PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on July 11, 2017, 11:27:41 AM
-
The pathetic DNC controlled media are simply making shit up this week.
It is so delusional that even liberals aren't really buying a word of it.
What part of the newest make believe Russia story are you believing?
-
I believe that Trump Jr. (who is not a government employee and thus under no constraints about meeting Russians) was participating in opposition research.
I don't believe there has ever been a campaign in which this was not done.
FAKE NEWS designed to wear down the gullible American public with regards to Trump.
-
I believe that Trump Jr. (who is not a government employee and thus under no constraints about meeting Russians) was participating in opposition research.
I don't believe there has ever been a campaign in which this was not done.
FAKE NEWS designed to wear down the gullible American public with regards to Trump.
Agreed. Who the fuck cares? I'm so tired of all this bullshit. Politics is a physical sport. If no laws were broken, STFU.
-
Let them (MSM and progressives) keep it up. They are just increasing republican numbers in both houses in 2018 and reassuring Trump's reelection come 2020.
They're so fucking stupid they can't even see who they are really damaging.
-
Trump Jr. himself released the E-mails, so I would have to give that a yes.
-
Trump Jr. himself released the E-mails, so I would have to give that a yes.
I don't quite understand what you are saying. "yes" to what?
-
I don't quite understand what you are saying. "yes" to what?
Perfesser Triple Digit is answering the title line. Of course, Triple Digit has no content, nothing of value other than a "yes", which means he's swallowed the CNN bait hook, line and sinker.
Truth is, there are no laws broken. None. So a Russian Lawyer decides she wants to get the ear of the Trump campaign and entices them with "I have dirt on Hillary". She shows up, nothing on Hillary but gives a 20 minute talk on why she feels the government needs to lift adoption sanctions.
Meeting ends, that's it. So again, what laws were broken here?
-
Russian government official dangles info damaging to his old man's opponent in an election. He bites. He colludes with a foreign governmental official to sway a US election.
Doesn't matter one whit that he didn't get anything.
-
Russian government official dangles info damaging to his old man's opponent in an election. He bites. He colludes with a foreign governmental official to sway a US election.
Doesn't matter one whit that he didn't get anything.
Please cite the laws possibly broken.
-
Trump Jr will be president one day.
-
Russian government official dangles info damaging to his old man's opponent in an election. He bites. He colludes with a foreign governmental official to sway a US election.
Doesn't matter one whit that he didn't get anything.
What is the definition of collusion? I see nothing here.
-
Russian government official dangles info damaging to his old man's opponent in an election. He bites. He colludes with a foreign governmental official to sway a US election.
Doesn't matter one whit that he didn't get anything.
What kind of official was she? Was she KGB? Did she work directly for Putin? What info did she have?
What did she give Junior and what did he do with it?
I have lot's of questions and no answers that will explain why this is more than just butt sore liberals complaining.
This pales to Obama actually being heard to say that he would have more flexibility (to work with Putin) after the election.
-
This pales to Obama actually being heard to say that he would have more flexibility (to work with Putin) after the election.
This pales to lots of actual illegal activity that has taken place where actual laws were broken. Such as:
1) The Clinton Lynch Tarmac meeting
2) James Comey leaking classified information.
3) Hillary Clinton email server and mishandling classified documents.
4) Lynch obstructing an FBI investigation.
5) Fast and Furious
6) Payments to Iran
7) Holder in contempt of Congress
8 ) Susan Rice illegally unmasking citizens
And on, and on,and on........
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/11/democrats-spread-false-russian-information-on-trum/
While the liberal news media hunts for evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, the public record shows that Democrats have willfully used Moscow disinformation to influence the presidential election against Donald Trump and attack his administration.
The disinformation came in the form of a Russian-fed dossier written by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. It contains a series of unverified criminal charges against Mr. Trump’s campaign aides, such as coordinating Moscow’s hacking of Democratic Party computers.
Some Democrats have widely circulated the discredited information. Mr. Steele was paid by the Democrat-funded opposition research firm Fusion GPS with money from a Hillary Clinton backer. Fusion GPS distributed the dossier among Democrats and journalists. The information fell into the hands of the FBI, which used it in part to investigate Mr. Trump’s campaign aides.
-
Trump Jr. himself released the E-mails, so I would have to give that a yes.
This is at least as pathetic as your claim that Sarah Palin said she could see a Russia from her house.
Seriously, you discredit yours of and your profession more everyday.
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/well-lookie-russian-lawyer-veselnitskaya-pictured-obama-ambassador-russia-8-days-trump-jr-mtg/
-
I can understand why Steingar would make false and idiotic claims about the newest Russia scandal. More ignorance from gullible, dishonest and pathetic snowflake, progressives about made up facts and fake news would turn him on.
After all, Donald Trump, Jr. met with a lawyer from Russia he knew from the Miss America Pageant, that DIDN'T and DOESN'T work for the government.
No secret information was exchanged.
When the lying pigs from the FAKE NEWS rag NYT began their corrupt coverage of the lies, he DID NOT use bleach bit on his computer or smash the hard drive with a hammer.
To head off the lies of the pathetic lying pigs at #FAKENEWS CNN he released all the emails in the email chain that prove how transparent it all was, even though even if the lies of the snowflake, progressive, FAKENEWS cartel was, he had done nothing illegal.
He didn't even get any multimillion dollar bribes for his FAKE charitable trust from Russia in exchange.
Surely anything this clear and transparent is proof to idiots, liars, scumbags and progressive democrats... but I repeat myself here.
-
From the looks of things they were set up by Democrat operatives. Quite interesting when you put the whole thing together.
-
Politics has always been a dirty game, but not like this, especially with the media involvement.
-
What is the definition of collusion? I see nothing here.
As various consultants on NPR have stated, "collusion" isn't a legal term anyway. The possible charge that has been discussed is conspiracy, specifically to violate campaign finance laws (receiving or seeking to receive something "of value" from a foreign national in furtherance of a campaign).
The question is whether damaging info on an opponent is "something of value" within the letter of the statute. I don't know the answer to that one.
My take is that Trump Jr. committed a rookie mistake and is trying to deal with it in an honorable way. Clearly he didn't realize that his actions might be illegal. But if a law was violated, that's not going to help him. Seems modern politics is a dangerous place for amateurs.
-
As various consultants on NPR have stated, "collusion" isn't a legal term anyway. The possible charge that has been discussed is conspiracy, specifically to violate campaign finance laws (receiving or seeking to receive something "of value" from a foreign national in furtherance of a campaign).
The question is whether damaging info on an opponent is "something of value" within the letter of the statute. I don't know the answer to that one.
My take is that Trump Jr. committed a rookie mistake and is trying to deal with it in an honorable way. Clearly he didn't realize that his actions might be illegal. But if a law was violated, that's not going to help him. Seems modern politics is a dangerous place for amateurs.
I agree with some of that. Trump jr intended to attempt to get intelligence on Hillary from non-governmental Russian attorney. Instead he got a talk on adoption of Russian babies. I don't see anything illegal about that.
-
The real danger for Trump isn't collusion, its obstruction of justice. He fired Comey to stop the investigation.
-
Comey admitted in his testimony there was no investigation. Trump fired Comey for insubordination.
-
I agree with some of that. Trump jr intended to attempt to get intelligence on Hillary from non-governmental Russian attorney. Instead he got a talk on adoption of Russian babies. I don't see anything illegal about that.
As I said, I don't know whether it was illegal or not. There seem to be opinions both ways. Does the statute include information about an opponent as "something of value"? If it was money they were after, it would have been clearly illegal. And it doesn't matter that they didn't get what they were after, since if it would have been illegal to accept the information, then it was illegal (under the general rubric of "conspiracy") to attempt to get it by meeting with the Russian attorney.
I think the whole thing was a boneheaded move and (hopefully) little more, though it does show a willingness on the part of Trump's associates to gain a political advantage by "colluding" (non-legal term) with Russians who MIGHT have connections with the Kremlin. At the very least they should have checked her out with US intelligence sources since as some in that community have said (including Bray, I think), dealing with anyone in Putin's Russia for political gain is a potential national security issue.
-
He fired Comey to stop the investigation.
And you know this how? What's that you say; you heard in on CNN AND MSNBC? Then it must be true.
-
Comey admitted in his testimony there was no investigation. Trump fired Comey for insubordination.
Comey said that Trump was not under investigation. I wasn't aware that he said there was no investigation (on the Russia affair).
-
The real danger for Trump isn't collusion, its obstruction of justice. He fired Comey to stop the investigation.
Do you just watch the CNN Headlines and the NYT headlines then proceed to make up shit to suit yourself?
OK, once again Triple Digit, please cite a reference from where you are getting this from? Or please have the balls to admit you just come here and make up shit to stir the pot.
-
The real danger for Trump isn't collusion, its obstruction of justice. He fired Comey to stop the investigation.
The US legislature heard testimony from Comey on that. Here's a summary;
1. There never was an investigation of Trump(personally, professionally). However there is an investigation of Trumps campaign, including some staffers.
2. Trump asked Comey to go easy on Flynn. What was his motivation? He said: "Flynn is not a bad guy...". Note there is no directive, or order, just a request.
3. There was never a quid-pro-quo from Comey about the request(easy on Flynn or I will fire you, etc.).
4. Comey was fired for cause. To whit; Incompetence. After consultation with both parties, and independent counsel.
5. Turns out - completely justifed in firing, now that we have actual lawful testimony that Comey broke the law by leaking to the press.
There is NO ONE in the congress outside a couple of lazy do-nothing HRs that is going to advance any kind of articles against Trump. Ain't gonna happen. Also, the AG isn't going to take much from any special prosecutor unless it is flaming hot smoking gun material which they won't have, because there is none.
I rate Trump chance of impeachment about 0.00000000276%.
-
The real danger for Trump isn't collusion, its obstruction of justice. He fired Comey to stop the investigation.
LIAR. Trump fired the incompetent, partisan Comey because he was advised to fire him by the same piece of shit that then turned around and hired Comey's good friend as special prosecutor.
You are too delusional to be trusted teaching young minds, perfeeser.....
-
Unfortunately Trump needs to be quicker pulling the trigger when firing the likes of Comey, who was obviously trying to set up Trump.
-
Unfortunately Trump needs to be quicker pulling the trigger when firing the likes of Comey, who was obviously trying to set up Trump.
Apparently, it wasn't only Comey trying to set up Trump. Now, it looks like Obama was in on it.
It was a vast LEFT WING conspiracy!
-
As various consultants on NPR have stated, "collusion" isn't a legal term anyway. The possible charge that has been discussed is conspiracy, specifically to violate campaign finance laws (receiving or seeking to receive something "of value" from a foreign national in furtherance of a campaign).
The question is whether damaging info on an opponent is "something of value" within the letter of the statute. I don't know the answer to that one.
My take is that Trump Jr. committed a rookie mistake and is trying to deal with it in an honorable way. Clearly he didn't realize that his actions might be illegal. But if a law was violated, that's not going to help him. Seems modern politics is a dangerous place for amateurs.
That's OK, Hillary made lots of rookie mistakes too.
-
(http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w464/flybywire1959/unnamed_zpszv8ex7fv.jpg)
-
It really is funny how these things pop up and then are totally discredited within days. It does keep the MSM from having to cover the things Trump is getting done or the fact that the DOW has set 24 records since Trump was elected.
Have any of our left leaning friends listened to what Horowitz and Turley have to say about all of this?
-
It really is funny how these things pop up and then are totally discredited within days. It does keep the MSM from having to cover the things Trump is getting done or the fact that the DOW has set 24 records since Trump was elected.
Have any of our left leaning friends listened to what Horowitz and Turley have to say about all of this?
The media, Democrats, and their leftist supporters will not mention, nor address the issues that get Trump, or Trump Jr. off the hook. Nor will they mention all the ILLEGAL things Hillary has done. They will keep pounding the collaboration/collusion narrative that the Russians were the sole reason Trump was elected. It is unethical, immoral, deceptive, approaches sedition, and undermines our sitting government, and President to the detriment of the American people.
-
The media, Democrats, and their leftist supporters will not mention, nor address the issues that get Trump, or Trump Jr. off the hook. Nor will they mention all the ILLEGAL things Hillary has done. They will keep pounding the collaboration/collusion narrative that the Russians were the sole reason Trump was elected. It is unethical, immoral, deceptive, approaches sedition, and undermines our sitting government, and President to the detriment of the American people.
Russia is all they have. And it's already been debunked, but they still can't come to terms with it. So they continue the Russia boogeyman theory.
God forbid they actually cover the positive things that are taking place. Record stock market, illegal immigration dropping, repeal of the draconian Obama executive orders, etc, etc.
-
New report out that the meeting also had an ex-GRU turned American there as well. This piece of the puzzle may get Jr tossed out of the WH, and relegated to running a Trump golf course in PR. It was stupid of him not to get it ALL out there when the question first came up. This kind of drag-it-out by pieces is what looks very baaaaaaaaad. If I was POTUS, I would put Trump Jr in front of congress, swear him in, make him answer EVERY question then when they are done, he's off to assistant press officer in S Africa or something. Stop trying to HELP, because you aren't.
-
http://wilkowmajority.com/previous_shows/russian-lawyer-john-podesta/
-
It's all fake news anyway. Everything you read on cnn, foxnews, API, CBS, ABC, NBC...it's all invented from thin air. Nothing to see here, folks, move along, fake news, that's right, fake news, folks.
-
It's all fake news anyway. Everything you read on cnn, foxnews, API, CBS, ABC, NBC...it's all invented from thin air. Nothing to see here, folks, move along, fake news, that's right, fake news, folks.
