PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on January 07, 2017, 07:12:16 AM
-
Trump tweeted this:
I am asking the chairs of the House and Senate committees to investigate top secret intelligence shared with NBC prior to me seeing it.
I guess I need to reconcile his question with his decision to forego the daily intelligence brief.
-
The current administration's efforts to continue the delegitimization of Trump by providing NBC with the briefing on the supposed Russian hacking before Trump saw it.
Why else would they leak it to the media? This is just more proof this whole story is made up bullshit in an attempt to smear Trump.
This article sums it up rather well:
The second reason is that there is a much better explanation for the liberal's false narrative. The left must explain how Hillary lost in a way that does not add insult to injury. Blaming her embarrassing loss on voter fraud failed when Trump was awarded even more votes in the Wisconsin recount. The "angry white men argument" failed. Blaming FBI director James B. Comey for his efforts to vet all of the Clinton emails also failed to bear fruit.
The Democratic Party simply cannot accept that many of the so-called blue states (Mich., Ohio, Penn., Wis.) are again in play in future elections. The corollary of this is simple: their votes must now be earned by Democrats, not just automatically awarded to them.
This is precisely why the press, the left, and the Dems are promoting an obviously false storyline. This corruption perfectly exemplifies why they lost so many governorships, so many congressional seats (both state and federal), and the White House.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/01/the_lefts_russia_narrative_has_no_legs.html
-
More hypocrisy from the left. It is the U.S. Intelligence agencies' duty to bring anything significant to the President Elect's attention, and keep it confidential. We can not trust the current intelligence community under Obama.
Right now the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc have to be considered suspect, and acting counter to U.S. interests, and safety.
-
If someone leaked top secret intelligence to the press, he or she should face prosecution. There should be an independent investigation into the matter. It should be free from politicization.
As for all the innuendo and hyperbole of posts 2 and 3, mental masturbation is an addiction.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
As for all the innuendo and hyperbole of posts 2 and 3, mental masturbation is an addiction.
As for the idiocy displayed in post 4, just another example of how ignorance is bliss.
-
The American media is accusing Russia of rigging the US election by exposing how the DNC rigged a US election?
-
"The American media is accusing Russia of rigging the US election by exposing how the DNC rigged a US election?"
Concerning the above quote...exactly which US election is the DNC supposed to have rigged?
-
"The American media is accusing Russia of rigging the US election by exposing how the DNC rigged a US election?"
Concerning the above quote...exactly which US election is the DNC supposed to have rigged?
The DNC rigged the Democrat Primary to nominate Hillary instead of Bernie because she was a woman, and it was "her turn". Debbie Wasserman Schultz lost her job over it.
From your Bible, the Huffington Post:
After the DNC WikiLeaks emails, The Nation’s Joshua Holland acknowledged the DNC “came to loathe Sanders’s campaign,” however “there’s no evidence that they rigged the primaries.” Nothing exemplifies the amnesia of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s various claims of impartiality, or the relevance of such neutrality to the Democratic process, better than Holland’s sentiment. The facts show that the Democratic Primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders from the start, despite numerous promises from the DNC to remain impartial.
Schultz stated months before her resignation that “I have been from the beginning, neutral in the Presidential Democratic primary.” From the debates until her resignation, everyone (including Debbie Wasserman Schultz) knew that Democratic voters expected a level-playing field and a fair primary.
Hundreds of millions of dollars were donated from voters who believed the system wasn’t biased against Bernie. However, where’s the outrage from progressives, and especially progressive media that Bernie Sanders was cheated?
-
The DNC rigged the Democrat Primary to nominate Hillary instead of Bernie because she was a woman, and it was "her turn". Debbie Wasserman Schultz lost her job over it.
From your Bible, the Huffington Post:
AKA, the "Super Delegates", or IOW, WE know better than the people.
-
I guess the term "rigged" is used by the losing side whenever efforts to elect one candidate over another is successful. I guess that's why DT didn't follow through on his claim of a rigged presidential election since his side prevailed although during the campaign he made the claim frequently. I wonder why Republicans are so all fired upset that the DNC rigged the Democratic primary and yet Bernie Sanders seems good with it. At least he hasn't been shouting from the rooftops how he got robbed.
