benefit from and also, in effect, assist each other in their criminal goals, sort of one hand washing the other. In addition to the known suspected criminal activities, these individuals, now grouped, were a perfect target for the exercise, by the Putin government, of an attempt to subvert and/or influence the US electoral process. It was a 'perfect storm' of suspect behavior and suspect intent, all wrapped up in the package known as the Trump Campaign and Administration. The Page FISA wiretaps warrants weren't sought until Page had been seen in the company of other persons of interest to the investigative agencies. It goes like this: if you're a cop and you see one guy you suspect of possible criminality within your purview, it is something you watch; if you see that guy and several other guys you suspect of criminality suddenly congregating in the the same place, then it is something to be seriously investigated, if only to make sure they are not actually conspiring to commit a more serious crime together than they could commit as individuals. You might also want to call in other agencies to assist in the investigation(s)...

BTW, I get the sense some persons may not really know about the actual composition and/or scope of the FISA Court; some seem to think it is some sort of "Star Chamber", dark and mysterious, a coven of sorts, working in the darkness; actually, it is, with the exception of the actual substance of the cases it hears, pretty much an open book; they even have their own website, with Annual Reports, Public Fillings, and other interesting information:

http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/

Did you know the FISA Judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court? Or that the Judges have fixed terms of seven (7) years? And that they only sit in session for one (1) week at a time (this last fact goes a long way towards explaining why there were several different Judges involved in the Page warrants: it was just the Judge who happened to be sitting for that particular week). Sometimes, what is 'sold' to the public by the tin hat crowd or the Trump apologists as dark and mysterious is simply mundane...

Here is a link to the FISA Court Rules of Procedure, as publicly posted on their website:

http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.pdf

<O>

Rockstar

02-06-18, 08:28 PM

Then again it could be as Senator Nunes alleges an abuse of power and police corruption.

vienna

02-06-18, 08:30 PM

My, my, what a sad, weak counter-argument...

<O>

Rockstar

02-06-18, 08:36 PM

Not really since it is what the Congressman (fixed) alleged in the memo.

vienna

02-06-18, 08:52 PM

Not really sure if you are aware, but Nunes is not a Senator: Nunes is a Congressman; it helps to keep facts straight when trying to make an argument. Also, it is as you said: Nunes alleges; as with many of the other matters he brings up, he is long on rhetoric and very, very short on giving any actual facts or proof of what he alleges. He kind of reminds me of Senator Joe McCarthy, who alleged all over the place in the press, ruined lives and reputations, created distrust, confusion, and obfuscation, and, in the end: bupkis. Just sound and fury signifying nothing, much like his idol, Trump...

<O>

Rockstar

02-06-18, 09:00 PM

Not really sure if you are aware, but Nunes is not a Senator: Nunes is a Congressman; it helps to keep facts straight when trying to make an argument. Also, it is as you said: Nunes alleges; as with many of the other matters he brings up, he is long on rhetoric and very, very short on gibing any actual facts or proof of what he alleges. He kind of reminds me of Senator Joe McCarthy, who alleged all over the place in the press, ruined lives and reputations, created distrust, confusion, and obfuscation, and, in the end: bupkis. Just sound and fury signifying nothing, much like his idol, Trump...

<O>

Hmmm that sounds awfully familiar. :hmmm: Now where have I seen these walls of text containing baseless allegations spreading distrust, confusion, obfuscation.

By the way who is your idol?

vienna

02-06-18, 09:09 PM

Certainly not from me because I actually make an effort to provide actual cites and factual bases for what I present, you know, rather than make a weak attempt at wit or a snide remark that adds nothing to the conversation, like some others... :D

Just as I don't have any political party alliance, I also do not believe in idols, given so many of them very often are shown to have 'feet of clay'; but I do have a great respect for facts and truth...

<O>

razark

02-07-18, 01:10 AM

Now where have I seen these walls of text containing baseless allegations spreading distrust, confusion, obfuscation.
Trump?

Edit:
Oops, sorry.
I saw the words "wall", "baseless allegations", "spreading distrust", and "confusion". My mind just automatically made the leap.

Mr Quatro

02-07-18, 09:58 AM

Also, it is as you said: Nunes alleges; as with many of the other matters he brings up, he is long on rhetoric and very, very short on giving any actual facts or proof of what he alleges. He kind of reminds me of Senator Joe McCarthy, who alleged all over the place in the press, ruined lives and reputations, created distrust, confusion, and obfuscation, and, in the end: bupkis. Just sound and fury signifying nothing, much like his idol, Trump...

<O>

True :up:

Hmmm that sounds awfully familiar. :hmmm: Now where have I seen these walls of text containing baseless allegations spreading distrust, confusion, obfuscation.

By the way who is your idol?

True :up:

Certainly not from me because I actually make an effort to provide actual cites and factual bases for what I present, you know, rather than make a weak attempt at wit or a snide remark that adds nothing to the conversation, like some others... :D

Just as I don't have any political party alliance, I also do not believe in idols, given so many of them very often are shown to have 'feet of clay'; but I do have a great respect for facts and truth...

<O>

True :up:

Trump?

Edit:
Oops, sorry.
I saw the words "wall", "baseless allegations", "spreading distrust", and "confusion". My mind just automatically made the leap.