Most of it is fake. But like blind squirrels, they occasionally find a nut. Or a legitimate story.
I admit I am getting a little frustrated with the Trump administration. This Russian business is bad enough with all the hype and accusations. But the administration is making themselves look bad when they know about things like these meetings with the Russian Lawyer, yet fail to disclose it. Even if there was nothing devious going on, in this climate, it doesn't look good to keep it a secret and then admit certain details as they are uncovered by someone else.
-
Most of it is fake. But like blind squirrels, they occasionally find a nut. Or a legitimate story.
I admit I am getting a little frustrated with the Trump administration. This Russian business is bad enough with all the hype and accusations. But the administration is making themselves look bad when they know about things like these meetings with the Russian Lawyer, yet fail to disclose it. Even if there was nothing devious going on, in this climate, it doesn't look good to keep it a secret and then admit certain details as they are uncovered by someone else.
Donald Jr. appeared to be laying it all out with his recent release of the email(s?). Then today I'm reading that there was a former Russian agent in attendance at the meeting with the lawyer. The optics on that are terrible, doubly so now that this information was omitted. Why didn't he just lay everything out?
-
Donald Jr. appeared to be laying it all out with his recent release of the email(s?). Then today I'm reading that there was a former Russian agent in attendance at the meeting with the lawyer. The optics on that are terrible, doubly so now that this information was omitted. Why didn't he just lay everything out?
I think invfltspin had it right:
New report out that the meeting also had an ex-GRU turned American there as well. This piece of the puzzle may get Jr tossed out of the WH, and relegated to running a Trump golf course in PR. It was stupid of him not to get it ALL out there when the question first came up. This kind of drag-it-out by pieces is what looks very baaaaaaaaad. If I was POTUS, I would put Trump Jr in front of congress, swear him in, make him answer EVERY question then when they are done, he's off to assistant press officer in S Africa or something. Stop trying to HELP, because you aren't.
-
Yea, Don Jr should have just bleachbit his server and smashed his devices, told investigators there were no emails that concerned them.
And when he gets interviewed the FBI won't even bother reading him his rights or taking notes with him under oath. Nope, no need for that.
BTW, sources close to the investigation have seen undisclosed documents that showed Vladimir Putin was also present, disguised as a waiter. Full details and allegations to unfold as CNN will dedicate a full 24 hour news cycle to this story alone.
-
I think invfltspin had it right:
Ah, I missed his post. He/she said it better than I did.
-
Might shock you, but I believe almost every factual thing the media has said.
DTJ did meet with a Russian lawyer. That lawyer was here to promote Russian causes. She used a lie about having dirt on hillary to get the meeting. During the meeting, she wanted to talk about repealing a US law related to overseas adoption. The meeting was ended after 20 minutes.
That's the end of the facts and I think every one of them is true. Because the media hates the President as much or more than conservatives hated President Obama, they have somehow translated this into "DTJ committed treason" and yet more proof that Vladimir Putin is pulling the puppet strings in the White House. That tells me things they didn't intend to say, namely that they are rabid and not thinking clearly, so everything I hear must be filtered through a BS lens.
Meanwhile, it's reported that the President had Chicken Kiev for dinner and Russian dressing on his salad last night. Democrats are certain this conspiracy is the end of the Trump presidency.
-
Might shock you, but I believe almost every factual thing the media has said.
I believe every factual thing they have said too. Trouble is, they lie so much that it is difficult to tell what is factual. As you said, it all has to be filtered through a BS lens. And mine gets a little cloudy and skeptical at times.
-
That's OK, Hillary made lots of rookie mistakes too.
But Hillary is not in the White House. Hillary's "rookie mistakes" are not the huge distraction weighing down this presidency.
-
That's the end of the facts and I think every one of them is true. Because the media hates the President as much or more than conservatives hated President Obama, they have somehow translated this into "DTJ committed treason" and yet more proof that Vladimir Putin is pulling the puppet strings in the White House. That tells me things they didn't intend to say, namely that they are rabid and not thinking clearly, so everything I hear must be filtered through a BS lens.
I agree with this. But on the other side of those "things not said", is this fact that's been discussed at nauseam in the media but seems to be ignored here: that these three (Junior, Kushner, Manafort) were willing to meet with a foreign national who represented herself as having information coming from an adversary government. And they apparently didn't vet her against US intelligence. What I want to know is: what the hell were they thinking? Beyond "this could be really good for us", I mean. Did it really never occur to them that the Russians might be trying to set them up? To ask WHY Russia supported Trump?
I don't think Don Junior committed treason or that Putin is controlling anything or anyone in the government. I think he and the other two were so focused on winning that they just didn't think through the possible consequences of what they were doing. Personally I find the thought of having people with that level of naivete and recklessness in positions of power a little - no a lot - scary.
-
Personally I find the thought of having people with that level of naivete and recklessness in positions of power a little - no a lot - scary.
There are SO many people in government positions of power with so much worse levels of naivete and recklessness, not to mention stupidity, prejudice, greed, pettiness, and arrogance, I can't believe anyone is wasting time worrying over Trump Jr. and this amateur misstep. My God.
-
There are SO many people in government positions of power with so much worse levels of naivete and recklessness, not to mention stupidity, prejudice, greed, pettiness, and arrogance, I can't believe anyone is wasting time worrying over Trump Jr. and this amateur misstep. My God.
That's a little like trying to argue that a DUI at 0.08 isn't so bad because so and so blew a 0.15. The fact remains that these guys were close associates of the candidate who is now the president. One was the campaign manager who was much less of an amateur than Don Jr, in fact if I'm not mistaken he's an attorney. They should have known better, at the very least Manafort should have.
And like it or not, there is so much smoke now that they have to investigate it to the end. It doesn't matter whether there is any fire or not - and I still suspect there isn't, other than a possible technical legal violation. The whole thing is just going to keep being a giant distraction and weight on the presidency. IMO that is not a good thing for the country.
-
To put it even more simply: the reason everyone is worrying over this is because (a) Trump is now the president and (b) it was Russia. Not just any foreign government but RUSSIA for cryin' out loud.
It doesn't matter whether the lawyer actually had any connections with the Kremlin, she claimed to and the three went into it apparently believing she did.
So yeah, I'll contradict what I said above, this was a 0.15 not a 0.08. It was first class reckless behavior.
-
I agree with this. But on the other side of those "things not said", is this fact that's been discussed at nauseam in the media but seems to be ignored here: that these three (Junior, Kushner, Manafort) were willing to meet with a foreign national who represented herself as having information coming from an adversary government. And they apparently didn't vet her against US intelligence. What I want to know is: what the hell were they thinking? Beyond "this could be really good for us", I mean. Did it really never occur to them that the Russians might be trying to set them up? To ask WHY Russia supported Trump?
I don't think Don Junior committed treason or that Putin is controlling anything or anyone in the government. I think he and the other two were so focused on winning that they just didn't think through the possible consequences of what they were doing. Personally I find the thought of having people with that level of naivete and recklessness in positions of power a little - no a lot - scary.
The lawyer is not part of the government and there was no talk about the election or process.
-
To put it even more simply: the reason everyone is worrying over this is because (a) Trump is now the president and (b) it was Russia. Not just any foreign government but RUSSIA for cryin' out loud.
It doesn't matter whether the lawyer actually had any connections with the Kremlin, she claimed to and the three went into it apparently believing she did.
So yeah, I'll contradict what I said above, this was a 0.15 not a 0.08. It was first class reckless behavior.
Please tell us how Russia got Trump elected?
-
To put it even more simply: the reason everyone is worrying over this is because (a) Trump is now the president and (b) it was Russia. Not just any foreign government but RUSSIA for cryin' out loud.
It doesn't matter whether the lawyer actually had any connections with the Kremlin, she claimed to and the three went into it apparently believing she did.
So yeah, I'll contradict what I said above, this was a 0.15 not a 0.08. It was first class reckless behavior.
You're starting to get real pathetic here with your faux outrage.
First of all, no laws have been broken. None. Go ahead and resort to your liberal talking points trying to tie some law, any law to this. Not going to happen.
Secondly, this is how high end politics work, each side digs dirt on the other. Funny how no one is wanting to mention the DNC and Hillary campaign "collusion" with the Ukranian officials to get dirt and smear Trump. Why is that? And why no mention of Hillary's campaign manager and his ties to Russian interest? And what about Hillary and Bill's money making ventures with the Russians?
Third, last time I checked we are not at war with Russia. In fact the US does a far amount of business with Russia and vice versa. Checked out the Russian space program lately? If we are at war with this dire enemy I don't think we would be partnering with them on space exploration.
So all this bullshit talk of "treason" is just that, pure fucking progressive bullshit. Same goes for the "collusion" talking points. Fucking progressives like to throw words around and they're too fucking stupid to even know the meanings of what they are spouting off about.
And here you go:
col·lu·sion
kəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
"the armed forces were working in collusion with drug traffickers"
synonyms: conspiracy, connivance, complicity, intrigue, plotting, secret understanding, collaboration, scheming
"there had been collusion between the security forces and paramilitary groups"
LAW
illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit
So please tell us just how a private citizen having a meeting with a foreign national, one who has offered information on a campaign opponent is "collusion"?
Face it, without "Russia! Russia! Russia! The liberal progressives have nothing. Zip, nada. They have royaly screwed the pooch with 8 years of the worst piece of shit to ever occupy the White House, along the way have lost the presidency, the house and the senate plus around 1,000 legislative seats, plus the majority of states are now under republican control. Oh, and thos last 4 special elections that the progressives were telling us would be a "referendum on Trump"? Yea, they lost those as well.
It wasn't the Russians that got Trump in the White House, it was a country of American voters who are sick and tired of the liberal progressive agenda. And the progressives just can't fucking deal with it so they are lying to themselves (just like their MSM and polling sources) that this just had to be a conspiracy.
Keep it up. 2018 will put more republicans in congress and may even give them 60+ senate votes.
-
To put it even more simply: the reason everyone is worrying over this is because (a) Trump is now the president and (b) it was Russia. Not just any foreign government but RUSSIA for cryin' out loud.
It doesn't matter whether the lawyer actually had any connections with the Kremlin, she claimed to and the three went into it apparently believing she did.
So yeah, I'll contradict what I said above, this was a 0.15 not a 0.08. It was first class reckless behavior.
That's utter bullshit and you know it but are trying to slip it over the plate under the guise of pretending to be thoughtful and sober in your mulling.
There is no there there. Period.
Unless... you are willing to be even far more outraged at the Secretary of State who personally solicited pay for pay bribes, handled by her lesbian aide, and sold a huge percentage of the US uranium to RUSSIA in exchange for bribes paid to her phony charitable foundation.
And that's almost the least of her treasonous offenses.
You will shimmy and shake trying to avoid this topic because you are another liberal America hater who is too blind to allow facts to disturb your never ending bullshit storm .
-
Please tell us how Russia got Trump elected?
I never claimed they did. Learn to read.
-
The lawyer is not part of the government and there was no talk about the election or process.
I never said she was. Learn to read.
-
You're starting to get real pathetic here with your faux outrage.
First of all, no laws have been broken. None. Go ahead and resort to your liberal talking points trying to tie some law, any law to this. Not going to happen.
Secondly, this is how high end politics work, each side digs dirt on the other. Funny how no one is wanting to mention the DNC and Hillary campaign "collusion" with the Ukranian officials to get dirt and smear Trump. Why is that? And why no mention of Hillary's campaign manager and his ties to Russian interest? And what about Hillary and Bill's money making ventures with the Russians?
Third, last time I checked we are not at war with Russia. In fact the US does a far amount of business with Russia and vice versa. Checked out the Russian space program lately? If we are at war with this dire enemy I don't think we would be partnering with them on space exploration.
So all this bullshit talk of "treason" is just that, pure fucking progressive bullshit. Same goes for the "collusion" talking points. Fucking progressives like to throw words around and they're too fucking stupid to even know the meanings of what they are spouting off about.
And here you go:
col·lu·sion
kəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.
"the armed forces were working in collusion with drug traffickers"
synonyms: conspiracy, connivance, complicity, intrigue, plotting, secret understanding, collaboration, scheming
"there had been collusion between the security forces and paramilitary groups"
LAW
illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially between ostensible opponents in a lawsuit
So please tell us just how a private citizen having a meeting with a foreign national, one who has offered information on a campaign opponent is "collusion"?
Face it, without "Russia! Russia! Russia! The liberal progressives have nothing. Zip, nada. They have royaly screwed the pooch with 8 years of the worst piece of shit to ever occupy the White House, along the way have lost the presidency, the house and the senate plus around 1,000 legislative seats, plus the majority of states are now under republican control. Oh, and thos last 4 special elections that the progressives were telling us would be a "referendum on Trump"? Yea, they lost those as well.
It wasn't the Russians that got Trump in the White House, it was a country of American voters who are sick and tired of the liberal progressive agenda. And the progressives just can't fucking deal with it so they are lying to themselves (just like their MSM and polling sources) that this just had to be a conspiracy.
Keep it up. 2018 will put more republicans in congress and may even give them 60+ senate votes.
Yes, each side digs dirt on the other. I don't have a problem with that and never said I did.
You've made a bunch of points that I mostly agree with and completely skirted the issue that these three recklessly courted someone who, FOR ALL THEY KNEW, might have been an agent of a hostile power. In fact she apparently represented herself as such, and, from what we've heard so far, they went ahead and met with her without taking any precautions.