As far as Super Delegates, if the Dem rank and file don't see a need to demand change, why do the Reps care?
-
AKA, the "Super Delegates", or IOW, WE know better than the people.
Oh, you mean like the electoral college?
-
Oh, you mean like the electoral college?
Are you seriously trying to infer that the super delegate scheme the DNC used in 2016 is akin to the electoral college?
-
Are you seriously trying to infer that the super delegate scheme the DNC used in 2016 is akin to the electoral college?
No, he's not. It's pretty simple what he's inferring.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
No, he's not. It's pretty simple what he's inferring.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Yes, Witmo is inferring we are a Democracy, and mob rule should win, where a metro area or two can run, and rule the entire country. Well, we are not a Democracy, we are a Constitutional Representative Republic. You and Witmo would be perfectly OK if Hillary had won the Electoral College vote (the one that matters), and Trump had won the popular vote with L.A. and NYC, but lost the election. HYPOCRITES!
-
Yes, Witmo is inferring we are a Democracy, and mob rule should win, where a metro area or two can run, and rule the entire country. Well, we are not a Democracy, we are a Constitutional Representative Republic. You and Witmo would be perfectly OK if Hillary had won the Electoral College vote (the one that matters), and Trump had won the popular vote with L.A. and NYC, but lost the election. HYPOCRITES!
Funny that I offered no opinion in the matter.
Well, other than saying the EC is necessary and we should never dismantle it.
Apparently Witmo's inference was lost on you as well. Not surprised given your views.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Yes, Witmo is inferring we are a Democracy, and mob rule should win, where a metro area or two can run, and rule the entire country. Well, we are not a Democracy, we are a Constitutional Representative Republic. You and Witmo would be perfectly OK if Hillary had won the Electoral College vote (the one that matters), and Trump had won the popular vote with L.A. and NYC, but lost the election. HYPOCRITES!
Actually, what I think he is inferring is that his side lost so he wants to change the rules.
-
No, he's not. It's pretty simple what he's inferring.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
I don't think what he is inferring is quite that simple. I think he is just making a bad correlation.
Electors are selected by the vote of the people.
Super delegates are selected by the party. That itself has an ominous ring to it.
-
Actually, what I think he is inferring is that his side lost so he wants to change the rules.
Exactly! But, but, buhhhhh, the Russians!!!! Waaaah, Waaaah, Waaaah. What a made up bunch of bullsh*t. Bunch of old ladies.
-
I don't think what he is inferring is quite that simple. I think he is just making a bad correlation.
Electors are selected by the vote of the people.
Super delegates are selected by the party. That itself has an ominous ring to it.
He bolded a section of a quote saying We know better than the people. In essence that's what super delegates are.
It is also a reason the founding fathers wrote the EC into the constitution. So that "mob rule" wouldn't elect a charismatic tyrant.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
He bolded a section of a quote saying We know better than the people. In essence that's what super delegates are.
It is also a reason the founding fathers wrote the EC into the constitution. So that "mob rule" wouldn't elect a charismatic tyrant.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
So we can count on you to interpret Witmo's post and be his spokes person from now on?
-
He bolded a section of a quote saying We know better than the people. In essence that's what super delegates are.
It is also a reason the founding fathers wrote the EC into the constitution. So that "mob rule" wouldn't elect a charismatic tyrant.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
You are totally clueless as to our Constitution and how Presidential elections work in the U.S. since its founding, and for a good reason. You are just too butt hurt YOU LOST!
-
So WE can count on you to interpret Witmo's post and be his spokes person from now on?
Whom are you speaking for?
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
You are totally clueless as to our Constitution and how Presidential elections work in the U.S. since its founding, and for a good reason. You are just too butt hurt YOU LOST!
Of course I lost. I'm not affiliated with a political party.
It's you I pity. Your demented world view prohibits you from any ability to learn and grow. It seems to suit you, so God bless.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
You are totally clueless as to our Constitution and how Presidential elections work in the U.S. since its founding, and for a good reason. You are just too butt hurt YOU LOST!
