192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Blickers
 
  5  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 01:45 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote Baldimo:
Quote:
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

And yet Obama made sure that NATO was kept strong and secure, and Trump is talking about it being obsolete. When Russia took over Eastern Europe after WWII, NATO was formed to prevent Russia from going into Western Europe to prevent it being enslaved like Eastern Europe. It worked. Thus prevented from expanding, the Russian economy collapsed in 1991, whereupon the captive Eastern Europeans were able to pull away from Russia and join NATO to prevent Russia from taking them back. That worked. With Russia unable to expand and suck neighboring countries dry, it is now in a deep economic depression. The only move left is for the Russian people to realize that authoritarianism doesn't work and replace the likes of Putin with a modern, democratic leader who take advantage of Russia's highly educated population and mineral resources to enrich his people.

Instead, Trump is throwing Putin a lifeline and talking about disbanding NATO so Russia can move right back into it's old Eastern European nations and sponge off their wealth once again. Trump is buddy buddy with Putin and starts fights with our European NATO allies.

No question, Trump is the greatest American president Russia ever had.
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 01:56 pm
glitterbag wrote:

I'm not really arguing with prince george, he just strikes me funny......ok, he doesn't intend to be funny, but that's whats so darn funny. However, I take your point, it's a little lazy sticking pins in a gasbag....just too easy.


I think the lady protests too much.
layman
 
  -3  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 02:00 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

glitterbag wrote:

I'm not really arguing with prince george, he just strikes me funny......ok, he doesn't intend to be funny, but that's whats so darn funny. However, I take your point, it's a little lazy sticking pins in a gasbag....just too easy.


I think the lady protests too much.


Indeed. And it aint the least bit convincing, for that very reason (among others). Interesting that Bag would choose the word "gasbag." It fits her perfectly.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 02:01 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

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?


The question was never "Why do you think layman edited the wikipedia text?" It was, what do you think the significance of the missing text was as regards the overall story?

You've answered it the context of layman's intention behind the edit. Fair enough. I can see why.

Do you think that, (aside from any intention layman may or may not have had), Republicans initially paying for the opposition research has any bearing on the veracity of its results, or the funding of it by Democrats?

Is the wikipedia article the source of your belief that Steele "finished the research pro bono?" Are you aware that the FBI paid Steele at least $50,000 in connection with the "research?"

Assuming it is true, what do you make of Steele working for free and providing the FBI and British Intelligence with his final product?

Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 02:03 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
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.

Heh, Finn the moral relativist!


No, Finn who appreciates the humor than can be found in irony. As I also noted, one would expect such a view from members of the Religious Right. When it is expressed by Secular Leftists, it's amusing.
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 02:09 pm
@Blickers,
Quote:
And yet Obama made sure that NATO was kept strong and secure,

As the expense of American taxpayers.

Quote:
and Trump is talking about it being obsolete. When Russia took over Eastern Europe after WWII, NATO was formed to prevent Russia from going into Western Europe to prevent it being enslaved like Eastern Europe. It worked. Thus prevented from expanding, the Russian economy collapsed in 1991, whereupon the captive Eastern Europeans were able to pull away from Russia and join NATO to prevent Russia from taking them back. That worked. With Russia unable to expand and suck neighboring countries dry, it is now in a deep economic depression. The only move left is for the Russian people to realize that authoritarianism doesn't work and replace the likes of Putin with a modern, democratic leader who take advantage of Russia's highly educated population and mineral resources to enrich his people.

That was a whole lot of nothing to do with what I was talking about. Obama didn't see Russia as a problem, just like you leftists didn't see a problem with the USSR and sided with them over Reagan when it came to dealing with the Russians. For your information, the Russian economy was already in trouble in the 80's that's why the USSR failed. I noticed you bypassed US/Russian relations from the late 80's, making sure Reagan gets no credit for the fall of the Commies.

Quote:
Instead, Trump is throwing Putin a lifeline and talking about disbanding NATO so Russia can move right back into it's old Eastern European nations and sponge off their wealth once again. Trump is buddy buddy with Putin and starts fights with our European NATO allies.

