monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Doubt it will stop some of our conservatives on this site who have been singing the IRS scandal for years; but yes, good information if a little late.

So true

And nearly all this information was available shortly after the fake "scandal" was announced. How's that investigation of the Obama wiretap on Trump Tower going? We were assured that it would be "bigger than Watergate".

About time someone said this:



NYT

Thumb up and an "amen."

Yes. The constant growth model will stop functioning at some point because we are in a closed system.

Quote:builder
..

hightor replied


Oh, so you just make a statement, and that's it? No evidence at all?

You obviously did zero research before coming to your conclusion.

source

Why So Many Women Abandoned Hillary Clinton

What happened to Clinton’s firewall: women? How could women not support the first presidential candidate with an agenda focused on equal pay, paid family medical leave and childcare? How could they not vote against a racist, sexist candidate like Donald Trump accused of groping more than a dozen women? How could they not flock to the polls in record numbers to elect the first female president of the United States?

Clinton chose to focus her campaign on women. Her crowds were mostly female; her donors were more than 60 percent female. She made this race about the historic nature of her candidacy. But in focusing so heavily on women, Clinton all but ceded much of the male vote, especially the white male vote, to Trump. And she failed to close her case with key groups of women: Millennials, Latinas and non-college-educated white women.

Clinton herself talked about how she wasn’t a natural politician like her husband and President Obama. She’s never had the moving oratory skills they both possess. This isn’t uncommon amongst female leaders.

You referred to her tenure as Secretary of State and said that most people see her performance as fraudulent. Which is why I responded with the link to the article in the Wall Street Journal:

She was better as a civil servant than she ever would have been as a chief executive. No one here is arguing that she was a stellar candidate and no one is saying she "should" have won or denying the reasons for her loss as spelled out in the Time article. I don't know why you keep attacking all the presumed Hillary partisans here. I don't believe there are any.

It's a trump thread. People need to know how such a person ended up as their president.

Good for you...seriously.
I was beginning to think you'd all sunk into the depths of paranoid delusion. Trump has some of you more shook up than I originally imagined.

Not appreciating someone's opinions is one thing, ascribing them to a deliberate attempt to confuse, misinform, and dismay a target audience as a third party agent is something entirely different and so obviously reeks of paranoia that I'm surprised anyone has made the charge once let alone repeatedly.

In the end, I, Lash, Builder or whomever else anyone believes to be an operative or troll, can only succeed in our sinister mission if those in our cross-hairs allow us to. I mock him, to be sure, but Set keeps giving you all good advice that many of you don't care to follow (even he doesn't). Robert has provided you with the solution to eliminating what you believe to be distractions: It's called the "Ignore" feature. If you all really want to put an end to being diverted from pursuing your crucial consideration of all things Trumpian you could do it overnight.

You don't even have to use the "Ignore" feature, just resolve to pay no mind to the distractions, including those posted by your colleagues in response to the disrupptive messages from trolls.



The thread is what it is and the idea that anyone exclusively owns it is silly considering that such a thing has never been the case in all the years I've participated here, however perhaps blatham should have been clearer when he began the thing and explained that it was reserved for bitching about or bemoaning Trump and his administration; and all other topics (such as anything to do with Charles Manson) are not welcome...unless, of course, they are posted by blatham or one of his attendants.

See, now you are a generally reasonable person whom I would never describe as belligerent and who genuinely seems to find real value in this thread, however, you just invited me to post a rather lengthy distraction from the topic of President Plump, which I graciously accepted.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with engaging with others on whatever they post or, for that matter, bringing up Charlie Manson, but it's pretty funny that so many people here are trying to blame others (and in a particularly unflattering fashion) for their own inability to stay on point.

Posting here is something like an addiction I can't seem to overcome. If at some point you all self-enforced a rule to ignore me (or Lash or anyone else for that matter because I'm sure it would work with them too ) eventually I would be forced to move on. A journal is a much better way to record one's thoughts and I'm sure I could figure out how to still communicate with like-minded individuals or just folks I appreciate, but there is some value in knowing that people are reading what I write, and every time someone responds to me, regardless of whether it is positive or negative or there is even any evidence that they understood what I was saying, I get the desired feedback. Take that away and it's back to my journal or searching out another site.

You would all be doing me a favor...I would be freed of this monkey on my back.

If you are a fan of vampire novels or films you know that the undead can't cross your threshold without an invitation (In Transylvania you folks would be bled dry in 48 hours!). You also know that the vampire secretly hopes that a Van Helsing figure will drive a stake through his heart to release him from his damned existence. Do an Archfiend a solid would you?

People here know how he "ended up" president (he certainly is not my president, and I suspect many people here feel the same). It was the operation of the Electoral College, an institution which I believe in, knowing full well most Americans don't.

But whether you are someone's agent, or just some sap who believes all those goofy conspiracy theories, or someone who just enjoys taking the piss (I think both of the last two options apply in your case)--the election is over, it is no longer relevant and it certainly is not contemporary.

Earlier today, I looked at Wilbur Ross and his dubious dealings before being appointed Commerce Secretary, as well as his incredible attitude toward his job. Here is an article from Forbes magazine about the crony of Interior Secretary Zinke who was at the heart of the Puerto Rico power scam:

Is That $300 Million Puerto Rico Power Contract 'Whitefishgate' Or Just a Red Herring?

Pick from the list;

the Russians hacked the primaries

the Russians hacked facebook and twitter

the Russians used Alex Jones and Breitbart through redneck tweets

the electoral college won it for Trump, and so it should be disbanded

the media won it for Trump by attacking him too much

Feel free to add to the list, because it's still up for grabs, if you can believe the MSM.

I wasn't editing your quote revelette, I was adding to it. I was saying that I am sure he did it himself; much less, another celebrity! I lacked clarity.....

After all, it has been written that he brought under aged models into the country and then held sex parties with them as side dishes. I do find this quit convincing.

https://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

How could that be true? For one, she's a FAUX operative, not a "thinker". For two, she hates Sanders.

Don't get carried away by your own hatred.

Have you ever clicked on any of Lash's links? Often they have no bearing whatsoever on what she is 'quoting.'

She posted some pretty damning stuff about anti fascists, but the link was a page telling you how to subscribe to the Financial Times.

And that's when she does post 'links.' Often she makes stuff up, and when asked to provide links for her fantasies refuses and says it's not her job to do our homework for us.

On the thread about Catalonia she posted lie after lie about the EU becoming very abusive towards Walter when he challenged her.

Whether or not she really had a Damascene conversion towards Sanders is irrelevant. She is thoroughly dishonest, she either makes stuff up, or quotes far right/Russian websites and then claims they're from a reputable news source by posting false links in the belief that nobody bothers checking up on her.

Whether or not she's trolling is a question of semantics, but she does not debate honestly. She relies on lies, half truths and unsubstantiated rumours to make her point. It may not be trolling, but it's definitely something dodgy.

(I believe the statement was meant sarcastically.)

Ooops....

This is Ryan Zinke