192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
TheCobbler
 
  1  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 11:47 am
@izzythepush,
Maybe if you would grow up you could explain it.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 11:53 am
@TheCobbler,
That's a put down worthy of a thirteen year old, which is probably when neoteny kicked in
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
layman
 
  -4  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 12:05 pm
Democrats love to claim that voters with advanced degrees are more likely to vote for them. Figures, sho nuff:

Quote:
Fresno State University Professor Lars Maischak , shortly before Trump took office, asked: “Has anyone started soliciting money and design drafts for a monument honoring the Trump assassin, yet? To save American democracy, Trump must hang, the sooner and the higher, the better.”

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -4  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 12:09 pm
@oralloy

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message3553484/pg1

The take on a rational forum...

Quote:
With the WaPo being the main propaganda arm....this is so far out of control


Quote:
I could not stop thinking about how much the Dems have pushed for violence against Republicans and now this shooting....the party needs to be shut down!!!!!


Quote:
And the MSM is an accessory to an assassination attempt.


Quote:
They hype up the Russian lie - while importing illegals and unvetted 'refugees' to use as politicized weapons against the civilians, socially, economically, etc. - while leaving the borders open - while groping everyone at the airports when nukes or bio-weapons can pass through unnoticed.

Complete ******* retards


Quote:
The way the Russian lie was bounced around in the media reminded me of an echo chamber. It irritates the crap out of me and frightens me. We have a right to elect the president of our choosing. This is effectively 'suspending' the election subject to review by the opposition. The logic on their argument was no longer valid. But here we are still talking about it. They just want to snoop around in his personal business.


Quote:
I am getting to the point that unless Trump starts making arrests I will not feel sorry for him.


etc. etc. etc.......





0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 12:20 pm
@revelette1,
Really the only thing I know about Michael Savage is that those on the left hate him. They hate Rush Limbaugh too so that's not enough to convince me Savage is a lunatic.

Characterizing his statements (which were quoted) as a call for government takeover of the media is a typical distortion intended to cast someone considered right-wing in the worst of lights.

Since nothing he is purported to have said amounts to a call for government takeover of the media there's good reason to question whether anything he actually said really supports the claim that he also advocated for removing Rachel Maddow and others from the airwaves by the federal government

If his questions regarding taking control of Twitter or government taking control of social media sites are an accurate reflection of what he advocates, then, in this regard, he is, at the very least, wrong-headed.

His "demand" that Republicans “call a hearing and make the heads of CNN and MSNBC answer to them as to what they are doing to curtail the sneering hatred of Rachel Madcow in particular.” is absurd and would never be taken seriously by the Republican led Congress.

Considering that Media Matters directly linked Sarah Palin's use of "crosshair" symbols in a political ad and the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Gifford, it's pretty damned rich and highly hypocritical of Media Matters to report as anything but legitimate Savage's assertion, in his tirade, that yesterday's shooting incident was inspired by extreme political actions, rhetoric and images.

Now, as with the Gifford shooting, I think it's unconscionable to directly link even fiery political rhetoric to the violent actions of evil and/or mad people, as deliberate or wantonly careless incitement, but David Brock the amoral, opportunistic and thoroughly despicable founder and former CEO of Media Matters obviously didn't agree.

Media Matters should never be relied upon as a source of any truth. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out they altered Savage's words that they quoted.



layman
 
  -3  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 12:51 pm
From USA Today:

Quote:
Robert Mueller should recuse himself from Russia investigation

I met Mueller only once, when he was assistant attorney general for the criminal division. From what I know of his reputation, he's an honest, no-nonsense, effective prosecutor.

Under the present circumstances, however, and not without regret, I believe that the same ethics rules the attorney general cited in his Tuesday testimony counsel against Mueller's continuing to serve in the role assigned to him.

28 CFR Section 45.2 provides in part: "no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution;...

Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. ... (including friendships)..."

One thing that can be said with clarity is that, under the ethics rules cited by Sessions, Mueller has a long-term relationship with Comey that "may result in a personal ... conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof."

Mueller is therefore disqualified. I hope and suspect that Mueller, whom I believe to be a partisan of the rule of law, will see this. If he doesn't, I hope Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/06/14/mueller-should-recuse-himself-from-investigating-russia--comey-william-otis-column/102827924/

Any bets?
layman
 
  -2  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 12:59 pm
A Republican could attend a banquet held for hundreds of ambassadors from all over the world, and the only thing CNN would report would be that he "met with a russian official with close ties to Putin."

Ten minutes later every cheese-eater in the country would have already accused him of treason.

Aint that right, Blicky?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 01:04 pm
@layman,
Amusing. So the easy way to get rid of a prosecutor is to attack a friend of his and draw him into the fight. The prosecutor is now friend with a party to the dispute and should recuse himself...
gungasnake
 
  -3  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 01:05 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
His "demand" that Republicans “call a hearing and make the heads of CNN and MSNBC answer to them as to what they are doing to curtail the sneering hatred of Rachel Madcow in particular.” is absurd and would never be taken seriously by the Republican led Congress.


Yet what Maddow and others of her ilk are doing is very closely akin to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater, which is illegal. She could be prosecuted for inciting riots, for incitement to violence, for incitement to murder, and/or for a number of similar offenses. One way or another, this Democrat drumbeat thing needs to be shut down. That kind of **** has predictable consequences which cannot be ignored or wished away.