Russia has done a majority of it's expansion in recent years while Obama was in power and Obama didn't do anything to stop them.

He promised "More flexibility after the elections..."
Can you imagine the field day the leftist media would have had if any one from the right had said that?

When asked during the 2012 election cycle, Obama said Russia wasn't a threat and said to Romney that the 80's wanted their foreign policy back. I wonder how much in check Russia would be right now if Obama had taken the Russian threat seriously instead of playing games and offering more flexibility towards our enemy. Obama failed in his relations with Russia and now the American people have to deal with his failure.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -2  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 02:13 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Is the wikipedia article the source of your belief that Steele "finished the research pro bono?" Are you aware that the FBI paid Steele at least $50,000 in connection with the "research?"

Assuming it is true, what do you make of Steele working for free and providing the FBI and British Intelligence with his final product?


1. The wiki article clearly says this, if Ollie actually cared to read it accurately:

wiki wrote:
In October 2016 the FBI reached an agreement with Steele to pay him to continue his work, according to involved sources reported by The Washington Post.


2. Although Steele, having cut a deal, was working with the expectation of getting lucrative compensation in return, the story is that the FBI ultimately reneged on this deal (negotiated by McCabe, whose wife had received hundreds of thousands in campaign funding from the DNC).

But the fact that he got stiffed cannot retroactively render his employment as having "pro bono" status.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 02:16 pm
@georgeob1,
Of course you do.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 02:26 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

Quote:
In the meantime it's really getting both annoying and boring

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.


If I honestly thought "progressive-leaning members" (That's a laugh all by itself Smile ) such as you and your new buddy, would refrain from posting your usual tripe, I would have mentioned it was annoying and boring a long, long time ago.

Out of curiosity, how do you characterize your repeated screeds about the utterly vile nature of Trump defenders and apologists who post here?

Speaking Truth to Power? Speaking Truth to Maggots? Indulging in the melodramatics we all know you so studiously try to avoid?

Are you so confident that we all secretly really give a colossal turd about what you think of us, that if you just keep repeating it ad nauseam, you'll eventually break us all down and we'll all fall on our cyber knees and ask for your forgiveness?
farmerman
 
  5  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 02:31 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
canfeel the love in the room.
layman
 
  -3  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 02:51 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

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?


For the record:

1. I did not "doctor" any quote.
2. As stated, even assuming it were relevant to the point, the republican opp research was not obtained for the purpose of publishing it, and they did NOT hire Steele to create a false report. They did not request, or pay for, a single word of the "dossier," as you falsely claim. Only the democrats did that.
3. As has already been noted a couple of times, Steele was not working "pro bono" for the FBI. Why would I want to include, rather than exclude, a false claim? That's what YOU do, not me.

Nice try, cheese-eater.
layman
 
  -3  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 03:07 pm
It turns out that Steele is claiming that Fusion had agreed with him not to publish any part of his dossier.

A rather convenient clause to facilitate his scam, if true. No one would ever be aware of his absolute license to create fictitious libel to please his "bosses" and collect a quarter of a million dollars in the process.

Well, to be fair, he did not get all of that money. Fusion kept about half of it, and he has admitted that he PAID russian spies for info (which makes it's reliability all the more suspect), although it's not clear that they were paid by him rather than Fusion.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 03:41 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

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.


As sure as I am that they would love to see it revealed that Trump was and still is an agent of the Russian government either because of hundreds of millions of dollars in direct payments and/or favorable deals, or because they are blackmailing him with Golden Shower Call Girl videos, at this point anything they can get to loosely stick will be fine with them. Since they are having so much fun and some success with disinformation and innuendo, a real, provable transgression of any scope will be orgasmic for them.

Just look how far they are trying to go with the idiotic meeting Trump Jr took with the Russian lawyer. There are prominent liberal pundits and politicians tossing around the word "treason," and braying that an e-mail in which the idiot son wrote "I love it!" is, at last, the "smoking gun" for which they've all been questing.