And to add on..
There were two major reasons the founding fathers created the electoral college. The first was to give power and voice to the states - regardless of population or land size. The second reason is to provide a buffer between the general population and the selection of a president. Why?
So that a charismatic tyrant couldn't take advantage of "mob rule."
Duh.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Don't recall stating an opinion of the worth of the electoral college. Perhaps you can refresh my memory and point me at that post.
I did post that I accepted the results of the election so I suppose someone might infer that I'm okay with the electoral college. Y'all make me out to be some sort of Hillary supporter but in reality, I am much more a critic of the man elected to the Presidency than I was a fan of HRC. I suppose that makes me a rabid HRC liberal in the eyes of the Trumpists but in reality my real belief is that she would have been only slightly, very slightly, preferable to the Donald.
-
So we can count on you to interpret Witmo's post and be his spokes person from now on?
Hasn't stopped you from attempting to interpret my posts. If someone says something that I don't agree with, look for my comment but I like to see people thinking about what I wrote and not just posting conservative dogma like it's written on stone tablets they picked out of a burning bush.
-
I really feel (sorta) sorry for people like Witmo and MarkZ because the next eight years are going to be a horrible, painful, illuminating experience for them, far worse than the last eight were for the rest of us.
Barack Obama was the devil incarnate in political terms, for the USA because of his horrendous hatred of freedom and his painful, sickening ego.
Having Donald Trump roll into town and shit all over the leftist concept of free speech, which is you are only free to agree with them, is going to hurt liberals like a bite from the hounds of hell.
-
I really feel (sorta) sorry for people like Witmo and MarkZ because the next eight years are going to be a horrible, painful, illuminating experience for them, far worse than the last eight were for the rest of us.
Barack Obama was the devil incarnate in political terms, for the USA because of his horrendous hatred of freedom and his painful, sickening ego.
Having Donald Trump roll into town and shit all over the leftist concept of free speech, which is you are only free to agree with them, is going to hurt liberals like a bite from the hounds of hell.
I am an American first and if my next eight years are going to be a horrible, painful, illuminating experience, it will be so for all Americans. I may think Number7 is a crass, uninformed, intellectually challenged right wing bigot, but I support his right to spew forth his crass, uninformed, intellectually challenged, bigoted views. I only hope Dems give Trump a chance to do his best, unlike the way Republicans from the getgo set out to block every Obama initiative, even the ones they had initiated or supported in the previous administration.
-
Blocking anti-American Communist, and corrupt big government Obama policies was the duty of the Republicans, yet they passed EVERY BUDGET HE WANTED like freaking Lemmings!
-
Blocking anti-American Communist, and corrupt big government Obama policies was the duty of the Republicans, yet they passed EVERY BUDGET HE WANTED like freaking Lemmings!
BS. It didn't matter what, the Republicans blocked anything and everything they could. I don't recall any previous President facing such obstructionism. Its no wonder why he had to resort to executive orders to get anything done. I only hope the Dems don't go tit for tat and hamstring DT with such tactics.
-
BS. It didn't matter what, the Republicans blocked anything and everything they could. I don't recall any previous President facing such obstructionism. Its no wonder why he had to resort to executive orders to get anything done. I only hope the Dems don't go tit for tat and hamstring DT with such tactics.
I don't recall any previous President that was so anti business and anti success. Everything Obama did was an attempt to take from the rich . . .
He had no problem crippling American industry if it met with his goals of American mediocrity and fairness to the non productive and government dependent.
And on the international front, his goal was to reduce our influence and power.
Everything he did and wanted to do was something I would have resisted even if he was registered Republican and his last name was Reagan.
At least with Trump, I agree with his stated goals. So far, the only thing I would change about him is his personality and his facial expressions. And I"m not even sure I want to change his personality since he seems to be able to get things done. We haven't seen much of that in our power structure lately.
-
BS. It didn't matter what, the Republicans blocked anything and everything they could. I don't recall any previous President facing such obstructionism. Its no wonder why he had to resort to executive orders to get anything done.