If it turns out they did investigate her background (not reported so far, and I believe explicitly stated otherwise), then I'll retract that accusation.
As far as whether any laws were broken, that is still not clear, as I said earlier. They MIGHT be guilty of conspiracy to violate campaign finance law. I hope not.
As for the rest of your tirade, you clearly hate liberals a lot more than I hate either side. Must suck to be you.
-
That's utter bullshit and you know it but are trying to slip it over the plate under the guise of pretending to be thoughtful and sober in your mulling.
There is no there there. Period.
Unless... you are willing to be even far more outraged at the Secretary of State who personally solicited pay for pay bribes, handled by her lesbian aide, and sold a huge percentage of the US uranium to RUSSIA in exchange for bribes paid to her phony charitable foundation.
And that's almost the least of her treasonous offenses.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
You will shimmy and shake trying to avoid this topic because you are another liberal America hater who is too blind to allow facts to disturb your never ending bullshit storm .
Funny how you are willing to question my patriotism, while defending someone who was apparently willing to get into bed with a hostile power and spouting allegations against someone else that have been thoroughly debunked. I'm not the blind one here.
-
I still don't have the feeling that Trump (or his staff) did anything wrong during the election. I could be proven wrong, but I am greatly bothered by the way they are handling the situation now.
-
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
Funny how you are willing to question my patriotism, while defending someone who was apparently willing to get into bed with a hostile power and spouting allegations against someone else that have been thoroughly debunked. I'm not the blind one here.
Hahahaha...
Using snopes to 'prove' that Hilary is innocent is like asking CNN if Obama really lied about obamacare.
You're pathetic excuse for a defense only convicts you.
Keep pretending, using useless evidence and lying about Trump.
Snopes.... oh my goodness. What claptrap.
You will probably use wikipedia to reinforce your findings, next...
-
You've made a bunch of points that I mostly agree with and completely skirted the issue that these three recklessly courted someone who, FOR ALL THEY KNEW, might have been an agent of a hostile power. In fact she apparently represented herself as such, and, from what we've heard so far, they went ahead and met with her without taking any precautions.
Agent for a hostile power? That's a reach and you know it.
So Americans can travel to Russia, do business in Russia, Russians can travel to the US, do business in the US, both countries can act together during military excercises, on occasion they back each other up and both countries participate jointly in a space program.
But let a private citizen have a meeting with a private citizen of the other country over a campaign issue, now Russia becomes a "hostile power"?
YGTBSM.
As far as whether any laws were broken, that is still not clear, as I said earlier. They MIGHT be guilty of conspiracy to violate campaign finance law. I hope not.
Sure it's clear. Crystal clear. You or no one else have been able to cite one law that's been broken. There are far reaching assumptions being made by the progressives, but they make no sense legally.
A "conspiracy to violate a campaign finance law" is laughable. Go read the campaign finance laws and get back to us on that. Lawyers that deal in these matters have already stated what a farce this is.
As for the rest of your tirade, you clearly hate liberals a lot more than I hate either side. Must suck to be you.
No, sucks to be a mindless liberal who can only get on forums and pretend to know the issues and facts while cloaking themselves as some sort of intellectual who sees themselves as superior to the unwashed masses.
When you can show some critical thought processes using facts rather than MSM and liberal talking points I may take you seriously.
Until then, nope.
-
I still don't have the feeling that Trump (or his staff) did anything wrong during the election. I could be proven wrong, but I am greatly bothered by the way they are handling the situation now.
This is a well orchestrated trap. Nothing the President can do will work in his favor. If he ignores it, then he's accused of hiding something, if he provides evidence, then there is more to it. If he fights back that is used as well.
The problem her is the establishment republicans. They are sitting behind closed doors in their ivory towers snickering as this unfolds. They are nothing more than the republican wing of the democrat party. If republicans would stand behind the president and offer help much of this would be gone. But they have the same agenda as their progressive friends.
The progressives won't back down as long as they go unchallenged.
-
So Azure keeps referring to Russia as a "hostile power" in her effort to somehow make Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting look nefarious and underhanded. She's even cited that "campaign finance laws" we're probably broken, yet she can't cite those laws.
Let's take a deeper look into Russia and how it's a "hostile power". Let's assume for arguments sake that Azure is right and Donald Trump Jr has broken a law.
Trump Jr. did, however, have full reason to suspect Clinton had operated nefariously in her dealings with Russia. Bill Clinton had given a $500,000 speech in Russia. Clinton had given her approval in handing one-fifth of U.S. uranium to Russia, after which her foundation received $2.35 million from the Russian-controlled company. Suspiciously, Clinton did not disclose the transaction.
Likewise, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta sat on the board of a company that received $35 million from the Russian government alongside fellow board members Anatoly Chubais, a senior Russian official, and Ruben Vardanyan, an oligarch.
What? So here we have the Clintons dealing with a "hostile power" for financial gain. Hillary while Secretary of State signs off on a deal to give the Russians a huge part of our uranium, then the bank behind the financing of this arrangement pays her foundation millions in "gifts" and also pays Bill to come speak with them, at of course double his normal fee (How nice! ). Also, this bank is represented by the Podesta lobby firm. Oh, and let's not forget that Putin is heavily involved in this bank. And even the lawyer that met with Don Jr has ties to this bank. Hmmmmmm.
Oh, but it gets better!
Trump Jr.’s interest in attaining opposition research is nothing new. Where was the outrage when “Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump,” according to Politico? It was non-existent because Clinton is a darling of the media, where the left and the right are held to different standards.
What?? Hillary engaged a foreign power tied to a "hostile power" to get information on a political opponent? The EXACT same allegation against Don Jr?
Donald Trump wasn’t the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
So where's the outrage? Where's the investigators? Why is Hillary not being called to testify about this? After all, she broke campaign finance laws and colluded with a "hostile power".
Oh the outrage!!!
The Ukrainian antipathy for Trump’s team and alignment with Clinton’s — can be traced back to late 2013. That’s when the country’s president, Viktor Yanukovych, whom Manafort had been advising, abruptly backed out of a European Union pact linked to anti-corruption reforms. Instead, Yanukovych entered into a multibillion-dollar bailout agreement with Russia, sparking protests across Ukraine and prompting Yanukovych to flee the country to Russia under Putin’s protection.
So to sum it up, we have the Clinton campaign doing the exact same thing that Trump Jr has been accused of but actually going much more further by having actual financial ties, yet the MSM or the liberal progressives do not want any mention of this.
And all they can do is display faux outrage and cite phony laws that supposedly have been broken.
Pathetic.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/341493-opinion-forget-don-jrs-email-its-hillary-clinton-who-colluded-with
-
Oh, yeah???
Wel... snopes!!!
-
were willing to meet with a foreign national who represented herself as having information coming from an adversary government.
Is the purported source important? Does it matter that it was claimed to come from Russia as opposed to actually coming from Ukraine? It only matters in your mind. It is not illegal for people in a campaign to talk to people from other countries. If that's the standard, then Obama's pre-election tour of Europe has to be put under a microscope and he would have some 'splaining to do, not to mention the number of contacts that Hillary had with foreigners.
But this is all BS, total garbage that you're inventing so that you have a reason to hate. Trust me, I've seen the right do it too. You will stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge it because you irrationally hate the president so much that you are willing to believe anything to justify it. This is just like the birther story - there was nothing to that then and there's nothing to this now.
You have become what you condemn and you don't even recognize it. Because you are an irrational radical. I dare you to prove me wrong on that statement.
-
Is the purported source important? Does it matter that it was claimed to come from Russia as opposed to actually coming from Ukraine? It only matters in your mind. It is not illegal for people in a campaign to talk to people from other countries. If that's the standard, then Obama's pre-election tour of Europe has to be put under a microscope and he would have some 'splaining to do, not to mention the number of contacts that Hillary had with foreigners.
But this is all BS, total garbage that you're inventing so that you have a reason to hate. Trust me, I've seen the right do it too. You will stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge it because you irrationally hate the president so much that you are willing to believe anything to justify it. This is just like the birther story - there was nothing to that then and there's nothing to this now.
You have become what you condemn and you don't even recognize it. Because you are an irrational radical. I dare you to prove me wrong on that statement.
Our resident shrink strikes again. What a skill you have! I think I can count on two hands the number of posts that Azure has made in this forum, and yet you're able to make such incredible proclamations about him. He irrationally hates the president. He's willing to believe anything. He's a hypocrite and doesn't realize it. He's an irrational radical.
Get a grip.
-
Our resident shrink strikes again. What a skill you have! I think I can count on two hands the number of posts that Azure has made in this forum, and yet you're able to make such incredible proclamations about him. He irrationally hates the president. He's willing to believe anything. He's a hypocrite and doesn't realize it. He's an irrational radical.
Get a grip.
If Azure is the same Azure as on PoA, and if I recollect correctly, Azure is female and I think has a post-graduate degree in physics. But my memory isn't what it used to be, so far as I can remember.
-
If Azure is the same Azure as on PoA, and if I recollect correctly, Azure is female and I think has a post-graduate degree in physics. But my memory isn't what it used to be, so far as I can remember.
That sounds right. I was thinking Azure was a female, but I couldn't remember why I thought that.
-
If Azure is the same Azure as on PoA, and if I recollect correctly, Azure is female and I think has a post-graduate degree in physics. But my memory isn't what it used to be, so far as I can remember.
You may be right about the gender (and if so, I apologize), and I know you're right about the physics degree.
-
The fact remains that these guys were close associates of the candidate who is now the president.
I'm sorry, but I can't let this one go. Right now, what we have is ONE 20 minute meeting with three lawyers in the room, one of which is a lobbyist, and the other is a retired Russian agent who is now a US citizen. If you consider this a "close associate" to the candidate, whom they never met, looked at, talked to or was even briefed on, we are not even in the same lexicon.
-
Agent for a hostile power? That's a reach and you know it.
So Americans can travel to Russia, do business in Russia, Russians can travel to the US, do business in the US, both countries can act together during military excercises, on occasion they back each other up and both countries participate jointly in a space program.
But let a private citizen have a meeting with a private citizen of the other country over a campaign issue, now Russia becomes a "hostile power"?
The US intelligence community considers Russia to be a hostile power. They tried to hack the 2016 US election, that has been established with high confidence (http://www.businessinsider.com/evidence-russia-meddled-in-us-election-2017-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/evidence-russia-meddled-in-us-election-2017-6)). That by itself makes them a hostile power in my book. Every member of the House and Senate that I'm aware of that's weighed in on the subject considers Russia to be the driving force behind the hacking attempts. Republicans, Democrats, independents... this is a bipartisan consensus. That's good enough for me.
Of course none of this was general knowledge in June 2016, in fact most of it hadn't happened yet. So you could say this is all 20/20 hindsight that Jr et al. had no reason to be suspicious of when they met with Veselnitskaya. But the idea that Russia under Putin is dangerous sure doesn't date from after last summer, and no less a conservative than Mitt Romney criticized Obama in 2012 for not taking seriously the fact that Russia is our main enemy on the world stage. Annexing Crimea (2014), intervening in Ukraine (since 2014), granting asylum to the traitor Snowden (since 2013), ... all this predates last summer and WAS general knowledge.
Sure, Veselnitskaya may be just a private Russian citizen who falsely represented herself as having information from official sources, that's not clear yet from what I've heard and read. But Trump Jr. et al. met with her despite what she claimed to be. To me that says Reckless with a capital R unless she really wasn't, and they knew it. And so far I haven't seen any evidence to that effect.
Sure it's clear. Crystal clear. You or no one else have been able to cite one law that's been broken. There are far reaching assumptions being made by the progressives, but they make no sense legally.
It seems that to you, anyone who isn't a fan of Breitbart and the Alt Right is a progressive. I've cited the law that MIGHT have been broken; I don't know whether it actually was or not and neither do you. It's a technical legal issue that hasn't been resolved yet. Those "assumptions" as you call them (really suggestions, and they may or may not be true) are being made by lots of people, not just progressives... oh wait, I forgot. If they're not in the alt right, they're progressives.
A "conspiracy to violate a campaign finance law" is laughable. Go read the campaign finance laws and get back to us on that. Lawyers that deal in these matters have already stated what a farce this is.
Lots of ambiguous language there. The phrase that matters is "of value". If that applies to information, then yeah, it's conspiracy to violate campaign finance law. Legal opinions seem to be divided on whether it does or not; ultimately it will probably be up to the courts to decide.
No, sucks to be a mindless liberal who can only get on forums and pretend to know the issues and facts while cloaking themselves as some sort of intellectual who sees themselves as superior to the unwashed masses.
I'm not a liberal and I don't consider myself superior to anyone. You must have me confused with someone else. (Oh wait, I forgot... I'm not an alt-righter so I MUST be a liberal, progressive so-and-so...)
When you can show some critical thought processes using facts rather than MSM and liberal talking points I may take you seriously.
Until then, nope.
Translation: until you accept that the AP and all the MSM news sources are just publishing lies and distortions because they hate Trump, I'm not taking you seriously. Got it.
-
You may be right about the gender (and if so, I apologize), and I know you're right about the physics degree.
Yes, I'm a female, and I've been called worse than "him", even in this thread. No apology is necessary.
-
I'm sorry, but I can't let this one go. Right now, what we have is ONE 20 minute meeting with three lawyers in the room, one of which is a lobbyist, and the other is a retired Russian agent who is now a US citizen. If you consider this a "close associate" to the candidate, whom they never met, looked at, talked to or was even briefed on, we are not even in the same lexicon.