There are a number of voices on the Left (the latest being Gavin Newsom, who longs to be the next governor of California - if it doesn't secede first...in which case he could shoot for the fledgling nation's first Dear Leader, Chairman, Premier, or Grand Poobah) urging the Democrats and the MSM to break free of their obsession with Russian Collusion and develop an actual agenda for at least being seen to do something favorable for average Americans. Their common attribute? They can't all rely on Anti-Fa sympathizers to get them elected. However, the Opposition will not be deterred!

They've found what so many patriots long for, a sacred mission to save their beloved America from the clutches of a tyrant! Don't believe they are motivated by love of country? Me neither, but at this point they are like the Bürgermeister and his counsel who, having finally whipped up their townspeople into a frenzy sufficient to see them follow their lead in an assault on Castle Frankenstein, can't put a stop to their march and deny the people their blood and destruction, for fear that the torches and pitchforks will be turned on them.

The Sessions hearing played out just the way anyone with an ounce of awareness of the political climate should have expected. The Democrats threw to the gutter Senate tradition and any pretense of having forged a cordial and cooperative relationship with their Republican colleague from Alabama. In an unprecedented stunt designed to further his transparent desire to be the next president of the US, Corey Booker suddenly found that there were all sorts of "conscience" and "country" reasons to speak out against his fellow senator, despite his acknowledgment that he has enjoyed "collegiality" with Senator Sessions, and especially when they worked together on a bill to give the Congressional Gold Medal to civil rights marchers. (Imagine that. Booker is willing to be collegial with a racist whose values make him unfit to serve his country, if that's what it takes to pass an important bill awarding a Congressional Gold Medal to people whose courage and influence this nation has completely ignored for decades! He would be the perfect president to take on that villain Vladimir Putin!)

The Senators from the opposition party carefully laid out interlocutory traps for Sessions and the Alabama Senator carefully avoided stepping in them with answers that were very specific to the questions asked. Can you imagine that?! No Democrat nominee has ever tried to skillfully avoid traps set for them by Republicans! The thought of doing so would never have even crossed their minds!

The only mistake Sessions made was to cave in to the Left's hypocritical attacks (Senator McCasskill's (D-MO) being the most ludicrous) and try and fend them off with a promise of recusal. I don't know if he just cracked under the pressure or if he thought he was offering a gesture that might restore the Senatorial collegiality he had previously enjoyed, but it was the same apocryphal mistake made by Russian families who, one by one, threw their children to the pack of starving wolves running down their sleds, only to be ultimately torn to shreds and eaten themselves.
snood
 
  2  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 03:43 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

canfeel the love in the room.

He's FULL of ... love
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  -3  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 03:44 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

It turns out that Steele is claiming that Fusion had agreed with him not to publish any part of his dossier.


This claim seems suspect in light of the fact that he also admitted to meeting with a corp of journalists from Wapo, NYT, CNN, and many others to "inform" them of his findings.

His claim is that those briefings were all "on background," meaning that the information could not be attributed to him, and that they were merely "verbal" (i.e., he claims that he did not give them an actual copy of the "dossier"). As also noted, he has admitted that his "memos" were unverified and should never have been published.

It is interesting that those papers that published summaries said they came from a "former intelligence agent," and did not disclose that Steele was an employee of democrats. Just another subtle way to try to disguise "fake news."

It is also interesting that Steele appears to be blaming John McCain, who flew to England to get the information, for leaking it. The claim seems to be that he was one of a very few to have received an unredacted copy of the "dossier."
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 03:56 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
So, to be clear, you're a member of the Religious Right, then.
snood
 
  5  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 04:01 pm
To make the point that Donald Jr's actions were totally normal, business-as-usual politics, Jeanine Pirro (former judge and now Fox News personality) said on Fox News that if she got an offer of oppo research from the devil himself , she'd be on the first trolley to hell to get it. No, really. She said that.
I may need a translation from the esteemed Trump apologists here... Is this person actually making the case that it would be considered understandable and routine to take oppo research from anyone, no matter who? Serial killer? Al Quaeda? Child molester? The devil himself?

