monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

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.

Good point.

The fact that Trump is a treasonous russian agent has not yet been fully established.

1 Reply

@layman,

It's Mr Otis' interpretation of the law that's risible, not the law itself.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

It's Mr Otis' interpretation of the law that's risible, not the law itself.

Hahahahaha. Nice try, cheese-eater. This guy is a law professor at a prominent U.S. law school. What are your credentials, eh?

Credentials aside, any idiot who can read can tell that his "interpretation" is obviously correct.

1 Reply

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/337940-senate-passes-russia-sanctions-deal

Quote:

The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia and giving Congress the ability to block President Trump from lifting current penalties.

Senators voted 98-2 on the bill, which also includes new sanctions targeting Iran’s ballistic missile development, support for terrorism, transfer of weapons and human rights violations. Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voted against the measure.

0 Replies

@layman,

How about "There is absolutely no known basis for any claim that such a link exists, notwithstanding some partisan-inspired conspiracy theories which have been completely debunked (and which I had previously swallowed whole)." I would find that to an acceptable retraction, even though it still "leaves the door open" for nuts to claim otherwise.

0 Replies

@layman,

The guy and whatever links he has with Comey were well known when he was picked by this administration as special prosecutor. If the issue didn't bother his employer, why should it bother him? He's not even mandated to look at Comey's dismissal.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The guy and whatever links he has with Conway were well known when he was picked by this administration as special prosecutor. If the issue didn't bother his employer, why should it bother him?

He wasn't picked to investigate Trump's (recently trumped-up) "obstruction of justice." He was picked to investigate "russian collusion." Reports are that he undertook to change his agenda, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Exactly. Therefore there's no conflict of interest.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Exactly. Therefore there's no conflict of interest.

Try to keep up, Ollie. It's now being reported that he has taken it upon himself to investigate "obstruction of justice" because Trump fired his homey, Comey.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

I wrote I wouldn't be surprised. The article you quoted provided all I needed to call bullshit, however I did listen to the embedded audio files and while Media Matters didn't alter any of the words they quoted, listening to the files confirmed that they distorted what he said.

I don't recall anyone calling for the "ring wing media" to be shut down after Ms Giffords was shot, but that of course doesn't mean no one did, but it's immaterial since even Savage (according to the quotes used in the article you cited and the embedded audio files) didn't call for the "left wing media" to be shut down.

In any case, if Savage is such a hate filled lunatic why should anyone care what he said? Because some people may agree with him? Plenty of people don't agree with him and there is absolutely no reason to believe that his comments will actually inspire an effort, either at the grass roots or in Congress, to a) shut down the left wing media b) have the government take control of the media in general, social media, or twitter or c) have Rachel Maddow and others removed from the airwaves by the federal government

If fact the only things among these three fears that can even be attributed to him as possibly his suggestions are the government taking over Twitter and some other unspecified social media sites which is ridiculous and isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Quote:

As regards to what republicans will or not do, who knows.

Well, who knows if the Sun will rise tomorrow morning? There are a lot of things we don't know but can safely assume and one is that the Republican controlled congress is not going to bring in the heads of CNN and MSNBC and make them tell them what they are doing to curtail
the sneering hatred of Rachel Maddow or any other employee.

The practice of finding outrageous comments from a single figure on the right or the left and then implying or flat out claiming that the person somehow is speaking for all, most or a significant amount of people on the right or the left is pretty common in this forum, and it holds virtually no worth in terms of a contribution. When there is a linked external source distorting the comments in it's presentation of them, the practice enters the realm of dishonesty. I'm not accusing you of dishonesty here, but at some point your continued reliance on as partisan and dishonest a site as Media Matters; as a purveyor of the truth is telling us something about you that is not flattering.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Whoever Savage is, his reputation for honesty must certainly be higher than that of Rachel Maddcow. Her reputation for honesty is, as someone recently put it, "second to virtually everyone."

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

You act as though Savage is some way out there guy no one pays to attention, you're half right but Trump pays attention to him and that matters.

I didn't think their quote was misquoted. As for the rest, it is your opinion only.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I think the electoral college should be proportionately assigned. So far only Maine an Nebraska are thus,all the rest are "winner take All", and states like California would have their electoral votes increased to represent the real population not some artificial assignment.

Couldn't agree more.

(That would almost guarantee a long chain of Republican victories though, are you good with that?)

3 Replies

@McGentrix,

Im good with that, We need to break these damned ideologically driven politics . Were returning to the Reconstruction period.
Remember, this is in addition to fixing the gerrymandered congressional districts.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

It's a better system, regardless of the election results

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

With respect to your point, Gent:

Quote:

The record shows that President Barack Obama was reelected in 2012 by defeating Mitt Romney with 332 electoral votes to 206. Even though Obama won the popular vote by a single percentage point (50% to 49%), many consider the election to be a landslide, because Obama’s margin in the Electoral College was 62% to 38%.

http://occasionalplanet.org/2012/11/16/what-if-electoral-votes-were-awarded-proportionally/

Had the electoral votes been awarded proportionately, the final total would have been 276-264, a "squeaker" not a "landslide."

In 2016 neither candidate would have had a majority, but Trump would have had it if he could pick up (by bargaining) the 3 given to Johnson (2) and McMullin (1).

What would happen then? Constant, eternal bitching from cheese-eaters, just like now, eh?

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Senior Administration and campaign officials who work for Putin and then lie about it are not innocent.

The only thing they might be guilty of is failing to register as a foreign agent. And it would be an abuse of prosecutorial discretion to launch a major prosecution over such a trivial crime.

And that has nothing to do with Trump in any case, especially since none of them are currently part of the Trump Administration.

Blickers wrote:

Attorneys General who meet with Russian ambassadors and then lie about it twice are not innocent.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Some of these supposed meetings may not have happened. And there is no proof that his statements were untrue, much less an intentional lie.

And any contacts that did happen may very well be entirely innocent. Incoming administrations have the right to have contacts with other countries.

Blickers wrote:

This investigation is necessary to safeguard America from foreign influences running our country.

If foreign influences on elections are a huge crime, then we need to pack Bill Clinton and Barack Obama off to an Israeli prison cell for their efforts to get Netanyahu voted out of office.

And this investigation is not trying to do one single thing to learn about attacks on our elections or how to prevent future attacks. The only thing this investigation is trying to do is prosecute members of the Trump Administration for any trivial offense they can find (or worse, concoct).

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

You like playing Nazi, don't you?

Outlawing a party that is trying to abuse the law to convict innocent people of imaginary crimes is not in any way similar to the acts of the Nazis.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

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...

You have the facts wrong. This prosecutor brought his friend into the fight when he chose to investigate his firing as a supposed crime (even though the law is very clear that there was no crime).

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The guy and whatever links he has with Comey were well known when he was picked by this administration as special prosecutor. If the issue didn't bother his employer, why should it bother him?

Mueller's employer has clearly exercised very poor judgement.

Olivier5 wrote:

He's not even mandated to look at Comey's dismissal.

And yet he is looking into it anyway.

2 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know