I have NO idea who you thought I was talking about. Donald Jr and Kushner (should go without saying they were close associates of the candidate), and Manafort was the campaign manager at the time. I was NOT saying that the retired Russian agent (I think his name is Akhmyetshin (sp?)) was a Trump associate, close or otherwise. I'm not sure who the other lawyers you're referring to are. (And Akhmyetshin is also a lobbyist, so if he was the lobbyist you refer to, I'm not sure who the retired Russian agent was.) There was a sixth person present, but I haven't seen a report clearly identifying him.
-
I have NO idea who you thought I was talking about. Donald Jr and Kushner (should go without saying they were close associates of the candidate), and Manafort was the campaign manager at the time. I was NOT saying that the retired Russian agent (I think his name is Akhmyetshin (sp?)) was a Trump associate, close or otherwise. I'm not sure who the other lawyers you're referring to are. (And Akhmyetshin is also a lobbyist, so if he was the lobbyist you refer to, I'm not sure who the retired Russian agent was.) There was a sixth person present, but I haven't seen a report clearly identifying him.
"These guys" being ambiguous - related to the people who met with Trump Jr. The thread of the conversation had to do with those who met with Trump Jr, Manafort, etc. If those were "these guys" then the close associate with the prez is accurate, which would elicit and big giant 'so what'?
Trump Jr is ultimately going to be shipped off to outer bumfuk Africa or something, and the Manafort is likely going to Siberia or similar. Just give it a few weeks. Until they, I reiterate - what they did was stupid, and has smeared the prez through association(happy?). Trump does not suffer fools, even ones of his blood like. Pretty sure he's going to fix that.
-
I'll see the progs a bad optics meeting with some Russians, and raise you ANOTHER dead Clinton accuser.
http://www.libertyheadlines.com/clinton-foundation-witness-found-dead/?AID=7236
Normally I don't dwell on the prev admin, even though it's a rich minefield, but the number of bodies around the Clinton's is just - mind-blowing. I'm sure they both had very good alibis. Unassailable in fact.
-
"These guys" being ambiguous - related to the people who met with Trump Jr. The thread of the conversation had to do with those who met with Trump Jr, Manafort, etc. If those were "these guys" then the close associate with the prez is accurate, which would elicit and big giant 'so what'?
Well, everything I've posted has been about Trump Jr, Kushner, and Manafort. Sorry if something gave you the impression I meant anyone else when I referred to "these guys". It just gets cumbersome after a while to keep listing their names.
Trump Jr is ultimately going to be shipped off to outer bumfuk Africa or something, and the Manafort is likely going to Siberia or similar. Just give it a few weeks. Until they, I reiterate - what they did was stupid, and has smeared the prez through association(happy?). Trump does not suffer fools, even ones of his blood like. Pretty sure he's going to fix that.
Well Manafort has been out of the Trump circle for nearly a year. so it's unlikely anything more is going to happen to him unless criminal charges are brought - if that happens I hope he is the one they throw the book at as I hold him more responsible than the others. Why do you think any of this would make me happy? I don't think Trump is a good president, and I think it was a mistake to elect him. But that doesn't mean I want to see his presidency under siege. He IS the president, and we need someone in the office who is up to handling what comes his way, without major distractions. Whether I or anyone else agrees with his policies is beside the point. So no, none of this makes me happy. But it is what it is.
I hope you're right about Trump Jr. and Kushner getting put out of the way. What worries me is that so far, Trump has done nothing but defend them, at least his son. That's to be expected, to an extent, but so far he seems to be really circling the wagons. We'll see what happens. Hoping for the best.
-
The US intelligence community considers Russia to be a hostile power.
Citation please?
They tried to hack the 2016 US election, that has been established with high confidence (http://www.businessinsider.com/evidence-russia-meddled-in-us-election-2017-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/evidence-russia-meddled-in-us-election-2017-6)). That by itself makes them a hostile power in my book.
Your book doesn't mean squat. You keep using this "hostile power" to further your inane diatribe.
It seems that to you, anyone who isn't a fan of Breitbart and the Alt Right is a progressive.
Please go back through my post and show us where I made such statements. You're grasping at straws now.
BTW, I'm a conservative and happily acknowledge the fact. You, like most liberal progressives, can't bring yourself to admit to it.
I've cited the law that MIGHT have been broken;
No you didn't. You made an assumption on some vague "campaign finance law". So far, even after being asked to cite the exact law, you haven't been able to provide it.
I don't know whether it actually was or not and neither do you. It's a technical legal issue that hasn't been resolved yet.
What technical issue? You can't even cite what law it is. And like your beloved MSM all you can go on is innuendo.
Lots of ambiguous language there. The phrase that matters is "of value". If that applies to information, then yeah, it's conspiracy to violate campaign finance law. Legal opinions seem to be divided on whether it does or not; ultimately it will probably be up to the courts to decide.
Total Bullshit Liberal Talking point.
I'm not a liberal and I don't consider myself superior to anyone.
But you use liberal talking points as fact and follow liberal logic.
Right.
Translation: until you accept that the AP and all the MSM news sources are just publishing lies and distortions because they hate Trump, I'm not taking you seriously. Got it.
Got news for you, no one here (except for perhaps the liberal crowd) have realized how full of crap you are.
Now, please return to parroting your liberal talking points.
-
IIRC azure is NOT a US citizen and only here for the money.
That being said, she certainly bellows bullshit pablum provided by the alt left manure spreaders and refuses to think, even for a second, about how hypocritical she posts.
Until SHE can deal with the truth, who fucking cares what SHE thinks except other alt left mindless drones?
-
IIRC azure is NOT a US citizen and only here for the money.
That being said, she certainly bellows bullshit pablum provided by the alt left manure spreaders and refuses to think, even for a second, about how hypocritical she posts.
Until SHE can deal with the truth, who fucking cares what SHE thinks except other alt left mindless drones?
Who the fuck do you expect to care about what you think about her? You got some groupies on this board?
I don't agree with her, but could you please cut the irrelevant personal attacks?
-
Who the fuck do you expect to care about what you think about her? You got some groupies on this board?
I don't agree with her, but could you please cut the irrelevant personal attacks?
No.
Get over yourself.
-
No.
Get over yourself.
For some reason, I feel like coming to the defense of a raving liberal.
I'm sure this feeling will pass, but it has been happening more and more over the years. I hope I'm not becoming a senile liberal myself.
-
We all have our own styles. I don't take this stuff too seriously. I do take the direction of our country seriously, just not how people present their views to me, or others on the internet.
-
We all have our own styles. I don't take this stuff too seriously. I do take the direction of our country seriously, just not how people present their views to me, or others on the internet.
Agreed.
But when individuals try to use some inane diatribe as "fact" to further their failed agendas then I see no harm in calling them out on it.
-
The new normal seems to be that psychotic, liberals and faux feminists are free to attack, demean, abuse and shit on the rest of us without fear of push back.
Anytime they experience the slightest negative response the entire world is supposed to stop while the offending person is destroyed.
Go fuck yourself if you feel that way.
The biggest hypocrites on earth are liberal feminists and fake mmgw adherents. Their bullshit is far too far off the chart to even consider as coming from either a human, or an adult. That's why they have to go ballistic and make up all kinds of fake outrage when intelligent humans reject their hypocrisy and ignorant rantings. Without the fake outrage they fear that the rest of the world will realize just how dishonest, cowardly and stupid they are.
It's all about the noise these days. Make the most noise and get your way.
-
Why would the "Russians" want pro-military growth capitalist pig Trump to win vs fellow travelers Clinton and Bernie?
-
Why would the "Russians" want pro-military growth capitalist pig Trump to win vs fellow travelers Clinton and Bernie?
Yep, Hillary and company have already proven, over and over, they can be bought off by the Russians.
-
Yep, Hillary and company have already proven, over and over, they can be bought off by the Russians.
And the Chinese, and the Saudi's, and the Ukranians........
Anyone that will donate to the Clinton Foundation bought huge influence from a former President, SITTING Sec. of State, and potential future President.
-
IIRC azure is NOT a US citizen and only here for the money.
That being said, she certainly bellows bullshit pablum provided by the alt left manure spreaders and refuses to think, even for a second, about how hypocritical she posts.
Until SHE can deal with the truth, who fucking cares what SHE thinks except other alt left mindless drones?
Pulling info from your alternate username of Florida Cracker, eh?
-
Why would the "Russians" want pro-military growth capitalist pig Trump to win vs fellow travelers Clinton and Bernie?
Exactly. They know they can push Hillary around. We saw that in the "Russian Reset" where they just laughed at her. Trump will also maximize U.S. Energy output, lower energy prices, and steal European, and maybe Asian markets from Russia. There was absolutely NO motivation for Russia to help Trump.
-
Exactly. They know they can push Hillary around. We saw that in the "Russian Reset" where they just laughed at her. Trump will also maximize U.S. Energy output, lower energy prices, and steal European, and maybe Asian markets from Russia. There was absolutely NO motivation for Russia to help Trump.
But...but...but..............Russia!!!
-
Why would the "Russians" want pro-military growth capitalist pig Trump to win vs fellow travelers Clinton and Bernie?
Could be plenty of motivations, including the knowledge that Trump has no political experience, or that he's likely to be friendly to the Putin regime.
-
Could be plenty of motivations, including the knowledge that Trump has no political experience, or that he's likely to be friendly to the Putin regime.
I don't believe it. Trump was unpredictable. Hillary could be predictably bought off.
-
I don't believe it. Trump was unpredictable. Hillary could be predictably bought off.
It is factual that he has no political experience. The world stage is a tough place to cut your teeth, and Putin is a cunning and formidable geopolitical opponent. I'm not sure why it's far-fetched to think that Putin may see that as an advantage for him.
Whether that was enough to want to him to win over Hillary, who knows. They were both terrible candidates, so I think Putin jumps for joy either way.
-
For some reason, I feel like coming to the defense of a raving liberal.
I'm sure this feeling will pass, but it has been happening more and more over the years. I hope I'm not becoming a senile liberal myself.
Jim is a raving libertarian :)
That could be an oxymoron ... :o
-
It is factual that he has no political experience. The world stage is a tough place to cut your teeth, and Putin is a cunning and formidable geopolitical opponent. I'm not sure why it's far-fetched to think that Putin may see that as an advantage for him.
Whether that was enough to want to him to win over Hillary, who knows. They were both terrible candidates, so I think Putin jumps for joy either way.
BHO was a complete amateur with virtually no political experience. He was laughed at by other world leaders as well as Putin for being such a incognizant neophyte. And it was clear Putin disliked dealing with the amateur Obama.
Hillary can be bought, there is no disagreement with that. She would have made the ideal president for Putin to deal with because he could get her into a very compromising position with little effort.
Trump is unpredictable and a skilled negotiator, not easily manipulated. Plus Trump has a better grasp on economics and investing. Right now Russia is in a quagmire on the investment stage, so that puts Trump in a better position for dealing with the Russians.
So, in short, again, Putin would have been better off with Hillary.
-
Citation please?
I already gave you one. I'm not going to give you a whole list; do your own research. Actually I think you're well aware that what I'm saying is true, you just seem to think that everything published in the MSM that contradicts Trump's worldview is fake news.
Your book doesn't mean squat. You keep using this "hostile power" to further your inane diatribe.
If you don't agree that Russia is a hostile power vis the US then there is little point in continuing the conversation. But I would point out that this isn't a liberal or conservative opinion, it's the opinion of the US intelligence community and just about everyone in mainstream political circles and probably even those close to Trump... all except hardline Trump supporters like, seemingly, yourself.
Please go back through my post and show us where I made such statements. You're grasping at straws now.
No you didn't say those things specifically, but much of what you say doesn't make sense except from that perspective.
BTW, I'm a conservative and happily acknowledge the fact. You, like most liberal progressives, can't bring yourself to admit to it.
Why would I not admit to being a liberal progressive if I was one? My department chair is a liberal progressive, he's a wonderful guy. I used to think I was one too, until I moved to Vermont where 7/10 people (that's pulled out of the air, but it's a large percentage of people) are real liberal progressives. Compared to them, I'm pretty far to the right. I'm liberal on most of the so-called hot-button social issues, but more conservative fiscally. I believe the free market should be allowed to work in most cases, I'm pro 2nd amendment, I believe religious conscience should be a valid justification for refusing to provide services for LGBT couples (or anyone else) even though I strongly support marriage rights for gay people. I like our current Republican governor, Phil Scott. I'm an independent, politically.
No you didn't. You made an assumption on some vague "campaign finance law". So far, even after being asked to cite the exact law, you haven't been able to provide it.
What technical issue? You can't even cite what law it is.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title52/html/USCODE-2014-title52-subtitleIII-chap301-subchapI-sec30121.htm (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title52/html/USCODE-2014-title52-subtitleIII-chap301-subchapI-sec30121.htm)
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
And like your beloved MSM all you can go on is innuendo.
Where have I "gone on" innuendo? Everything I've stated as something I believe is true is based on well-accepted reported facts and hard evidence. I haven't said that campaign finance law DOES apply to the Trump Jr. meeting, I said it MIGHT. It's an unresolved legal issue.
But you use liberal talking points as fact and follow liberal logic.
Define "liberal logic". Logic isn't liberal or conservative, it's logical.
-
IIRC azure is NOT a US citizen and only here for the money.
That being said, she certainly bellows bullshit pablum provided by the alt left manure spreaders and refuses to think, even for a second, about how hypocritical she posts.
Until SHE can deal with the truth, who fucking cares what SHE thinks except other alt left mindless drones?