(http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w464/flybywire1959/sniffing%20farts_zpsceopqbwr.gif)
-
Blocking anti-American Communist, and corrupt big government Obama policies was the duty of the Republicans, yet they passed EVERY BUDGET HE WANTED like freaking Lemmings!
Can you tell us what they blocked besides Merrick Garland?
They could have nixed his budgets, they didn't. They could have defunded his programs, they didn't. They could have filibustered his Supreme Court picks, they didn't. It was a Republican (Corker) who enabled his disaster of a deal with Iran. What exactly did they block?
Any blocking occurred in the Senate and it was Republican stuff that the newly elected Republican House had passed and Dingy Harry squelched.
-
Can you tell us what they blocked besides Merrick Garland?
They could have nixed his budgets, they didn't. They could have defunded his programs, they didn't. They could have filibustered his Supreme Court picks, they didn't. It was a Republican (Corker) who enabled his disaster of a deal with Iran. What exactly did they block?
Any blocking occurred in the Senate and it was Republican stuff that the newly elected Republican House had passed and Dingy Harry squelched.
Just Google "Republicans efforts to obstruct Obama" and you'll see many articles detailing the concerted GOP effort to implement the do nothing Congress and blame Obama for the lack of progress.
-
Just Google "Republicans efforts to obstruct Obama" and you'll see many articles detailing the concerted GOP effort to implement the do nothing Congress and blame Obama for the lack of progress.
Well bygawlie you are right! I did just google "Republican efforts to obstruct Obama" and the first page had articles by the Washington Post, Huffington Post, Bloomberg, Politico, CNN, etc. All bastions of fair minded media I tell ya. Even the next page again had the New York Times, PBS, Mother Jones and the Daily Kos, again, stalwarts of fair and unbiased media.
So yep, once again 'ol Witmo has shown everyone!
-
Just Google "Republicans efforts to obstruct Obama" and you'll see many articles detailing the concerted GOP effort to implement the do nothing Congress and blame Obama for the lack of progress.
Why do people keep saying that the Republicans tried to block everything Obama did like that is a bad thing?
The sad thing is that they weren't more successful at it.
-
Well bygawlie you are right! I did just google "Republican efforts to obstruct Obama" and the first page had articles by the Washington Post, Huffington Post, Bloomberg, Politico, CNN, etc. All bastions of fair minded media I tell ya. Even the next page again had the New York Times, PBS, Mother Jones and the Daily Kos, again, stalwarts of fair and unbiased media.
So yep, once again 'ol Witmo has shown everyone!
Sorry, I forget you only get your news from Pravda or #donaldtrump.
-
BS. It didn't matter what, the Republicans blocked anything and everything they could. I don't recall any previous President facing such obstructionism. Its no wonder why he had to resort to executive orders to get anything done. I only hope the Dems don't go tit for tat and hamstring DT with such tactics.
The selective memory of progressives is a mental disorder.
Every budget Reagan, and both Bush's presented was DOA. Tip O'neill used to brag about killing them.
Your selective outrage is infantile and typical of the mental state of liberals.
The traitor Obama faced obstructionism because his policies were toxic and dangerous. His foreign policy was treasonous and his concept of patriotism was delusion itself. But liberal progressives selectively lie about everything, anything and all things as long as it advances the fascist agenda of their owners.
Keep lying to yourself and each other. Very few people are listening.
-
The selective memory of progressives is a mental disorder.
Every budget Reagan, and both Bush's presented was DOA. Tip O'neill used to brag about killing them.
Your selective outrage is infantile and typical of the mental state of liberals.
The traitor Obama faced obstructionism because his policies were toxic and dangerous. His foreign policy was treasonous and his concept of patriotism was delusion itself. But liberal progressives selectively lie about everything, anything and all things as long as it advances the fascist agenda of their owners.
Keep lying to yourself and each other. Very few people are listening.
And Congress, including the Republican controlled elements passed every budget Obama wanted to enable his fascist policies. And they are called obstructionist? Why, because both Democrats and Republican knew that MORE UN-Constitutional gun control laws were political suicide?
