monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Let's see, now...
Trump brand Shirts are made in China, Bangladesh,Honduras and Vietnam.
Trump brand Suits are made in Indonesia and Mexico.
Trump brand Eyeglasses are made in China.
Trump brand mirrors,vases,wall decor, kitchen items,and lighting are made in China.
Trump brand hotel pens and toiletries are made in China and Taiwan.

Ivanka's clothing line is made entirely in China, Indonesia, Vietnam, India, Bangladesh and Ethiopia.

Trump is promoting this week as "Made in America Week".
Do his dumb **** followers just like being chumped, or what?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/07/16/white-house-unveils-made-in-america-week-though-many-trump-products-are-made-overseas/?utm_term=.40075f9ad4a3

I think his followers are willing to put up with the dishonesty because they view liberals/progressives/democrates/moderates as smarty pants know-it-alls who must be put in their place. It's a pipe dream, they have to be the winners and somebody has to be the loser, who better to be the loser than those smarty pants who went to college, read many sources of information, and have the audacity to say Professional Rassling is fake. It's un-American....in this country we celebrate the stupids, that way we never have to feel inadequate. No muss, no fuss.

Of course they wrote this up, Obama made sure he stacked the senior military leadership with left-wing hacks who actually thought Climate Change was a bigger threat than say Russia... I'm pretty sure they saw CC as a bigger threat than ISIS, the JV team... Those who wish to harm the US have been laughing their asses off at us since Jan 2009.

I'd thought, the Quadrennial Defense Review was congressionally mandated.

Rather than continuing to insult oralloy, why don't you just answer his quite reasonable question?



As a reminder, Olivier began with the following:

(emphasis added by Olivier)

Layman, asked Olivier essentially the same question as oralloy has asked you and like you he has, as yet, not provided a meaningful answer. However, unlike you he has not responded at all, which probably means he had been involved with other matters and will likely provide an answer when he returns. You on the other hand, have had the opportunity to provide a meaningful answer, but have limited your responses to gratuitous insults, in what appears to be an effort to dodge the question.

Clearly he didn't ask you which parts of the article Olivier was referring to, and yet you chose to answer his actual question as if he did. Perhaps at the time you misunderstood his question, but when he reiterated it you responded with the quoted comment that leads this post.

Since you have never answered his actual question your feigned dilemma over not knowing how to "dumb it down" is a non-sequitor. Are you still having trouble understanding his question? Maybe he's the one who needs to engage in "dumbing down." Maybe you're waiting for Olivier to return and respond so you can chime in with "What he said!"

Layman successfully debunked the notion that Steele was on a moral mission to stop Trump and continued his work on a pro bono basis; meeting the obligations of a good world citizen and passing on his work, free of charge, to the FBI and British intelligence agencies. So now all that's left is the bit about Republican opponents of Trump originally funding the opposition research.

Politics is a dirty business and particularly when it involves the most powerful position on the planet. In my view, paying anyone to dig up dirt on a political opponent doesn't speak well of them, but they all do it. That Republicans may have initiated this particular deep dive in the sewer has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of the muck Steele claimed he dredged up, and since that was what layman was addressing, there was no need to include it in his cite.

However you and Olivier are convinced the absence of this fact in layman's post is quite telling. Layman and oralloy both asked the question that remains outstanding: What is the significance of the fact that Republicans initiated the opposition research by Steele?

If you can't provide an answer or for some unfathomable reason don't want to, then don't, but the person here who most looks like a fool (and a nasty one at that) is the one who keeps dodging the question while releasing childish insults like the hot flares military jets use as defensive counter-measures.

Your responses remind me of a grade school kid who finds himself on the verge of a fistfight he fears he'll lose. When pressed to put up or shut up he, reliably, responds to the effect "I don't what to waste my time fighting a maggot like you."

This is always the claim by the left and the extreme left, but there is never any proof that the tax changes only benefit the "extreme left".


So people who pay 0 in federal taxes would actually have to pay some income taxes? Talk about paying your fair share... BTW, it was Bush 43 who created the 10% bracket as part of his "tax cuts for the rich" program you guys hated so much.


