US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by em2nought

Bahahaha, except the Media is never that "innocent". lol

That must be a shortened version. It doesn't show the bike rider speeding off and taking no responsibility for his action. So yeah, it fits.

[August]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

That must be a shortened version. It doesn't show the bike rider speeding off and taking no responsibility for his action. So yeah, it fits.

Only if you want to blame Trump for the liberals over reaction and deliberate distortions that caused the accident in the first place but that I guess is just par for the course.

[Cybermat47]

August, I can definitely agree that the far left are their own worst enemy. It's pathetic how childish they are.

[August]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

August, I can definitely agree that the far left are their own worst enemy. It's pathetic how childish they are.

Yeah they've created a sort of boy cried wolf effect that will continue to hurt them at the polls I think. Any valid points they may make are buried by hysterical ranting that makes people ignore what they have to say.

[Buddahaid]

I can agree with that and it applies to the far right as well. What I don't like is being lumped in with it when I'm not like that.

[Platapus]

It is amusing, in a kinda pathetic way, to hear either side trying to claim a moral advantage over the other side.

[August]

Glad to see congress is starting to shine a light on these cockroaches.

Sketchy firm behind Trump dossier is stalling investigators

By Paul Sperry

June 24, 2017 | 2:24pm



A secretive Washington firm that commissioned the dubious intelligence dossier on Donald Trump is stonewalling congressional investigators trying to learn more about its connections to the Democratic Party.
The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the error-ridden dossier, which was circulated during the election and has sparked much of the Russia scandal now engulfing the White House.


What is the company hiding? Fusion GPS describes itself as a “research and strategic intelligence firm” founded by “three former Wall Street Journal investigative reporters.” But congressional sources say it’s actually an opposition-research group for Democrats, and the founders, who are more political activists than journalists, have a pro-Hillary, anti-Trump agenda.


“These weren’t mercenaries or hired guns,” a congressional source familiar with the dossier probe said. “These guys had a vested personal and ideological interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary’s chances of winning the White House.”
Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. And in 2015, Democrat ally Planned Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to investigate pro-life activists protesting the abortion group.

http://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-...trump-dossier/

[Gerald]

The US Supreme Court has partially lifted an injunction against President Donald Trump's travel ban.
America's highest court also granted an emergency request from the White House allowing part of the refugee ban to go into effect.
The justices said they would consider in October whether Mr Trump's policy should be upheld or struck down.
The order seeks to place a 90-day ban on people from six mainly Muslim nations and a 120-day ban on refugees.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-can....php?do=getnew

[Mr Quatro]

Doesn't look good for Trump's campaign promise to replace the Obamacare health care plan. A late night news show said that in one elderly care home 65% of the patients would have to find a new place to live. That is unacceptable to me.

Two of the Senators ran for the GOP nomination against Trump in 2016 ... Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/...another-defeat

With 10 senators saying they have reservations or outright oppose the bill, as of Sunday afternoon, it was already looking as if McConnell would need a legislative miracle to fulfill the G.O.P.’s seven-year quest to repeal Obamacare—and that was before the Congressional Budget Office released its report on the impact of the bill, which the federal scorekeeper estimated would increase the ranks of the uninsured by 22 million.

[August]

Looks like the FBI may have targeted Michael Flynn because they wanted revenge:

Flynn Backed Agent Charging FBI Sex Bias


Sara A. Carter & John Solomon, Circa News June 27, 2017

There is evidence of bad blood simmering for a long time between FBI top brass and Michael Flynn. Two years before the bureau launched a criminal probe against the former Trump national security adviser, Flynn backed a decorated counterterrorism agent in her case accusing now-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other top officials of sexual discrimination, according to documents and interviews.

From Circa News:
The FBI sought to block Flynn's support for the agent, asking a federal administrative law judge in May 2014 to keep Flynn and others from becoming a witness in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case, memos obtained by Circa show. Two years later, the FBI opened its inquiry of Flynn.
The EEOC case, which is still pending, was serious enough to require McCabe to submit to a sworn statement to investigators, the documents show.
The deputy director's testimony provided some of the strongest evidence in the case of possible retaliation, because he admitted the FBI opened an internal investigation into Gritz's personal conduct after learning the agent “had filed or intended to file” a sex discrimination complaint against her supervisors.