-
BS. It didn't matter what, the Republicans blocked anything and everything they could. I don't recall any previous President facing such obstructionism. Its no wonder why he had to resort to executive orders to get anything done. I only hope the Dems don't go tit for tat and hamstring DT with such tactics.
It's what an opposition party does when the agenda is too extreme. We elect extremists to our government so the agenda, even when rational, is too extreme for the other party.
I also hope that Democrats can be reasonable. Remembering that I am a centrist liberal and an independent voter, the way they have been acting had nearly convinced me that they are not to be trusted with government and that I should vote for Trump in 2020.
-
It's what an opposition party does when the agenda is too extreme. We elect extremists to our government so the agenda, even when rational, is too extreme for the other party.
I also hope that Democrats can be reasonable. Remembering that I am a centrist liberal and an independent voter, the way they have been acting had nearly convinced me that they are not to be trusted with government and that I should vote for Trump in 2020.
The Republicans conducted an orchestrated campaign to obstruct any Obama sponsored legislation, not just "extreme" legislation from the beginning of his first term. They didn't have majorities in both Houses but they did what they could until they did. There's a reason the Obama era Congress' are called "do nothing' Congresses. Previous administrations had both sides of the aisle working on legislation to "soften" extreme measures but still achieve a national goal; Obama's Congresses had Republicans using filibuster in unprecedented ways to shut down the legislative process. Even routine confirmation hearings were obstructed, delayed, and anything else to prevent nominations from being acted on. Tea Party Republicans even went so far as to attempt to shut down the federal government and risk defaulting on government debt. For eight years the Republican Party had one task and it wasn't governing, it was to do everything within its power to do nothing and blame the lack of progress on Democrats and in particular, the President.
Will Democrats attempt to do the same? It seemed to work for the Republicans.
-
There's a reason the Obama era Congress' are called "do nothing' Congresses.
and that reason is the liberals want to paint them with a soundbite.
-
and that reason is the liberals want to paint them with a soundbite.
Look beyond the soundbite. Too often the right labels something a soundbite hoping that people don't look at the underlying basis for what they label a soundbite. Soundbites can be true or they can BS.
-
Look beyond the soundbite. Too often the right labels something a soundbite hoping that people don't look at the underlying basis for what they label a soundbite. Soundbites can be true or they can BS.
like the liberals using the soundbite: "We all have the right to defend ourselves and our families with a firearm, but nobody needs military-style assault weapons to do it."?
or when liberals call the AR-15 an "assault weapon"
-
like the liberals using the soundbite: "We all have the right to defend ourselves and our families with a firearm, but nobody needs military-style assault weapons to do it."?
or when liberals call the AR-15 an "assault weapon"
Don't get me started. The trend in home invasions now is for multiple assailants breaking into home when people are knowingly home. The multiple assailants are all armed. This happened not too far from me last week, and in an upscale suburban neighborhood. The couple was held at gunpoint, pistol whipped, and cash, and valuables stolen. They are lucky the woman wasn't raped, and they weren't killed. An AR-15 would have been welcome to them I am sure.
-
I have no problem with people owning semi-auto long guns but I wouldn't think they'd be well suited for home defense. You'd have too much of a chance of killing family members in other rooms as the bullets go through walls.
-
I have no problem with people owning semi-auto long guns but I wouldn't think they'd be well suited for home defense. You'd have too much of a chance of killing family members in other rooms as the bullets go through walls.
There is ammo specifically designed to NOT over penetrate. Remember, 5.56/.223 is a varmint round, and has many, many different loadings, and bullet types to do specific things.
-
I have no problem with people owning semi-auto long guns but I wouldn't think they'd be well suited for home defense. You'd have too much of a chance of killing family members in other rooms as the bullets go through walls.
An AR style gun is not for home defense. It is best suited for hunting or as a weapon of the unorganized militia.
I believe the best home defense weapon varies by person. A shotgun is highly intimidating and very effective but difficult to secure and still be readily accessible. A handgun is less effective but easier to have. At a personal level, some people are not comfortable with a shotgun, so they might also opt for a handgun.