False. I was born in this country (state of Michigan) and have never lived outside the US.
-
If you don't agree that Russia is a hostile power vis the US then there is little point in continuing the conversation. But I would point out that this isn't a liberal or conservative opinion, it's the opinion of the US intelligence community and just about everyone in mainstream political circles and probably even those close to Trump... all except hardline Trump supporters like, seemingly, yourself.
Again, you're just making shit up to suit your position. You clearly don't understand what a hostile power actually is, which is not surprising given that most liberals don't understand the concept as well.
Why would I not admit to being a liberal progressive if I was one? My department chair is a liberal progressive, he's a wonderful guy. I used to think I was one too, until I moved to Vermont where 7/10 people (that's pulled out of the air, but it's a large percentage of people) are real liberal progressives. Compared to them, I'm pretty far to the right. I'm liberal on most of the so-called hot-button social issues, but more conservative fiscally. I believe the free market should be allowed to work in most cases, I'm pro 2nd amendment, I believe religious conscience should be a valid justification for refusing to provide services for LGBT couples (or anyone else) even though I strongly support marriage rights for gay people. I like our current Republican governor, Phil Scott. I'm an independent, politically.
I'll let your post speak for you, which is volumes.
Again, conservatives don't have a problem acknowledging they are conservatives, but liberal progressives will argue up and down they are not while acting like one.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title52/html/USCODE-2014-title52-subtitleIII-chap301-subchapI-sec30121.htm (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2014-title52/html/USCODE-2014-title52-subtitleIII-chap301-subchapI-sec30121.htm)
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
To attempt to use that law in reference to Donald Trump Jr is ludicrous. But given that the alt left radical judges know no bounds at rewriting laws from the bench, I'm sure it will be attempted.
Let it get to the SC and it won't pass the laugh test.
-
It is factual that he has no political experience. The world stage is a tough place to cut your teeth, and Putin is a cunning and formidable geopolitical opponent. I'm not sure why it's far-fetched to think that Putin may see that as an advantage for him.
Whether that was enough to want to him to win over Hillary, who knows. They were both terrible candidates, so I think Putin jumps for joy either way.
Another possibility that's been suggested is that Putin believes Clinton's criticism of the 2011 elections in Russia was responsible for the street protests that broke out and was out for revenge. I lean, though, towards your theory as well. Put bluntly, I think Putin considers Trump to be yet another useful idiot. Sadly, Trump doesn't seem to have done too much so far to dispel that notion, though hopefully that will change.
-
I'll let your post speak for you, which is volumes.
Again, conservatives don't have a problem acknowledging they are conservatives, but liberal progressives will argue up and down they are not while acting like one.
She is not a liberal progressive, based on those stated positions. I actually think you're a liberal, you just can't admit it. I base that off of absolutely nothing. But since that's a thing around here, figured I'd join in.
-
Put bluntly, I think Putin considers Trump to be yet another useful idiot.
Much like he viewed Obama in the same way?
-
Jim is a raving libertarian :)
That could be an oxymoron ... :o
I wasn't directly replying to Jim's post. I was concurring with him about the post he replied to.
-
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but there is NO WAY IN HELL Putin would have wanted Trump as President.
A. Energy - Trump's actions, and vision is diametrically opposed to Putin's, and Russia economic best interest.
B. Defense- Trump is rebuilding the military after eight years of Obama's PC, LGBTxyz, Feminization. Trump wants a strong military, and national defense. Again, this is not aligned with Putin/Russia's best interest.
C. Foreign policy/Trade policy - Trump wants FAIR TRADE, not the crap we have now. He has not relaxed trade with Russia.
-
It is factual that he has no political experience. The world stage is a tough place to cut your teeth, and Putin is a cunning and formidable geopolitical opponent. I'm not sure why it's far-fetched to think that Putin may see that as an advantage for him.
Whether that was enough to want to him to win over Hillary, who knows. They were both terrible candidates, so I think Putin jumps for joy either way.
As you may be unaware, the framers of this nation absolutely wanted to avoid a political 'class'. They worked during a time when the British monarchy was in full bloom(even though there was a parliament of course), and the French aristocracy was also in ascendancy. A careful reading of the constitution will show that the actual power and duties of the president are shamefully small. Which is why so many of our execs rely on 'executive orders' to manipulate the population.
A careful reading of the Federalist papers outline the struggle that nearly all of the framers had with grandiose presidential powers, and how to limit or even eliminate most of them. There was even a faction that postulated a govt without a head of state. Everything would be done by several committees and they would haggle like fish-wives over legislation. That did not advance too far.
Not widely commented on but the framers didn't even give the president a standing army. Yes, we have a duly constituted navy, but the power of a standing army was too great to entrust to a president who could turn it on his own nation should things get dicey. Which of course led to - the 2nd amendment(which BTW guarantees all the other amendments). So we have an army now, but we also have one of the strongest, and most widely respected posse-comatatus laws in the world. Added to that, the states were not stopped from raising the National Guard(mis-labelled as they are actually the states military) under the authority of the various governors.
So, isn't it interesting that Trump - a landed, well educated, and 'man of the people' represent us as prez? He is the prototypical match for what the framers had in mind. BO? Never had a job outside of govt. Bush? Father was a pol, brothers are pols, family got rich in cattle and some oil spec. Bill Clinton, prefessional pol, Hilary Clinton, private lawyer for a while, then wife of a pol, then pol, then shrew, toss in crook, liar, cheater, and thief along the way.
I'll take my amateur who's main interest is in MAGA, rather than a professional leach who's primary goal is to increase the power, and wealth of the political class. Drain the swamp.
-
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but there is NO WAY IN HELL Putin would have wanted Trump as President.
A. Energy - Trump's actions, and vision is diametrically opposed to Putin's, and Russia economic best interest.
B. Defense- Trump is rebuilding the military after eight years of Obama's PC, LGBTxyz, Feminization. Trump wants a strong military, and national defense. Again, this is not aligned with Putin/Russia's best interest.
C. Foreign policy/Trade policy - Trump wants FAIR TRADE, not the crap we have now. He has not relaxed trade with Russia.
All correct.
But the Alt Left has nothing left, all they can do is keep pushing this false narrative and keep attempting their bizarre "connect the dots" game that actually doesn't connect to anything.
Again, we're watching a failed ideology that is going down in flames and grasping at anything that may keep them relative.
-
I'll take my amateur who's main interest is in MAGA, rather than a professional leach who's primary goal is to increase the power, and wealth of the political class. Drain the swamp.
I'll take neither, thanks. And I put my vote where my mouth is.
PS - you're wrong about Obama.
-
I don't know how many times I have to say this, but there is NO WAY IN HELL Putin would have wanted Trump as President.
A. Energy - Trump's actions, and vision is diametrically opposed to Putin's, and Russia economic best interest.
B. Defense- Trump is rebuilding the military after eight years of Obama's PC, LGBTxyz, Feminization. Trump wants a strong military, and national defense. Again, this is not aligned with Putin/Russia's best interest.
C. Foreign policy/Trade policy - Trump wants FAIR TRADE, not the crap we have now. He has not relaxed trade with Russia.
Some of that sounds logical on the surface, but there are other reasons for Putin to prefer Trump as president, including his skepticism about the value of NATO and other alliances, his comments about considering a US recognition of the annexation of Crimea, his apparently positive attitude toward authoritarian regimes supported by Russia (e.g. Assad in Syria). Putin may well have expected Trump's presidency to weaken the West from a geopolitical standpoint by weakening key alliances that have been in place since the Soviet era.
But none of that really matters if the evidence points to their having interfered in the election in a way that would clearly advantage Clinton over Trump. And the NIC released a report in January that states that there is such evidence, and that their assessment points "with high confidence" to the conclusion that the Russians were working to help get Trump elected.
That was widely reported; what are the reasons to be skeptical of these facts?
-
Being a mouthpiece for community groups and funded entirely by political funding is not a job. I will opine that the mouthpiece actually is counterproductive to business and industry in about 95% of cases.
A job is when you leave home, go somewhere, do something with your hands, or mind and hands, and in a few days or months you can point to something and say; 'I built that'. Which of course, is exactly inverse of what Obama thinks, and says. Obama - never - had - a - job. While in office, he rang up a debt that can never be repaid, and for what? Obamacare? It's BK, and collapsing on its own. If the Rep do nothing, ACA will completely fail in less than 2 years unless congress goes single-payer. Which they won't. Obamas legacy will be worse than Carter in the fullness of time.
-
Here is the very flower of our youth. I think one of those was asechrest
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/17/college-students-cant-define-socialism-love-bernie-sanders
'Socialism is great! Uh, well - I don't really know what it is....'
-
But one of that really matters if the evidence points to their having interfered in the election in a way that would clearly advantage Clinton over Trump. And the NIC released a report in January that states that there is such evidence, and that their assessment points "with high confidence" to the conclusion that the Russians were working to help get Trump elected.
That was widely reported; what are the reasons to be skeptical of these facts?
And yet, none of these agencies, none of the senators and none of the congressmen have been able to produce any evidence whatsoever that the Russians were successful in altering the US election of 2016 or have they been able to produce any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with them to do so. None whatsoever.
And go even further. All of this supposed interference was happening while Obama was president, Lynch was AG and Comey was the FBI Director, and the Intelligence agencies under Obama did............nothing.
It only became an issue when Trump won the election. Had Hillary been elected this wouldn't even be an issue today.
-
False. I was born in this country (state of Michigan) and have never lived outside the US.
As i posted. IIRC...
-
And yet, none of these agencies, none of the senators and none of the congressmen have been able to produce any evidence whatsoever that the Russians were successful in altering the US election of 2016 or have they been able to produce any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with them to do so. None whatsoever.
That seems to be one thing we agree on and I hope no such evidence exists or is uncovered. But it's not relevant to my point, which was that regardless of whether WE think a Trump presidency makes sense as a desired goal for Putin, the evidence says his government was actively working to help bring it about.
I also agree that Trump would probably have been elected without their help. @lnvflatspin gave a good summary of why Trump was so appealing to a lot of people, though I suspect his promises to revitalize American manufacturing were the critical factor. But the fact remains - apparently Putin DID want Trump to get elected, regardless of the stated reasons why he shouldn't have.
-
That seems to be one thing we agree on and I hope no such evidence exists or is uncovered. But it's not relevant to my point, which was that regardless of whether WE think a Trump presidency makes sense as a desired goal for Putin, the evidence says his government was actively working to help bring it about.
Reading comprehension is not your strong point is it?
What evidence??? You have had all of the intelligence agencies state that there is no evidence, the AG state there is no evidence, the director of the FBI state there is no evidence and congress and the senate state there is no evidence.
The ONLY thing they have agreed upon is that Russia "meddled" in the campaign, but not to what that meddling consisted of. Any no one, no agency, no intelligence community, no senator or no congress person has found one iota of evidence that the meddling of Russia in any way, shape or form altered the outcome of the election.
But the fact remains - apparently Putin DID want Trump to get elected, regardless of the stated reasons why he shouldn't have.
Again, no one in our government agencies, the judicial branch or the legislative branch have any evidence to that. That is just yet another talking point of the Alt Left to try to justify why they have failed so horribly.
-
But the fact remains - apparently Putin DID want Trump to get elected, regardless of the stated reasons why he shouldn't have.
How is that a FACT? Other than claims by the media, what facts do we have? I can get any poll to say anything I want.
-
That seems to be one thing we agree on and I hope no such evidence exists or is uncovered. But it's not relevant to my point, which was that regardless of whether WE think a Trump presidency makes sense as a desired goal for Putin, the evidence says his government was actively working to help bring it about.
I also agree that Trump would probably have been elected without their help. @lnvflatspin gave a good summary of why Trump was so appealing to a lot of people, though I suspect his promises to revitalize American manufacturing were the critical factor. But the fact remains - apparently Putin DID want Trump to get elected, regardless of the stated reasons why he shouldn't have.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some of that sounds logical on the surface, but there are other reasons for Putin to prefer Trump as president, including his skepticism about the value of NATO and other alliances, his comments about considering a US recognition of the annexation of Crimea, his apparently positive attitude toward authoritarian regimes supported by Russia (e.g. Assad in Syria). Putin may well have expected Trump's presidency to weaken the West from a geopolitical standpoint by weakening key alliances that have been in place since the Soviet era.
But none of that really matters if the evidence points to their having interfered in the election in a way that would clearly advantage Clinton over Trump. And the NIC released a report in January that states that there is such evidence, and that their assessment points "with high confidence" to the conclusion that the Russians were working to help get Trump elected.
That was widely reported; what are the reasons to be skeptical of these facts?
I'm confused again. I've added your post from further above. Both posts mention 'the evidence'. One would seem to say that there some evidence that Russia prefers Clinton over Trump, and one says there is evidence of Putin desiring a Trump presidency.
First, can you identify what 'evidence' you are talking about? Evidence is a legal term. It is not testimony, which refers to the spoken word, of someone who was a witness, or principal in the activity. Evidence is a thing, like an email, a note, letter, memo, knife, gun, body, etc. Next, please for me would you clarify which position you are taking? Putin desiring a Trump prez, or that there is evidence of interference FOR Clinton?
edit; Mine composed while two above posts were being done.
-
Okay I'm not going to reply separately to the above three posts. Anyone who is interested can google ICA 2017 01 for the report I'm referring to. It's a pdf of the PUBLIC version of the report put out in January by the National Intelligence Council. They state up front that some of the actual evidence is still classified, so don't expect all of the details. Here is the first paragraph:
We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. When it appeared to Moscow that Secretary Clinton was likely to win the election, the Russian influence campaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency.