McCabe eventually became the bureau's No. 2 executive and emerged as a central player in the FBI's Russia election tampering investigation, putting him in a position to impact the criminal inquiry against Flynn.


Three FBI employees told Circa they personally witnessed McCabe make disparaging remarks about Flynn before and during the time the retired Army general emerged as a figure in the Russia case.

http://www.realclearinvestigations.c...as_103604.html

[Mr Quatro]

i use to hear the word vetted a lot in other administrations ... What happened to the vetting process in Trump administration?

The missing clues were not missing in Michael Flynn's case ... Perhaps Flynn was a double, double agent working for Trump and Russia, but reporting directly to Trump with no tapes and only a "he said" for proof?

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

Vetting is the process of performing a background check on someone before offering them employment, conferring an award, etc. A prospective person or project may be vetted before making a hiring decision. In addition, in intelligence gathering, assets are vetted to determine their usefulness.

PS I'm starting to use wikipedia more and more something I never use to do, but it's so much easier ...

[August]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

i use to hear the word vetted a lot in other administrations ... What happened to the vetting process in Trump administration?

The missing clues were not missing in Michael Flynn's case ... Perhaps Flynn was a double, double agent working for Trump and Russia, but reporting directly to Trump with no tapes and only a "he said" for proof?

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



PS I'm starting to use wikipedia more and more something I never use to do, but it's so much easier ...

President Obama made Flynn the Director of the DIA in 2012 and he's a retired US Army General. How much more vetting would have been reasonable?

[Rockstar]

Was Flynn the target of political payback?

http://circa.com/politics/accountabi...g-russia-probe

[vienna]

Originally Posted by August

President Obama made Flynn the Director of the DIA in 2012 and he's a retired US Army General. How much more vetting would have been reasonable?

Well, let's see...

Flynn was appointed by Obama, so I would guess if I were to be the person considering hiring him, I would want to find out why, specifically, he was and if Flynn had any lingering loyalties or connections to Obama or Obama associates and do a thorough vetting of my own...

Obama fired Flynn, so I would guess if I were to be the person considering hiring him, I would want to find out why and do a thorough vetting of my own...

Obama warned against hiring of Flynn, so I would guess if I were to be the person considering hiring him, I would want to find out why and do a thorough vetting of my own...

If I were to be the person considering hiring him and wanted to appoint him to highly sensitive position affecting national security, I would guess I would exercise the due diligence expected of a President and insist on a new and thorough vetting of Flynn...

...but, then, again, that would only be what a competent, intelligent, responsible person would do...

As far as his being a retired US Army general is concerned, all I can offer as an argument against depending on a title as a reference on suitability is a name: retired Gen. David Petraeus...

...also appointed by Obama (as CIA Director), was found to have been illegally discussing highly-sensitive national security data with a mistress, and later resigned in scandal...


The number of stars on a shoulder or collar is not to be considered a Yelp rating...




<O>

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

i use to hear the word vetted a lot in other administrations ... What happened to the vetting process in Trump administration?

The missing clues were not missing in Michael Flynn's case ... Perhaps Flynn was a double, double agent working for Trump and Russia, but reporting directly to Trump with no tapes and only a "he said" for proof?

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



PS I'm starting to use wikipedia more and more something I never use to do, but it's so much easier ...

Its good to seek out further data on issues and Wikipedia is a good start. Wikipedia is not 100% accurate all the time (what is?), so it is a good idea to further research anything you don't understand or that appears questionable. I would also suggest a couple of other means to suss out the gist from the gibberish. When you read an article online, note if there are embedded links in the text to the sources used to compose the article; often you can get a clearer picture of the issue and, sometimes, you may find what is quoted in the article may not be the full context. If you see an article making a lot of claims, or strongly arguing claims, without links or references, ask yourself why and do a check on the claims. If a person or entity is cited and you don't know or have little knowledge of them, take the time to do a bit of research to find out the who, what, where, when and why. There are a lot of people or entities, of all stripes and at all levels of the spectrum, who depend on people not asking questions and/or blindly accepting arguments and the only way to prevent being taken in is to arm yourself with as much independent information as possible. It may taken a bit of extra time and effort, but knowing is better than being manipulated...




<O>