-
The Republicans conducted an orchestrated campaign to obstruct any Obama sponsored legislation, not just "extreme" legislation from the beginning of his first term. They didn't have majorities in both Houses but they did what they could until they did. There's a reason the Obama era Congress' are called "do nothing' Congresses. Previous administrations had both sides of the aisle working on legislation to "soften" extreme measures but still achieve a national goal; Obama's Congresses had Republicans using filibuster in unprecedented ways to shut down the legislative process. Even routine confirmation hearings were obstructed, delayed, and anything else to prevent nominations from being acted on. Tea Party Republicans even went so far as to attempt to shut down the federal government and risk defaulting on government debt. For eight years the Republican Party had one task and it wasn't governing, it was to do everything within its power to do nothing and blame the lack of progress on Democrats and in particular, the President.
Will Democrats attempt to do the same? It seemed to work for the Republicans.
You missed my point. Legislation is only extreme because is is proposed by one group of fanatics to an opposition group of fanatics. There will be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth in the coming years by Democrats because just about everything Republicans propose will be called extreme. There will be huge fights and I expect Democrats will shut down the business of the Congress or at least the Senate which amounts to the same thing. Why? Because we have a government staffed by fanatics.
BTW, there was never a risk of defaulting on debt because debt payments are authorized under mandated spending and processed by critical employees. That was a smoke screen that you obviously fell for. The people who processed the debt payments were authorized to work and the money was authorized to be spent regardless of what Congress did.
-
An AR style gun is not for home defense. It is best suited for hunting or as a weapon of the unorganized militia.
The AR-style rifle can be a very good target rifle for the CMP and NRA matches.
-
An AR style gun is not for home defense. It is best suited for hunting or as a weapon of the unorganized militia.
I believe the best home defense weapon varies by person. A shotgun is highly intimidating and very effective but difficult to secure and still be readily accessible. A handgun is less effective but easier to have. At a personal level, some people are not comfortable with a shotgun, so they might also opt for a handgun.
I agree the AR-15 is an excellent hunting rifle, and it is being used in that role more, and more. From Ground Hogs, to Coyotes, to other game, up to and including deer. The .223/5.566 round is an off shoot of the .222, and is an excellent small game, and varmint round.
I will disagree that it is not good for home defense. I agree that shotguns, and handguns are typically more prevalent, but the AR is gaining popularity due to the trend in home invasions with multiple assailants, and the availability of hollow, and soft point ammo and frangible ammo which does not over penetrate. Many people's primary is a handgun, or shotgun, but also many do have an AR at the ready if needed.
-
The weapon you have at hand is the best weapon for home defense. Given a choice, I don't think an AR15 is a weapon best suited for home defense unless we're worried about a zombie apocalypse. I really doubt that home invasions by squads of armed ninjas are a realistic possibility. I'll keep to a 45 and a flashlight in my bedstand and leave the AR15s in the gunsafe. A shotgun would be my next choice, but that's just my personal opinion.
-
The weapon you have at hand is the best weapon for home defense. Given a choice, I don't think an AR15 is a weapon best suited for home defense unless we're worried about a zombie apocalypse. I really doubt that home invasions by squads of armed ninjas are a realistic possibility.
It is happening, and it is happening in upscale neighborhoods where over two, or three attackers break into homes when people are there. Haven't heard of any Zombies yet. Ninjas yes, Zombies, no. :)
I'll keep to a 45 and a flashlight in my bedstand and leave the AR15s in the gunsafe. A shotgun would be my next choice, but that's just my personal opinion.
I am pretty much with you there, and you are well defended with those tools. My USGI M1 Carbine has been spending more time outside the safe lately, though. However, if I can run, and hide while calling 911, I will.
-
I am pretty much with you there, and you are well defended with those tools. My USGI M1 Carbine has been spending more time outside the safe lately, though. However, if I can run, and hide while calling 911, I will.
Main home defense tools are my 1911 and a Beretta 1201FP 12ga. I've never thought about having a rifle out, but I love my little Beretta CX-4 Storm (9mm), it's fun to shoot, accurate, and chambered in 9mm has no recoil. It's small size would make it a fine choice.
-
I keep two 38+P revolvers and a shotgun on hand for home defense. All my 1911s and our rifles are in the safe most of the time.