There follow a number of bullet points, the first of which reads:
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
The third and fourth bullet points address Putin's likely motivations, which included blaming her for the mass protests in 2011-2 as well as the Panama Papers disclosure and the Olympic doping scandal which he considered "US-directed efforts to defame Russia".
@lnvflatspin, I hope that clarifies my position. I think what Putin's actual desires were is only knowable to a limited extent, but that he desired a Trump presidency seems like a reasonable conclusion.
-
I think what Putin's actual desires were is only knowable to a limited extent, but that he desired a Trump presidency seems like a reasonable conclusion.
(http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w464/flybywire1959/giphy_zpsgec4so1e.gif)
-
I'm confused again. I've added your post from further above. Both posts mention 'the evidence'. One would seem to say that there some evidence that Russia prefers Clinton over Trump, and one says there is evidence of Putin desiring a Trump presidency.
First, can you identify what 'evidence' you are talking about? Evidence is a legal term. It is not testimony, which refers to the spoken word, of someone who was a witness, or principal in the activity. Evidence is a thing, like an email, a note, letter, memo, knife, gun, body, etc. Next, please for me would you clarify which position you are taking? Putin desiring a Trump prez, or that there is evidence of interference FOR Clinton?
edit; Mine composed while two above posts were being done.
Whoops... I just noticed the blooper where I said "interfered in a way that would advantage Clinton over Trump". Clearly, that should read "Trump over Clinton". My bad.
-
Okay I'm not going to reply separately to the above three posts. Anyone who is interested can google ICA 2017 01 for the report I'm referring to. It's a pdf of the PUBLIC version of the report put out in January by the National Intelligence Council.
Yet the heads of all these agencies have later admitted, on record, that there is no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians nor is there any evidence the result of the Russian meddling swayed the election.
This report was outed as being very poorly written and obviously partisan. Later testimony from the intelligence community (the same people who put this report out) have contradicted it's findings.
But please, keep grasping at straws.
-
Yet the heads of all these agencies have later admitted, on record, that there is no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians nor is there any evidence the result of the Russian meddling swayed the election.
Nor did the report say that the campaign did collude, nor that the Russian meddling swayed the election. Nor have I argued any such thing. Please continue arguing against straw men.
This report was outed as being very poorly written and obviously partisan. Later testimony from the intelligence community (the same people who put this report out) have contradicted it's findings.
Source?
-
Nor did the report say that the campaign did collude, nor that the Russian meddling swayed the election. Nor have I argued any such thing. Please continue arguing against straw men.
Source?
You are all over the map here.
Again, reading comprehension seems to be your weak point.
-
azure,
It's great you are participating. Thank you. I still don't see any material proof, nor facts other than conjecture by think tanks, and the media. A lot of what I am seeing form the left is great leaps in the hopes of making it look like Putin/Russia was helping Trump.
-
You are all over the map here.
Again, reading comprehension seems to be your weak point.
Actually it seems it is YOUR weak point not mine.
How am I all over the map?
I've consistently said that:
1. There is strong evidence that Russia tried to interfere in the election.
2. There is strong evidence that their goal was to get Trump elected if possible.
3. I don't think Trump's campaign actively colluded with the Russian interference, even though the Trump Jr emails and subsequent meeting show that some people connected with the campaign, including the campaign manager, were willing to do so given the opportunity.
4. I don't think the Russian interference swayed the election.
What is inconsistent or "all over the map" about these positions?
You seem to argue a lot against points I haven't made or tried to make. And you haven't provided any real evidence that the NIC report was discredited.
-
azure,
It's great you are participating. Thank you. I still don't see any material proof, nor facts other than conjecture by think tanks, and the media. A lot of what I am seeing form the left is great leaps in the hopes of making it look like Putin/Russia was helping Trump.
Well the report DOES say that much of the actual evidence is still classified. So I don't think we're going to see "material proof" for a while. The question is whether we should believe this report. Certainly it is possible that it is in error, but given that it was put out by the NIC, I tend to give it credence above what I would if it were just conjecture by think tanks or the media. Is there good reason to doubt it? If so, what?
-
Is there good reason to doubt it? If so, what?
Have you watched any of the testimony by Clapper, Comey, McMaster, the Congressional Committees, the Senate Committees?
-
Actually it seems it is YOUR weak point not mine.
How am I all over the map?
I've consistently said that:
1. There is strong evidence that Russia tried to interfere in the election.
2. There is strong evidence that their goal was to get Trump elected if possible.
3. I don't think Trump's campaign actively colluded with the Russian interference, even though the Trump Jr emails and subsequent meeting show that some people connected with the campaign, including the campaign manager, were willing to do so given the opportunity.
4. I don't think the Russian interference swayed the election.
What is inconsistent or "all over the map" about these positions?
You seem to argue a lot against points I haven't made or tried to make. And you haven't provided any real evidence that the NIC report was discredited.
Apparently you only get your information through the Alt Left media since all you can recite is talking points.
-
Have you watched any of the testimony by Clapper, Comey, McMaster, the Congressional Committees, the Senate Committees?
I haven't watched them in their entirety but I have seen excerpts and sizeable parts of them. I haven't heard anything to contradict the conclusions of the NIC report.
-
I haven't watched them in their entirety but I have seen excerpts and sizeable parts of them. I haven't heard anything to contradict the conclusions of the NIC report.
Of course you haven't. ::)
-
Pulling info from your alternate username of Florida Cracker, eh?
Where is FC? I miss his contributions.
-
"ICA 2017 01"
On this gruel one is expected to "convict" Trump?
Just - I just don't know what to say. It really pains me to think that there are people in the US who actually believe the stuff in that report, just because it has a couple of official looking seals on the front of it, and a lot of official verbiage surrounding the, well I was going to say 'meat' of the article, but there is no meat there. There is certainly no "evidence", there is no 'testimony' there is no smoking gun, no smoke, no gun, no nothing but pages and pages and pages of 'we assess with confidence that so-and-so wrote something nasty about Clinton, and that helped Trump. So neener-neener.'
Jeezalou if this is a briefing that was provided by any arm of the US govt, then we are(were) surely doomed. It reads like National Inquirer sourced stuff.
Does it bother anyone that this report was compiled after the election, and published just DAYS before inauguration? Apparently this stuff was going on as far back as winter and spring of 2016, and it's published Jan 6th? O-M-F-G. Red flag liberal? Even a patina of concern how this blew up from Nov 8 to Jan 6th? Gee, what happened during that time? Bueller?
Well, all I can say is Trump is in the clear on this whole 'collusion' mishigoss. Now I know why he's basically ignored it(until is boy was caught up with the fickled finger of accusation). This is the biggest nothing burger of the century. The media, and all the - ahem, 'intelligence' arms in the report should be completely gutted for incompetence. I want my wasted hour back.
-
Where is FC? I miss his contributions.
He contributes here most days. ;)
-
Being a mouthpiece for community groups and funded entirely by political funding is not a job. I will opine that the mouthpiece actually is counterproductive to business and industry in about 95% of cases.
A job is when you leave home, go somewhere, do something with your hands, or mind and hands, and in a few days or months you can point to something and say; 'I built that'. Which of course, is exactly inverse of what Obama thinks, and says. Obama - never - had - a - job. While in office, he rang up a debt that can never be repaid, and for what? Obamacare? It's BK, and collapsing on its own. If the Rep do nothing, ACA will completely fail in less than 2 years unless congress goes single-payer. Which they won't. Obamas legacy will be worse than Carter in the fullness of time.
Obama was an attorney in a private practice, officially listed as having an 11 year tenure, though much of his work was front-loaded in that tenure. You were wrong about your suggestion that he's never had a non-guv job.
-
Obama was an attorney in a private practice, officially listed as having an 11 year tenure, though much of his work was front-loaded in that tenure. You were wrong about your suggestion that he's never had a non-guv job.
Do you know if there's a case, or a docket, or any kind of action in camera with the name 'Obama' on it? Like 'Roe v Wade' or something? I know he represented some clients, but did he make any case law? I can't find any. Already stated that 'mouthpiece' is not a job. Moving papers from in tray to out tray doesn't count. Hell, I have no respect for Carter, but at least he's building low income housing. Better than Mr smooth-palm who wouldn't know which end of a hammer to hold.
-
I find it amazing that we as Americans can purchase stocks in Russia, do business with Russia, Russia and America can trade goods and services and are also partners in space exploration. But yet they are a "hostile power".
But yet we can have a sitting US President openly make deals with a country such as Iran, who has vowed to the destruction of the US, who has taken Americans hostage, who actively wages proxy wars against us and is one of the major contributors to terrorism. We can have that same President release billions of dollars to them, which they use against us. And have that same President load a cargo plane with pallets of money and fly it into Tehran in the middle of the night, in clear violation of US law, and not a word is said.
And Russia is supposedly the "Hostile Power".
Unreal. Just imagine if that president was Trump. The liberals in congress would be drafting articles of impeachment at break neck speed.
-
Do you know if there's a case, or a docket, or any kind of action in camera with the name 'Obama' on it? Like 'Roe v Wade' or something? I know he represented some clients, but did he make any case law? I can't find any. Already stated that 'mouthpiece' is not a job. Moving papers from in tray to out tray doesn't count. Hell, I have no respect for Carter, but at least he's building low income housing. Better than Mr smooth-palm who wouldn't know which end of a hammer to hold.
He had some notable cases, including for a large corporate client. But anyway, I have made my point, which was to correct the notion that the guy never held a real job.
-
Reading comprehension is not your strong point is it?
What evidence??? You have had all of the intelligence agencies state that there is no evidence, the AG state there is no evidence, the director of the FBI state there is no evidence and congress and the senate state there is no evidence.
The ONLY thing they have agreed upon is that Russia "meddled" in the campaign, but not to what that meddling consisted of. Any no one, no agency, no intelligence community, no senator or no congress person has found one iota of evidence that the meddling of Russia in any way, shape or form altered the outcome of the election.
Again, no one in our government agencies, the judicial branch or the legislative branch have any evidence to that. That is just yet another talking point of the Alt Left to try to justify why they have failed so horribly.
Yeah, but CNN and MSNBC said it happened so it must be ;)
-
Why can't people just accept that Hillary was a shitty candidate who chose not to campaign in critical swing states. Go back and compare the crowds Hillary drew vs the crowds Trump drew. Trump relates to the middle class American worker that feels forgotten along the way. All they hear from the "D" side is LGBGT, Black Lives Matter and other crap they mean absolutely nothing to them.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/18/hillary-clinton-sided-with-russia-on-sanctions-as-bill-made-500g-on-moscow-speech.html
Emails show Bill Clinton paid thousands for speech in Russia
The Russian lawyer who landed a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. during last year’s presidential campaign with the promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton had one big thing in common with the Democratic candidate: Both had opposed Russia sanctions targeting human-rights abusers.
Further, former Secretary of State Clinton’s initial opposition coincided with a $500,000 speech her husband gave in Moscow – a link her 2016 campaign fought to downplay in the press, according to WikiLeaks-released documents.
Trump White House officials now are trying to draw attention to that speech and the Clintons’ ties to Russia in a bid to counter criticism over Trump Jr.’s now-infamous meeting.
“If you want to talk about having relationships with Russia, I'd look no further than the Clintons,” Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a briefing last week. “Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars to give a speech to a Russian bank, personally thanked by President Putin.”
-
Why would I not admit to being a liberal progressive if I was one? My department chair is a liberal progressive, he's a wonderful guy. I used to think I was one too, until I moved to Vermont where 7/10 people (that's pulled out of the air, but it's a large percentage of people) are real liberal progressives. Compared to them, I'm pretty far to the right. I'm liberal on most of the so-called hot-button social issues, but more conservative fiscally. I believe the free market should be allowed to work in most cases, I'm pro 2nd amendment, I believe religious conscience should be a valid justification for refusing to provide services for LGBT couples (or anyone else) even though I strongly support marriage rights for gay people. I like our current Republican governor, Phil Scott. I'm an independent, politically.
Saying you are far to the right relative to the extreme left stance of the culture in which you find yourself (Vermont, universities, etc.) is not to say you aren't a liberal progressive when considering the entire spectrum. I'm not saying you are. The things you list pretty much define ME. But it's an oversimplification. The devil is in the details.
Example: Pro 2nd amendment. If by that you mean we should be allowed guns for only hunting and sport competition, like the UK, that's liberal progressive. If you mean guns should be heavily regulated, IE no high cap mags, no fully automatic, no "assault rifles", close the "gun show loophole", heavily regulated conceal carry etc., then you are NOT in any way truly "pro 2nd amendment". You are a liberal progressive giving lip service to the 2nd.
Free market should be allowed to work most cases: Do you agree this applies to healthcare? Would you favor repealing Obamacare and deregulating insurance, opening it up across state lines, letting them offer cafeteria plans, etc.? Healthcare is one of the biggest economic pieces of the pie and if you do not apply free market to that, you do not actually believe in free market economics.
I believe religious conscience should be a valid justification for refusing to provide services for LGBT couples
I agree this is a conservative viewpoint, but I would apply it only to private businesses. In my opinion it should not apply to public services. If you believe it should then you are indeed more right wing than me on this issue.
And the final test I would apply would be what are all your news sources? Are they exclusively CNN, MSNBC and social media feeds, or do you ever watch Fox or listen to Sean Hannity or read a book written by Thomas Sowell? If you avoid all these right wing sources of information like the plague, then you are a liberal progressive.