Very true :yeah:

MaDef

02-07-18, 10:39 AM

By the way who is your idol?I thought idols were forbidden by the 2nd commandment . ;)

u crank

02-07-18, 11:05 AM

Although much has been made of the Nunes/GOP memo and the Democrats' rebuttal memo the real interest should be in the Department of Justice's inspector generals investigation that is ongoing. Without much attention, Michael Horowitz has been working away for a year on a sprawling probe of the FBI’s handling of the 2016 investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

A political appointee in both the Bush and Obama administrations, Horowitz’s yearlong investigation already reportedly contributed to the early resignation of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. And his work has been felt in other ways.

Horowitz also uncovered a series of text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page that led special counsel Robert Mueller to remove Strzok from his team. Those texts have fueled accusations among GOP lawmakers that Mueller’s probe is tainted by partisanship.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/372457-ig-poised-to-reignite-war-over-fbis-clinton-case

But there is greater significance—and uncertainty—attached to Horowitz’s examination of the F.B.I.’s pivotal role during the 2016 presidential campaign. “His report will be more credible than the Nunes memo,” says Benjamin Wittes, the co-founder of the blog Lawfare. “Let’s just say Michael Horowitz is not a clown. And you’re talking about a situation inherently less susceptible to the foolishness that gave rise to the Nunes memo.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/washington-braces-fbi-bombshell-nunes-inspector-general

The real outcome of this is unsure but if Horowitz comes up with any severe criticisms of former F.B.I. director Comey and his handling of the Clinton probe it may effect any obstruction of justice charge that Robert Mueller may try to make on Trump. Things are getting interesting.

Jack Goldsmith, an assistant attorney general during the Bush administration and now Wittes’s Lawfare compatriot, says he believes the Horowitz report will be “a political boon to the president.” It’s easy to see how that would work: Trump’s allies will seize on any Horowitz criticism of Comey to justify the president’s firing of the F.B.I. director, just like deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein wrote at the time. If Horowitz identifies any internal Justice Department dysfunction, the Trump team will use it to sow more distrust of the bureau’s leadership, then and now.

Mr Quatro

02-08-18, 12:45 PM

This qualifies as politics, right?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/08/informant-says-moscow-paid-millions-in-bid-to-influence-clinton.html

An FBI informant involved in the controversial Uranium One deal has told congressional committees that Moscow paid millions to a U.S. lobbying firm in a bid to influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by helping former President Bill Clinton’s charities during the Obama administration.

Platapus

02-08-18, 05:32 PM

No one has been able to provide a reason why the Russian's would bribe someone for the Uranium One deal

1. There was no uncertainty that it would be approved by the CFIUS. By the time a deal gets to the CFIUS, it is pretty well accepted. In the case of the Uranium One deal, there was no controversy and no doubt that the committee would have recommended approval.

2. Why would the Russians bribe one person on this committee when there were eight others that evidently were not bribed. Bribing one out of 9 does not make any sense... Especially since none of the 9 had the authority to approve or disapprove the deal at all. That authority rested with the president.

3. If anyone on the CFIUS would have been a good target for influence, it would have been the Chair of the CFIUS which was the Sec Treasury.

Why bribe when you are already going to get the deal you want?
Why only bribe one out of nine people on the committee?

The Russians are many things but they are not stupid nor are they careless with their money.

That's the problem with conspiracies, they often fail even the most rudimentary common sense evaluation.

I dislike Hillary and would love to see her get her comeuppance. But this is a nothing sandwich with extra nothing sauce on the side.

I would rather people focus on her E-mail issues. Those are measurable and verifiable.

vienna

02-08-18, 08:57 PM

^ Agreed. The whole Uranium one non-scandal really does fall apart when facts and reason are applied to what the Far Right tries to make of it; the FR spend so much time chasing 'nothing burgers', they fail to act on the matters on and in which they might make an impact; instead of pulling stupid stunts like Nunes' memo debacle, they could show some maturity and focus on what they could have a shot at in regards to Hillary...

In my previous posting regarding the FISA Court and its operations, I had wanted to point out the FISA Court has a built in Court of Review to handle questions about the decisions ad/or actions of the main court proper:

http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/FISCR

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review was established in 1978 when Congress enacted The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is codified, as amended, at 50 U.S.C §§ 1801-1885c. The Court sits in Washington D.C., and is composed of three federal district court or appeals court judges who are designated by the Chief Justice of the United States. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review was established to review the decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Co urt_of_Review

It would seem to me, if the GOP, Trump, Page, or any of the others either indicted, about to be indicted by a Federal Grand Jury as pat of the Special Counsel's investigations, or having a warrant levied against them by the Main FISA Court, it would be in their interest to raise the issue of a warrant's legality with the FISA CoR as a means of remedy; the fact none of them has done so suggests those so affected have very little faith in their argument(s) and the ability of such to withstand review; if they really believe they have been wronged, the FISA COR exists to address their concerns: what is stopping them?...

Maybe the parties complaining so loudly think it is easier and more profitable for them to try their case in the 'Court of Public Opinion'; the flaw there in that tack is the court(s) that really matter is/are the courts of actual law, not political spin...

<O>

<O>