Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, DShomshak said:

I must correct my previous post. Trump did not use the specific words, "Mine is bigger." In the hour between my hearing the news item and my posting, my erratic brain condensed and altered his words. I heard the exact words two hours later, to my mortification, but by then I was home and could not retract the post.

 

No matter how much I dislike Donald Trump, I do not want to condemn him for things he did not actually say or do. (His real, accurately reported words and actions are quite bad enough.)

 

I apologize for the inaccuracy.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

Trump never gets tired of reminding us all how superior he is. Mainly because he isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, death tribble said:

I don't see why you should apologise for saying something inaccurate about Trump. After all he never apologises for his inaccuracies. Which of course sets a very bad example for the country.

That is part of why I'm doing it. At this point, careful checking and apologizing for inaccuracy almost feels like resistance.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, st barbara said:

Trump is still bragging about his I Q . Hasn't anybody told him that REALLY smart people don't have to brag about their I Q, and that I Q tests only measure potential ?   

 

This is also the guy that bragged about penis size in a presidential debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, st barbara said:

Trump is still bragging about his I Q . Hasn't anybody told him that REALLY smart people don't have to brag about their I Q, and that I Q tests only measure potential ?   

It is Trump.

 

24 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

More on the preferential treatment Hillary Clinton received from the FBI:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455192/fbi-gave-hillary-co-special-treatment-during-email-probe

It is funny how "Congressional investigators find irregularities in FBI's handling of Clinton email case" turns into "The FBI did everything but drive Hillary’s getaway car." just after one quotation.

I am sorry, but did you want anybody to take that seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Christopher said:

It is funny how "Congressional investigators find irregularities in FBI's handling of Clinton email case" turns into "The FBI did everything but drive Hillary’s getaway car." just after one quotation.

I am sorry, but did you want anybody to take that seriously?

Let us go over the orignal article, shall we?
" That evidence includes passages in FBI documents stating the “sheer volume” of classified information that flowed through Clinton’s insecure emails was proof of criminality as well as an admission of false statements by one key witness in the case, the investigators said. "

Last I heard it was 3(three!) Emails with classified information. Hillary was in the CC. That is about the volume of silence. Since the emails were all published by Wikileaks, what new appeared?

 

" The investigators also confirmed that the FBI began drafting a statement exonerating Clinton of any crimes while evidence responsive to subpoenas was still outstanding and before agents had interviewed more than a dozen key witnesses. "

Wow, you draft something before you write it? What a conspiracy. Next you tell me they thought about formulations in their head, before the Probe even started!

 

" Lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee who attended a Dec. 21 closed-door briefing by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe say the bureau official confirmed that the investigation and charging decisions were controlled by a small group in Washington headquarters rather the normal process of allowing field offices to investigate possible criminality in their localities. The Clinton email server in question was based in New York. "

Hmm, there is this set of potentially classified inforamtion. Should we just set anyone on it, regardless of security clearance? Or people that are actually allowed to know of that, one way or the other?

 

" That information wasn’t available to them when Comey announced in July 2016 that he would not seek charges against Clinton even though she and her aides had transmitted more than 110 pieces of classified information through her insecure email server, some of it at the “top secret” and “secret” levels. "

Pieces of classified information? How is a "piece of Information" defined? Why not Nr. of Emails, a actually usefull information?

 

Did they have to count every single non-redacted word in every Email as one "Piece of Information" just to get to even a 3 digit number out of 10k's worth of Emails?

 

" One storyline that has emerged is that the FBI’s own documents stated there was evidence some laws had been broken, but bureau leaders declined to pursue charges on the grounds they could not prove Clinton and her aides intended to violate the law. "

Wait. Where have I read this recently? Oh right, the deadly swatting incident. Where they made a simialr call:

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/gywjv7/fatal-swatting-results-in-felony-charges-for-gamer-but-not-cop-who-pulled-trigger?utm_source=vicenewstwitter

"Barriss could also end up facing a more serious second degree murder charge for unintentionally causing death by reckless actions. But Kansas authorities may be counting on it being easier to convict him on the false alarm charges, which Elizabeth Cateforis, a clinical associate professor at Kansas University said fit the crime perfectly.