So I'm not judging, I don't know the answers to these things, and I'll say I think it is unfair for people to assume you are a rabid leftist without really knowing you. It's just really hard when a person is completely soaked in that culture, if you are, to not become it yourself. When you go out to eat with friends is the topic all about how we are doomed from climate change because evil Trump pulled us out of Paris? Is there ANY discussion at all in your circle of friends about the economic reasons that might have been a good thing for Trump to have done? If not then I would applaud any efforts you make in your own mind to not go with the herd, and think for yourself, which you definitely are intelligent enough to do. :)
-
Why can't people just accept that Hillary was a shitty candidate who chose not to campaign in critical swing states. Go back and compare the crowds Hillary drew vs the crowds Trump drew. Trump relates to the middle class American worker that feels forgotten along the way. All they hear from the "D" side is LGBGT, Black Lives Matter and other crap they mean absolutely nothing to them.
It doesn't fit the narrative of the Alt Left.
The election of 2016 was a perfect storm for the democrats. Preceding the election was 8 years of an alt left radical progressive President who's base consisted of east and west coast progressives who despised "the fly over country". Because of him the democrats started losing power, in a huge way. They lost almost a 1,000 legislative seats, the house and the senate, and most state governments. We witnessed this country decline internationally and financially as well as the disaster called "Obamacare".
Then the DNC, under Wasserman-Shultz, set up an elaborate rigged nomination process to insure Clinton got the nomination. They ran a severely flawed candidate with a reputation of criminal activity, a long career of scandal after scandal and to top it off, she was under federal investigation (FBI) while running for office. And to add to that, she ran what is now recognized as one of the worst presidential campaigns in history while out spending the republicans 4 to 1.
Why? Because Hillary and the DNC had believed they had it all sewed up, she would be the inevitable winner, so all she had to do is "run the clock out", get elected and go to her coronation.
The MSM had become so involved in producing fake news stories and fake polls that they and the liberal progressives began believing their own bullshit, a fatal error.
And the DNC had totally forgot about the fly over country. And it was this part of the population that had enough of liberal progressive ideology that they showed up in force at the polls to keep Hillary out of the White House.
So yes, the liberal progressives cannot admit they succeeded at their own undoing. So then they had to produce a new narrative as to their failure, hence the Russia! story line.
-
At the end of the day, liberals weren't and aren't prepared to lose.
It's that simple. Shit-bag 'educators' whose every word, thought and deed was carefully chosen to adhere to the hypocrisy that is the far left, have convinced the snowflakes, idiots, attention mongers and make believe transgender cupcakes so delusional about their 'right' to be pandered to, that they couldn't conceive of a world where 63 million voters would tell them to get lost.
When that happened they reacted like any spoiled, useless, pathetic, crybaby. They rioted, had temper tantrums, demanded crayons and play-doe, and simply increased the noise, because that always worked before.
-
Good, probing questions, thank you.
Example: Pro 2nd amendment. If by that you mean we should be allowed guns for only hunting and sport competition, like the UK, that's liberal progressive. If you mean guns should be heavily regulated, IE no high cap mags, no fully automatic, no "assault rifles", close the "gun show loophole", heavily regulated conceal carry etc., then you are NOT in any way truly "pro 2nd amendment". You are a liberal progressive giving lip service to the 2nd.
I think gun laws restricting 2nd amendment rights should be left to the states and/or local governments, despite reciprocity issues. I live in Vermont, which has unregulated carry, both concealed and open. I am opposed to any changes in the Vermont gun laws because what we have works very well here. I'm in favor of "Vermont carry" anywhere it would work and not lead to an increase in gun violence. It would probably (read: certainly!) not work in places like NYC or my home state Michigan.
Free market should be allowed to work most cases: Do you agree this applies to healthcare? Would you favor repealing Obamacare and deregulating insurance, opening it up across state lines, letting them offer cafeteria plans, etc.? Healthcare is one of the biggest economic pieces of the pie and if you do not apply free market to that, you do not actually believe in free market economics.
Health care is an area I struggle with. I am well aware that the private insurance system under ACA is collapsing. I am open to a free market solution to insurance, complete with deregulation and cafeteria plans. What I'm mainly concerned about is the high cost of medical care. None of the proposed solutions even addresses that problem, and without a solution, the future will be more people without meaningful coverage and winding up in the poorhouse as a result of illnesses that may or may not be lifestyle-related. To my understanding this will happen regardless of whether we continue under ACA, or repeal and replace with either the Senate or House plans.
I agree this is a conservative viewpoint, but I would apply it only to private businesses. In my opinion it should not apply to public services. If you believe it should then you are indeed more right wing than me on this issue.
No, I agree. Private businesses and individuals only. It is basically an individual freedom thing as far as I'm concerned. Freedom doesn't mean anything unless people are also free to act on beliefs that I and others find offensive, as long as they do so in ways that do not harm other people or society. The gay couple in search of a wedding cake can hire another company that doesn't take the position that their marriage is an offense against God.
And the final test I would apply would be what are all your news sources? Are they exclusively CNN, MSNBC and social media feeds, or do you ever watch Fox or listen to Sean Hannity or read a book written by Thomas Sowell? If you avoid all these right wing sources of information like the plague, then you are a liberal progressive.
To be honest, my main sources of news are PBS and NPR. I do think they are somewhat left-skewed, though less so than CNN and MSNBC. I also read centrist sources occasionally, such as WSJ and USA Today, and find National Review to be not too far to the right as a rule. I avoid fringe sources on both ends of the spectrum, thinking specifically of Breitbart, but to a lesser extent Fox as well. On the other end of the spectrum I avoid sites like Think Progress and, to a lesser extent, Politico. I completely ignore any news-sounding items on social media feeds since much of it is obviously fake news (and I worry that some of the not-so-obvious stuff might be fake as well). I'm not a fan of CNN or MSNBC, though for hard factual news I don't see a problem with them; I take their commentaries with a large grain of salt though, as I do the round table discussions on PBS.
So I'm not judging, I don't know the answers to these things, and I'll say I think it is unfair for people to assume you are a rabid leftist without really knowing you. It's just really hard when a person is completely soaked in that culture, if you are, to not become it yourself. When you go out to eat with friends is the topic all about how we are doomed from climate change because evil Trump pulled us out of Paris? Is there ANY discussion at all in your circle of friends about the economic reasons that might have been a good thing for Trump to have done? If not then I would applaud any efforts you make in your own mind to not go with the herd, and think for yourself, which you definitely are intelligent enough to do. :)
Actually I have few local friends since moving to Vermont since I transplanted myself here for work, and it's pretty hard to make new friends. Those that I do know are certainly mostly liberal - this is Vermont! - and I find myself right of center compared to almost everyone I know here. On climate change, I've written about that before. I think Paris was premature and based on a consensus which is mostly misrepresented in the media. At the same time, thinking of our standing in the world community I'm not sure pulling out unilaterally was a good idea, and I'm definitely critical of Trump's promises to bring back coal as the economics that disfavor coal are beyond his control, and it would be a step backward both in fighting air pollution and in limiting carbon emissions. We should be focusing on helping former coal communities to transition to other means of income. For transportation we are largely stuck with fossil fuels for the foreseeable future; I don't think electric cars or even hybrid cars will ever be more than a niche product, at least in my lifetime. For generating electricity, we should be thinking more seriously about (modern) fission reactors, not only renewables and battery technology.
I'm having trouble parsing your sentence about "the economic reasons that might have been a good thing for Trump to have done", sorry.
-
I don't have any liberals around where I am, but I have lived in many prog liberal strongholds. Sometimes I try to put myself in the mind of the liberal in the fall of 2016. We ultra-right anarchistic folk had a good laugh at things like 'basket of deplorables', because we hear it - and it doesn't process. So - since it was said by a major, significant public figure, usually our brain processes it as if were a joke, or a throw-away line. However,,, after a time some of us get to hearing, and investigating, and researching the background and come to an epiphany. She - was - not - joking! More to the point, there are millions of liberals out there with the mindset, and the programming that was just reinforced by the Head Of The Party, that anyone who is not in liberal group-think - really is a deplorable person!
In other words, this line - which is so casually dismissed by the far-right, and some moderate right folk is mainstream thought and opinion in liberal-land. Once I realized that she was serious I was gobsmacked. There is a huge voting block who not just agrees with this loon, but actually considers their opposition to be an entire population made up of mouth-breathing, Neanderthals. It was a real shock to understand that deep down, the liberals see much of fly-over country, and all of Texas as a vast waste of flesh. Enlightening.
Then on that fateful night, late into the wee hours, when the Enlightened Easterners on the tube had to call it for Trump, it also began to sink in that the left is going to be not just upset - but furious! First off, they were beaten. And, if that weren't enough of a shame and shock they were beaten by -- TRUMP?!?!?!? C'mon, this was in the bag. Lead pipe cinch. Money in the bank. Picking out cabinet members, and the WH china pattern for the libs. HOW could the nation reject them(her)? It is not possible.
Which leads us to Trump Jr debacle. There's absolutely nothing on Donald J. Trump, president of the entire US. He's in the clear, golden, clean as the proverbial whistle. The dems can shout Russia, collusion, conspiracy, Putin, etc until they are out of breath. Sadly for them, as a wise man once said 'there is no there, there'. And the tiny brains, finally reaching the further reaches of middle of the 10 stage grief program have gone from shock to anger, and resentment. They lash out. Anything is fair game. Wife, kids, hair, skin color(particularly shameful), speech patterns, lexicon, age, infirmity, mental acuity, etc. ANYTHING not related to federal public policy is open season.
A 20 minute meeting by the son and ex-campaign manager with some offshoot Russian who lured the son of the candidate in with some offer of sleaze becomes their beacon of hope! A ray of light, a potential crack in the armor. As if this 20 minute meeting, which was right in the office of one of the staff, not in some dark alley, where no money and very little info changed hands, by an unregistered lobbyist is now the holy grail of the liberals. They have a cause! They have purpose! they have RIGHT on their side! All the digging, all the hours, all the effort and finally; We - Have - Our - Watergate!
But wait. Hold on. Watergate was a criminal case. Laws were broken. Evidence(I mean real evidence) was gathered. People committed crimes, for which they were punished, and it led right to the top. Some day, but not soon a few liberals are going to realize that the meeting with Natalia and the other ex-GRU guy with some of the campaign staff is not Watergate. It's not even any-kind-of-gate. But not all of them will realize it. Much of the nation will have been inculcated that Trump Jr and Manafort got away with criminal conspiracy to commit a fraud, or obstruct justice, or some other matter. A lot of the nation, and much of the world will be under the delusion that Trump Jr is some kind of crook, and he got away with 'it'(whatever the 'it' can be).
I'm signing off of this thread. A few pages back I realized that I was falling into the trap of all the rest of the public discourse. I'm actually advancing the media presence of the cause of liberals to cast doubt, and shadow on a good man, with a good reputation, trying to do good work for his father. I will continue to rail at the exposure of the LIES from the left, such as "evidence shows" but I'm done keeping the awareness of this nothing burger in the public discourse. Y'all can go on without me from here, because this is the most egregious case of mountains from molehill I've ever seen.
fini
-
I am ALL for State's rights except for what they agreed to in the Constitution, when they signed on to become states, like the 2A (Second Amendment). This is NOT a state, by state issue. It is clearly a Fed issue, which was upheld by the SCOTUS. States, and even cities have over stepped their bounds, and established, un-Constitutional, draconian, and needless regulations on LEGALLY owned firearms.
-
I am ALL for State's rights except for what they agreed to in the Constitution, when they signed on to become states, like the 2A (Second Amendment). This is NOT a state, by state issue. It is clearly a Fed issue, which was upheld by the SCOTUS. States, and even cities have over stepped their bounds, and established, un-Constitutional, draconian, and needless regulations on LEGALLY owned firearms.
In that case then I'm not really pro 2nd amendment by your definition, but instead for limited local regulation, the less the better, to the extent that it is practical. I really don't see how anything less than tight regulation would work (or be politically possible) in places like Chicago or Detroit. The result would be worse mayhem than we already have.
-
Why can't people just accept that Hillary was a shitty candidate who chose not to campaign in critical swing states. Go back and compare the crowds Hillary drew vs the crowds Trump drew. Trump relates to the middle class American worker that feels forgotten along the way. All they hear from the "D" side is LGBGT, Black Lives Matter and other crap they mean absolutely nothing to them.
People can. In fact, I blame Hillary in large part for Trump's win. Horrible candidate.
-
Why can't people just accept that Hillary was a shitty candidate who chose not to campaign in critical swing states. Go back and compare the crowds Hillary drew vs the crowds Trump drew. Trump relates to the middle class American worker that feels forgotten along the way. All they hear from the "D" side is LGBGT, Black Lives Matter and other crap they mean absolutely nothing to them.
Trump beat all the other Republican contenders in the primaries. So unless they were also all shitty candidates, taking into account the COMPLETE election campaign beginning with the primaries, it seems to me that people were most likely voting FOR Trump than against Clinton.
-
People can. In fact, I blame Hillary in large part for Trump's win. Horrible candidate.
You appear to have at least a partially functioning brain.
But then there are the rest of the crying, screaming, rioting liberals.
-
Trump beat all the other Republican contenders in the primaries. So unless they were also all shitty candidates, taking into account the COMPLETE election campaign beginning with the primaries, it seems to me that people were most likely voting FOR Trump than against Clinton.
I'd argue that the primaries are wholly different than the general, where the two were actually pitted against each other.
-
A job is when you leave home, go somewhere, do something with your hands, or mind and hands, and in a few days or months you can point to something and say; 'I built that'.