Do you actually have any proof of this or more leftist liberal claptrap? I have only heard that he wanted to reduce the tax rate and get rid of some of the tax write-off's. Nothing I have heard has ever mentioned additional write-off's.


I don't believe this is true either and I think you are making up your own Trump tax plan. Proof?


The ignorant think that the money I earn belongs to the govt and to others. I never see a wealthy leftist pay more based on their personal beliefs, they are waiting for everyone else to "lead the way" or for the govt to make them.

I think you are (once again) trying much too hard to appear smart and superior. Such forced and awkward efforts tactics usually have the opposite effect on the reader.

Is she trying any harder than orally who constantly claims he is "a billion" times smarter than most of us?

No.

Well dang George.........and all I've ever cared about was impressing you, shonuff, eh big guy.

The charge of lying is thrown around today like confetti. People in DC have been lying for centuries and getting away with it. Americans now consider it SOP for politicians and if they like the politician they will bend over backwards to accept hyper-technical explanations (perhaps the most famous being "It depends on what your definition of is,is.") or separate the lie from materiality. If they don't like the politician, they will insist that any and all statements that contain anything not demonstrably true,(forget about proving falsehood or intent) must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Memes like this one are amusing for several reasons. One is how drenched they are in hypocrisy. Another is that they imply that we live in a black and white Manichean world where Good is constantly squaring off against Evil. When they are the product of the Religious Right it's to be expected but when they come from the Secular Left, the irony is funny. Finally, they usually contain glaring contradictions like this one does: Hillary Clinton's crimes are "imaginary" because she has never been formerly charged (let alone convicted), with any. On the other hand, although Flynn and Kushner have also not been formerly charged, (let alone convicted), with any crime it's an unquestionable fact that they have committed them. This last one could not provide a better example of competing tribal, partisan perspectives.

These procedural forms like SB 86 are pages long and contain a ton of questions. While lying is SOP in DC, so is amending these forms. The need to amend could be due to an honest error, a failure to remember precisely what happened 35 years ago in Tunisia, or a blatant lie. Amending one of these forms by a Democrat or Republican is not an admission of lying.

Flynn has been punished for lying. He was forced to resign a prominent and powerful position in the Trump Administration. His reputation has been stained, and his future financial prospects have been diminished. I won't argue with anyone who believes this does not constitute sufficient punishment, but I would expect that such a belief wouldn't be primarily informed by Flynn's politics. He has not been charged with any crime, but if he is and he's convicted in a fair proceeding, I won't have much sympathy for him. He didn't have to lie.

It is not as certain that Kushner or Sessions lied on their SB 86's as this meme would have us believe. We'll see what happens at the end of Mueller's investigation.

It's entirely predictable that a person's politics will play a major role in how they view not only lying but possibly criminal activity in the case of a favored politician. This sort of prejudice is rampant in our judgments of such things and it's not fueled only by politics. People's judgments about guilt or innocence, or the extent of punishment that is deserved are influenced by characteristics and affiliations all the time. What is most rare is finding someone who can consistently put aside such prejudices.
I will freely admit that I am not such a person, but then I don't know anyone who is.

Republicans, in general, were never going to get as charged up about the alleged or actual sins of Trump and his administration, just like Democrats were never going to get as charged about the alleged or actual sins of the Clintons. Both sides have stalwarts who will loudly declare that the difference is that their politicians actually are innocent or their sins are meaningless, while the other guys are clearly guilty and their sins are earthshaking. I suppose it's not unexpected that these stalwarts will go on and on and on about the perfidy and depravity of those who don't agree with their harsh judgments of the other guys, or, heaven forbid, attempt to defend them or minimize the impact of their sins. For the stalwarts, it seems, the defenders and apologists may actually be more vile than the criminals they support, and they often call down the wrath of God, Karma or History to deliver upon the vermin what they deserve.

Eventually the investigations will conclude and charges will or will not be filed. If the former, trials will be held and/or pardons will be ordered. There will be some indication of guilt or innocence. Predictions on how it will all turn out are premature, but there is one prediction that anyone can make with rock solid certainty of it coming true: There will be a bunch of people who will refuse to accept the results (no matter what they are) and their refusal will be based entirely on tribal, partisan politics.