“Second-degree murder would be a really uphill battle,” she added. “Getting from a phone call with charging the person with liability for a death — it’s a stretch.”"

 

"GOP congressional investigators told The Hill multiple drafts of the statement also included specific language acknowledging there was “evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information.”"

Wait, we do not work on every part of every draft every single time it is circulated among the people writing it? How big was that Document being drafted again?

" Republican investigators say the most glaring irregularity they have found is the decision to begin drafting a statement exonerating Clinton before much of the investigative interviewing and evidence gathering was even done. "

Wait. I thought the early drafts were full of clear wording for admitting guilt?
Now it was suddenly being drafted to be "nothing to charge" from the get go? Is it a Shroedingers draft? Where it says guilt and not guilty from the get go?
And why did they put some information about the guy this story is about between those parts? Are they taht desperate to distract from it?

 

What do we have actually as new Information in that article? The Server admin - after beign subpenoed for the emails - decided to delete the mails going back to 2015. In the first interview he lied about deleting them, wich is a felony. He quickly admitted it afterwards. He got a immunity deal, so that he could reveal anything relevant to the case (like they do in the movies).

Also the draft that was "from the get go designed to not cause charges" contained phrases like "grossly negligient" (causing charges) most of the itterations since it's start, being only changed in one of hte latest itterations.

 

You need a lot of layers of Chinese Whispers to get from that to "The FBI did everything but drive Hillary’s getaway car." So could I now get some Deep State Fries with my Nothingburger? Or do they still not exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

I so want internet provided by local government, like roads and libraries. Make it a public works function and call it a day. If they want a private sector response it can be contracted through a transparent RFP process. 

 

Grrr.

The city of Tacoma, Washington has tried this, or something like it. I am not an expert on the results, but interested persons might read up on the Click! network, and the controversies around it. (Again -- I don't know enough to make any judgment.)

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sociotard said:

More on the preferential treatment Hillary Clinton received from the FBI:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455192/fbi-gave-hillary-co-special-treatment-during-email-probe

 

Quote

Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News Contributor and a contributing editor of National Review Online.

 

At least the piece is fair and balanced.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hermit said:

So folks are wanting Oprah to run for president. I...respect how she rose from poverty and her charities, but I never understood the cult like worship she gets.

I do not understand the Cult followign Trump gets, and he did not rose from poverty.

Right now any lesser evil would be a better president. And with how much of her her followers watched her on TV, I guess they have a pretty clear picture what kind of president she would be.

 

Also she would be the first women, the 2nd Black and her name starts with a O like Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Christopher said:

I do not understand the Cult followign Trump gets, and he did not rose from poverty.

Right now any lesser evil would be a better president. And with how much of her her followers watched her on TV, I guess they have a pretty clear picture what kind of president she would be.

 

Also she would be the first women, the 2nd Black and her name starts with a O like Obama.

 

 

Oh, if it came down between Trump and Oprah I'd vote for Oprah no doubt.

 

But that's not saying much really for me. I'd vote for a turnip over Trump.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure the time is ripe for the election of produce to bear fruit.

 

Senator Feinstein has unilaterally released the transcripts of the Fusion GPS testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee (regarding the Steele dossier).  Seth Abramson is tweeting his read of the transcripts; I have no idea why he continues to post all his analyses on effing Twitter, but it can be followed at this threadreaderapp.com page if not on Twitter.com itself. (Reload often.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

If Oprah ran, I'd have to see who she ran against. She has a history of being fooled by fake memoirists and pushing bad pop psychology.

 

So you're against self-aggrandizing individuals who make poor decisions about the people they  surround themselves with, or the policies they promote?  Just checking... :) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

If we elect produce, we can make America grape again!

 

8 minutes ago, Christopher said:

The question is if it would be ripe for it?

Or overripe already!

 

Don't squash his fun, or he might start to wine... or maybe start raisin some hell...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×