On the other hand, trying to solve this problem by outlawing semiautomatic rifles would be utterly futile. Somebody with the littlest bit of talent could achieve the same effect as this shooter did with an ordinary little 22 or 22 WMR caliber lever – action Henry rifle which is a $300-$400 item on GunBroker.com all day long.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -4  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 01:06 pm
@layman,
Robert Mueller is a Democrat hack and that's all he is. His hacking ass needs to be sent packing.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -4  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 01:06 pm
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448664/new-york-times-steve-scalise-shameful-editorial?utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=french&utm_content=nyt-shameful

Shame on the New York Times. Shame.

In this article, David French actually seems surprised and/or disappointed that the Editorial Board of the NY Times has sunk as low as David Brock and Media Matters. I don't know why he would be.

From the NY Times editorial:

Quote:
Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right. (Emphasis added.)


French in his article addresses what everyone should know already, (Thanks in part to the reporting of the NY Times which French cites to excellent effect) that the man who shot Rep. Gabby Gifford couldn't be a more solid example of a deeply deranged individual incapable of drawing rational connections between any two points in reality, let alone the allegedly clear and direct incitement of Palin's use of crosshair symbols in a political ad and whatever voices in his head were calling him to commit murder and mayhem.

We often leap to connecting evil deeds with insanity, but, by comparison, this shooter made yesterday's seem as sane as a...member of the NY Times Editorial Board!

Perhaps French was being a bit disingenuous with his surprise because as he notes, this is the same paper that tried to link the murderous rampage in an Orlando nightclub by an Islamist terrorist with Republican efforts to keep men from using women's bathrooms.

Down goes the Washington Post...

Down goes the New York Times...

I believe that someone in this thread noted that the NY Times had made an odd and ill conceived decision to do away with their Public Editor position (It was often the only place on the OpEd Page to find any
sensible perspective and objectivity), but perhaps the editors had already made the decision to go lower than ever before, were merely looking for the right opportunity to plummet and didn't want some nagging, nit-picker scolding them in their own Paper of Record.

revelette1
 
  4  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 01:07 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Media Matters should never be relied upon as a source of any truth. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out they altered Savage's words that they quoted.


If you think it did, then go to the embedded links and see for yourself or google it.

I do not recall anyone on the left calling for "right wing media" to be shut down after Giffords shooting. If I am wrong, I am sure you would show me.

As regards to what republicans will or not do, who knows.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -3  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 01:14 pm
@layman,
Quote:
I hope and suspect that Mueller, whom I believe to be a partisan of the rule of law, will see this. If he doesn't, I hope Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein will.


Fat chance of either, and who is this Otis guy anyway? He may be a former federal prosecutor, and former special counsel for President George H.W. Bush (Knew it! He's a Republican shill and Trump apologist!) but he's just an "adjunct" professor at a third rate school.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -3  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 01:15 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
The NYT got so much heat for this that they had to publish a "correction," eh, Finn?

Quote:
New York Times forced to correct editorial after Scalise shooting

The New York Times was forced on Thursday to correct an editorial that stated as fact a debunked theory that the gunman who shot Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords in 2011 was inspired by a map circulated by Sarah Palin.

Correction: June 15, 2017

An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.


Quite a change from the claim that "there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack," eh?
revelette1
 
  3  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 01:29 pm
U.S. Senate passes Russia sanctions, hampers Trump (NBC News)

Quote:
WASHINGTON — The Senate passed legislation on Thursday that would impose additional sanctions against Russia and limit the president's power to lift them in the future.

The measure will now go to the House of Representatives, where the path forward is not clear.

"The speaker was a vocal proponent of the last round of sanctions and believes we must do more to hold Russia accountable," said AshLee Strong, a spokesperson for House Speaker Paul Ryan. "The Foreign Affairs Committee is reviewing the details in this latest sanctions package being voted on in the Senate, and after that we will determine a path ahead in the House."

If it passes the House, President Donald Trump would have to either sign or veto a bill that the White House has not publicly weighed in on yet.
gungasnake
 
  -4  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 01:32 pm
@layman,
Quote:
since Frogs have no restraints on corruption whatsoever.


Worse than that, they eat snails.....

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/ff/Poison_Help.svg/1024px-Poison_Help.svg.png

UUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH......


0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -4  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 01:35 pm
@revelette1,
revelette1 wrote:

WASHINGTON — The Senate passed legislation on Thursday that would impose additional sanctions against Russia and limit the president's power to lift them in the future.


Commie-ass Bernie Sanders voted against this bill, eh? Go figure.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -4  
Thu 15 Jun, 2017 01:49 pm
@layman,
Did they issue an apology to Palin as well?

This correction is bullshit and was most likely motivated by the fear of a libel suit from Palin. I didn't think French was on the mark with that, but maybe I was wrong or, at least, the Times' lawyers thought it was too close for comfort.

The entire basis of the editorial was that anyone on the right who might suggest that yesterday's shooting incident was in anyway incited by words, deeds, or symbols from the left is a monumental hypocrite because the GOP candidate for VP in 2008 has provided the best example of a political figure clearly and directly inciting someone to violently attack another political figure. They didn't cite and rely on a theory proposed by some psychiatrist or political science professor that, because they didn't happen to keep up with the scholarly discourse surrounding it, they weren't aware had been debunked through a process of peer review. It was their belief and I guarantee you that it remains their belief.

Quote:
An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.(emphasis added)


Still going low with their correction.

If their error was to state that a link existed than the correction should have been that in fact no link existed.

Stating the link was never established of course leaves the door open to it nevertheless existing.

It's worse that the original editorial.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.46 seconds on 03/10/2025 at 07:28:37