It sounds like your definition of a job means many people who contribute to society are really "do nothing" slackers if they can't point to something tangible they have created.
If that is the case, confuse your opinion with facts.
That might be your idea of a job, but it isn't mine. Then again, I consider my job to be a career, or vocation.
-
I'd argue that the primaries are wholly different than the general, where the two were actually pitted against each other.
Disagree.
Much of the republican field in the primaries would have lost against Clinton, and the voters realized that. The fly over country wanted a candidate that would defeat Hillary, and Trump had the message they wanted to hear.
-
It sounds like your definition of a job means many people who contribute to society are really "do nothing" slackers if they can't point to something tangible they have created.
If that is the case, confuse your opinion with facts.
That might be your idea of a job, but it isn't mine. Then again, I consider my job to be a career, or vocation.
How is your job any different that what flatspin described? In your job you have to use your brain and skills. The result of your job (which is recognizable) is the safety of the National Airspace System.
-
How is your job any different that what flatspin described? In your job you have to use your brain and skills. The result of your job (which is recognizable) is the safety of the National Airspace System.
Ok.
By that logic, a community organizer helps benefit the community served according to the organization's mission, correct?
-
People can. In fact, I blame Hillary in large part for Trump's win. Horrible candidate.
That's very possible. WI, MI, and PA were very close, and Clinton would have won the election if they had all gone the other way. Her "deplorables" comment was probably the stupidest political gaffe anyone has made in recent memory; the scandal around her emails didn't help either. On the other hand, those states were all places where Trump's message resonated very strongly. So it's hard to say if Clinton could have won if she had played her hand better.
A more interesting question is whether Sanders could have beaten Trump.
-
In that case then I'm not really pro 2nd amendment by your definition, but instead for limited local regulation, the less the better, to the extent that it is practical. I really don't see how anything less than tight regulation would work (or be politically possible) in places like Chicago or Detroit. The result would be worse mayhem than we already have.
Guns are essentially banned in Chicago, and many places where they are used illegally by gangs to kill each other. Many states, and cities have illegally banned guns. The Supreme Court won't hear the cases to over turn them. Here are some of the states with very, very strict gun laws, and they are also the highest crime states/cities.
NYC/NY
CA
MD
Chicago
NJ
HI
CT
MA
DC
RI
I am sure I am forgetting some.
-
Guns are essentially banned in Chicago, and many places where they are used illegally by gangs to kill each other. Many states, and cities have illegally banned guns. The Supreme Court won't hear the cases to over turn them. Here are some of the states with very, very strict gun laws, and they are also the highest crime states/cities.
NYC/NY
CA
MD
Chicago
NJ
HI
CT
MA
DC
RI
I am sure I am forgetting some.
Yes, and I think that's BECAUSE they are such high-crime states, rather than the other way around. People want safety from violent crime and the only solution they can think of is to restrict ownership of guns or outright ban them. I don't think that's a good solution, and it clearly doesn't work very well, but it is what it is.
I'm open to a solution that doesn't involve excessive regulation, but I'm pretty sure that simply instituting Vermont carry everywhere would just make things worse in most large cities. The problem is humans, not guns, and any solution has to take humans into account. I'm not sure how that can be done. I AM certain that the public in places like DC and Chicago will not stand for unregulated concealed carry given the crime situation in those places. So the question is how to do it practically.
-
Yes, and I think that's BECAUSE they are such high-crime states, rather than the other way around. People want safety from violent crime and the only solution they can think of is to restrict ownership of guns or outright ban them. I don't think that's a good solution, and it clearly doesn't work very well, but it is what it is.
What I don't understand is that think that since they have a "high crime State", that taking guns away from the honest people will do anything to change or fix that.
-
Ok.
By that logic, a community organizer helps benefit the community served according to the organization's mission, correct?
Go find someone in "community organizing" and ask them. Not my area of expertise.
-
What I don't understand is that think that since they have a "high crime State", that taking guns away from the honest people will do anything to change or fix that.
I'm not sure whether you are saying that *I* think that or someone else (missing pronoun in your sentence). I don't actually think that. Tighter restrictions on gun ownership will probably have close to zero effect on violent crime by gangs and predatory criminals. I do think that making it easier for people in large cities to buy guns will probably lead to higher levels of domestic violence, perhaps vigilantism as well. Pack enough people close together in tight quarters and stress levels rise, it is human nature. Stress leads to disputes, and if the most convenient way to resolve a dispute is with a gun, some people are going to reach for the gun. It's hard to argue with that logic.
Where stress levels are low enough that such incidents are rare (such as here in VT), taking guns from honest people would solve absolutely nothing. That's why I tend to think gun laws should be a local matter, despite the 2nd amendment. But my mind is still open on the subject.
-
I'm not sure whether you are saying that *I* think that or someone else (missing pronoun in your sentence).
No, I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I left out the "they" (That THEY think), ie, the ones making and voting for the anti-gun regs.
-
Go find someone in "community organizing" and ask them. Not my area of expertise.
That's plainly obvious.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
I'm not sure whether you are saying that *I* think that or someone else (missing pronoun in your sentence). I don't actually think that. Tighter restrictions on gun ownership will probably have close to zero effect on violent crime by gangs and predatory criminals. I do think that making it easier for people in large cities to buy guns will probably lead to higher levels of domestic violence, perhaps vigilantism as well. Pack enough people close together in tight quarters and stress levels rise, it is human nature. Stress leads to disputes, and if the most convenient way to resolve a dispute is with a gun, some people are going to reach for the gun. It's hard to argue with that logic.
Where stress levels are low enough that such incidents are rare (such as here in VT), taking guns from honest people would solve absolutely nothing. That's why I tend to think gun laws should be a local matter, despite the 2nd amendment. But my mind is still open on the subject.
There is so much fail in this post, I just don't know where to begin. The most convenient way to resolve a dispute is NOT WITH A GUN. The vast majority of people know that is wrong, plus it will send you to JAIL.
Punish the people that commit the crimes, not the legal gun owner!
-
There is so much fail in this post, I just don't know where to begin. The most convenient way to resolve a dispute is NOT WITH A GUN. The vast majority of people know that is wrong, plus it will send you to JAIL.
Of course they do! But among those who have problems with impulse control, or outright mental illness, a few will still resort to guns under certain circumstances. And the stresses of big city life are likelier to "breed" (poor choice of words, but I can't think of a better word right now) people like that, and trigger them (no pun intended) to act.
Why is there so little gun crime here in Vermont and so much in, say, DC? Surely it's not BECAUSE anyone could be carrying here. It's because in this largely rural environment, people aren't so much at each other's throats, there is more of a sense of community and it's much less common for disputes to rise to that level.
Note that I'm talking about domestic and neighbor-on-neighbor gun crime... obviously, gangs are a MUCH bigger problem in places like DC too. But even domestic gun violence is lower here.
-
That's plainly obvious.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Sorry, where I grew up we didn't need "community organizers" to tell us what we needed to be doing or how to run our community. And all of the people I know from other parts of the country didn't have "community organizers" either.
But you are in Chicago, and apparently community organizers are all the rage there.
But given the current state of Chicago........... :o
-
No, I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I left out the "they" (That THEY think), ie, the ones making and voting for the anti-gun regs.
Ok. :)
-
Why is there so little gun crime here in Vermont and so much in, say, DC? Surely it's not BECAUSE anyone could be carrying here. It's because in this largely rural environment, people aren't so much at each other's throats, there is more of a sense of community and it's much less common for disputes to rise to that level.
You are so wrong.
An armed society is a polite society. Are you going to give the finger to someone who has a high likelihood of packing heat?
-
Of course they do! But among those who have problems with impulse control, or outright mental illness, a few will still resort to guns under certain circumstances. And the stresses of big city life are likelier to "breed" (poor choice of words, but I can't think of a better word right now) people like that, and trigger them (no pun intended) to act.
Why is there so little gun crime here in Vermont and so much in, say, DC? Surely it's not BECAUSE anyone could be carrying here. It's because in this largely rural environment, people aren't so much at each other's throats, there is more of a sense of community and it's much less common for disputes to rise to that level.
Note that I'm talking about domestic and neighbor-on-neighbor gun crime... obviously, gangs are a MUCH bigger problem in places like DC too. But even domestic gun violence is lower here.
It is NOT "Gun Crime", it is PEOPLE CRIME. And the reason is DEMOGRAPHICS.
-
It is NOT "Gun Crime", it is PEOPLE CRIME.
100% agree! In fact, I said that a few replies back. "Gun crime" is just shorthand for violence perpetrated using a gun.
And the reason is DEMOGRAPHICS.
Meaning what exactly? Do you think the people who live here in VT are different in some fundamental way from those who live in DC?
-
Meaning what exactly? Do you think the people who live here in VT are different in some fundamental way from those who live in DC?
Uh, yeah.
But to say so would be classified as racist.
-
100% agree! In fact, I said that a few replies back. "Gun crime" is just shorthand for violence perpetrated using a gun.
Yes, the media and the Dems like to blame the gun while guns by themselves are harmless. It takes a person to use one for it to be dangerous.
Meaning what exactly? Do you think the people who live here in VT are different in some fundamental way from those who live in DC?
Yes, I do for the most part. I think the vast majority of people in VT are very different from inner city, poor minorities. Just like the people where I live in the outer burbs of Philly are very different from the inner city poor of that city. It is about values, and responsibility, not skin color.
-
It is NOT "Gun Crime", it is PEOPLE CRIME. And the reason is DEMOGRAPHICS.
How come we never hear of "Knife Crime" or Fist Crime" or "Baseball Bat Crime"?
-
. It is about values, and responsibility, not skin color.
I concur completely, but to say so in public would be deemed racist. And that is not a joke.
Values and responsibility are learned traits. Some people learn the easier than others, but for the most part, people will turn out in a predictable manner considering how they are raised.
-
How come we never hear of "Knife Crime" or Fist Crime" or "Baseball Bat Crime"?
Because the powers that be fear legally armed citizens that can resist oppression, and tyranny. Look at all the vehicle deaths each year, some carried out purposely. You don't hear "car crime".
-
Progressives always ignore obvious truth to further their agenda.
Just because places that circumvent the constitution to impose idiotic and short sighted gun control, to keep the citizenry under the boot of authoritarian liberalism, suffer uncontrollable violent crime, it does not compute that their final solution idiocy is not helping.
The basics of communism, which is all liberalism is, requires adherents to surrender individual thought to group think imposed by the ruling junta.
Anything less is heresy.
-
(http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w464/flybywire1959/20245479_1727172807310199_344042823239800843_n_zpskvloro2q.jpg)
-
I concur completely, but to say so in public would be deemed racist. And that is not a joke.
Values and responsibility are learned traits. Some people learn the easier than others, but for the most part, people will turn out in a predictable manner considering how they are raised.
Why would that be deemed racist? Actually, I mostly agree with that. And disagree that the "armed society is polite society" is necessarily true, though I like it as a slogan.
In Vermont, guns are mostly used responsibly because of culture, upbringing, values, as you say. The fact that they are rarely used for violent crime has little to do with the fact that anyone could be packing; I don't, and I don't think most people, give that fact a second thought on a day to day basis. There is also the sense of community that is very strong here. People know, and rely on, their neighbors; that cohesion and interdependence, as well as the low population density, reduces the kinds of stresses and conflicts between people that can trigger people with mental illness to act out violently, reach for a gun to "convince" someone to get off their lawn, etc.
That culture and upbringing is lacking in most parts of most big cities where crime (and violent crime) is rampant. And stresses are much higher. That's not racist, it's just the truth.
Don't mistake what I'm saying for calling for greater regulation of gun sales. I think we're past the point of diminishing returns there and would like to see some relaxation where it's practical. I just don't think that is practical in big cities, and don't have a problem with the existing restrictions staying on the books there. Here in Vermont, there has been a movement for some while to toughen up the gun laws, that was given a big push forward a couple of years ago when a DCF social worker was stalked and shot dead by an angry, mentally ill mother. Gun control advocates started screaming that she should never have been able to buy a weapon. I consider that a kneejerk reaction to an isolated incident, and I'm happy that our Gov. Scott is against stricter legislation. I would vote against any state congressman that tried to push that legislation through because it's an unnecessary imposition on Vermonters and would be a sad loss of freedom for the state.
-
How very UNprogressive of you. It's almost as if you're not a Progressive. :D
-
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/07/24/gregg-jarrett-donald-trump-jr-did-not-violate-campaign-laws-pelosi-and-others-are-wrong.html
So much for the myth of violating campaign finance laws.
-
An armed society is a polite society. Are you going to give the finger to someone who has a high likelihood of packing heat?
Y'know, Guatemala really convinced me of the validity of this. You can have just about anyone bumped off for about $40. The cops do literally nothing, a former cop living there described the investigation of the murder outside where he was staying as "two dogs lapping up the blood". So basically you can kill or have killed anyone with little chance of apprehension. Bikers are supposed to wear vests wit their license numbers on them. Biker teams assassinate people regularly, and the cops can't catch their plate numbers because of the small size and speed of pursuit. Of course, biker assassination teams don't wear the vests. I was told that because of kidnappings the rich employed security courtesy of Mossaud.
And yes, people are very polite. My brother needed to break a lease for his father-law. After reading the lease documents I realized that there was no legal requirement to do squat, they were just written that poorly. Nevertheless my brother and the landlord were both very polite and reasonable during the deal. My brother actually said, when you can get someone killed for so little it pays to be polite.
That said, the rate of murder and violence in that country is indeed very, very high.