I guess you could always do the favorite right wing dodge and say 'OF COURSE she was just kidding - to make a point'. If you do pussy out and take that dodge, then tell me - what point was she making?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/342286-fox-news-host-defends-trump-jr-id-meet-with-the-devil-for-opposition
layman
 
  -2  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 04:07 pm
@snood,
Quote:
Is this person actually making the case that it would be considered understandable and routine to take oppo research from anyone, no matter who? Serial killer? Al Quaeda? Child molester? The devil himself?


Winston Churchill told Parliment that if Hitler invaded hell, he would be sure to make a favorable reference to the Devil.

Unbeknownst to cheese-eaters, as evidenced by their knee-jerk habit of attacking the source of any information they don't like, the source of information is irrelevant. The only question is whether or not the "information" at hand is true.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 04:14 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:

And yet Obama made sure that NATO was kept strong and secure, and Trump is talking about it being obsolete. When Russia took over Eastern Europe after WWII, NATO was formed to prevent Russia from going into Western Europe to prevent it being enslaved like Eastern Europe. It worked. Thus prevented from expanding, the Russian economy collapsed in 1991, whereupon the captive Eastern Europeans were able to pull away from Russia and join NATO to prevent Russia from taking them back. That worked. With Russia unable to expand and suck neighboring countries dry, it is now in a deep economic depression. The only move left is for the Russian people to realize that authoritarianism doesn't work and replace the likes of Putin with a modern, democratic leader who take advantage of Russia's highly educated population and mineral resources to enrich his people.

Instead, Trump is throwing Putin a lifeline and talking about disbanding NATO so Russia can move right back into it's old Eastern European nations and sponge off their wealth once again. Trump is buddy buddy with Putin and starts fights with our European NATO allies.

No question, Trump is the greatest American president Russia ever had.


You keep peddling the same arguments regardless of changing events. Maybe you're not on the mailing list for the Opposition's talking points as I previously suspected.

Recently in Poland, Trump clearly affirmed America's commitment to NATO and Article 5, and specifically criticized Russia for it's incursion into the Ukraine and their meddling in Syria. Now I realize that he made his Pro-NATO, Pro-Europe and Pro-Western statements within a speech that, as every left-winger knows, was actually an expression of nationalistic aggression based on the premise of white supremacy, but if we're to believe he was serious when he said NATO was obsolete, I don't know why we should doubt his latest stand on the subject. After all, presidents grow don't they? When Obama was first elected, he spoke in favor of marriage being limited to one man and one woman. Later he changed his mind after he grew. You don't mean to suggest President Obama was insincere when he initially voiced his support of traditional marriage do you?

As for Obama keeping NATO secure and strong, how did scuttling the ballistic missile system program for Poland and the Czech Republic help achieve that end? Is there any doubt, what-so-ever, that the villain Vladimir Putin was absolutely delighted by this move? That our European allies only learned of the plan at the last minute, and on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland was just evidence of the administrations ineptitude, that it had absolutely no impact on Russia's behavior (as was the obvious intent) is evidence of a feckless foreign policy that hardly had as it's main goal preserving and strengthening NATO...unless of course you buy that better relations between the US and Russia is good for the members of NATO, which I'm sure you would never be so foolish as to accept.

As for Trump's insistence that NATO members meet the defense goal spending they agreed to I realize left-wingers all recognize this as Trump's way of weakening NATO, but since he has never stated, tweeted or even hinted that if all NATO nations meet their obligations, the US will reduce it's spending to the same agreed upon level (2% of GDP and currently the US spends in excess of 3%), won't all that additional spending on defense make NATO stronger? It seems to be a matter of common sense, but then Obama didn't push these nations on the issue and according to you he strengthened NATO, so this must be another example of the genius Obama's strategy to achieve his goals by counter-intuitive means. Scrapping missile defense systems and allowing NATO members to shirk their spending commitments sure don't seem like a way to strengthen NATO, but what do I know? I never was able to appreciate the wonder that was the man.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Mon 17 Jul, 2017 04:16 pm
@layman,
I know that but I was wondering how Olivier might answer.
0 Replies
 
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.45 seconds on 05/19/2024 at 02:29:42