In the meantime it's really getting both annoying and boring to have some Democrats and liberals chastise and condemn Trump supporters on a daily basis for their unpardonable failure to agree with them, just as it must have been annoying and boring to have Republicans and conservatives do the same to Clinton supporters. I guess there's nothing that can be done about it though. This too shall pass.

You must not have read Finn's last screed. I was poking fun with you by kind of repeating what he had said about the way you argue. I don't blame you - I skip over most of the bloviating bullcrap he writes, too.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-exclusive-idUSKCN0Q62RQ20150802
August 1, 2015 / 11:42 PM / 2 years ago

Exclusive: Donald Trump's companies have sought visas to import at least 1,100 workers

Oh. My. God.
Finn! I'm positive that if any of the progressive-leaning members knew that the things they posted on these boards annoys or bores you, of all people, they would have drastically moderated their tone, or ceased posting entirely!


Bwahahahahahahaaaaaa!!!!!! Like someone gives a **** they annoy or bore you.

David Letterman exposes Donald Trump

You can't understand that by yourself, Finn? Did you misplace your couple of neurons or what?

Let me explain it to you: Lieman deleted theses parts because they said that the infamous dossier was requested and initially paid for by a republican, then by a dem, then finished pro bono and sent to legitimate US agencies. You see, Lieman was eager to blame it all on democrats. That's why he doctered the wiki quote.

Got it now?

To me the claim that Sessions lied is just ridiculous. He explained his statement in a completely rational and convincing way. You always have to look at the context of a question and answer.

The same is true about the context of answers by anyone in this administration about denying any "collusion" with the russians. What was intended, at the time, by the charges of collusion was essentially the false charges in the Steele dossier--that Trump was a russian agent, successfully recruited over a five year period. That he had conspired with russia to hack the DNC, and was paying for the operation; that he was being blackmailed to do russia's bidding; and, as further incentive, was being paid billions of dollars in bribes.

These are serious criminal charges involving theft, corruption, and sedition. When Trump adamantly denies "collusion," that's the context. But the cheese-eaters keep moving the goal-posts, ex post facto, so now all they really ever meant by "collusion" was being willing (even eager) to hear what a russian national claimed to know about Clinton.

The cheese-eaters are acting like an extremely jealous wife, a thought I'll pursue in my next post.

Heh, Finn the moral relativist!

darn, well don't keep me hanging.....let me guess....did somebody call me a maggot? Arghhh, Never mind, Nope, nope, don't tell me.....I'll have a freaking melt down. My entire self worth is tied up in having strangers like me.....Finn and I are sensitive like that.

If you have through long experience learned that your wife is extremely jealous, and will go on a hysterical tirade if you "flirt" with another woman, then you are quite likely to tell her a "white lie" just to avoid all the drama.

For example, suppose I'm at the mall with my jealous wife and head to the other end of the mall. En route I say "hello," in passing, to a woman from our neighborhood that we both know.

When I return she demands to know if I talked to that woman.

With a normal person, the response would be "yeah, I said hello," but with her this will just lead to accusations that I am trying to seduce the woman, that I have been secretly screwing her all along, that I just made a date with her, etc., so I say "No, I didn't." I don't feel guilty because I know the greeting was completely innocent and am not trying to "deceive" my wife in any significant way. I'm just trying to avoid upsetting my wife and engaging in a fruitless round of denying false accusations, for the well-being of all concerned.

Junior has said in the past something to the effect that he had not met with "russians" in connection with the campaign (that he recalled). There was nothing memorable about this meeting, or anything improper (like Sessions seeing the russian ambassador in his senate duties for discussions completely unrelated to the Trump campaign).

There is nothing to hide, per se. There was no "collusion" in any reasonable meaning of the term (if it has a reasonable meaning at all). But why bring that crap up just to set up another round of phony-ass OUTRAGE feigned in an attempt to make innocent behavior look guilty? Why go through the bullshit? Why disclose it at all? No meaningful purpose would be served.

Under the circumstances I wouldn't have mentioned it either. Junior did not seek a security clearance and was under no duty to disclose it. The only reason this meeting ever came to light in the first place was because Kushner voluntarily disclosed it in connection with his security questionnaire.