192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
layman
 
  -3  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 07:11 am
@Lash,
[url][/url]
Lash wrote:

She lost the election to Donald Trump! She spent 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS.

She had the media and black America in her back pocket.

You’ve got to be pretty hated to lose under those circumstances.


She also had the FBI, DOJ, CIA, et al, and their corresponding dirty tricks expertise, surveillance equipment, etc., all worth MANY billions in her pocket, eh?

Oh, yeah, millions of MSM minions, serving as DNC campaign offices, at her disposal too.

To lose under those circumstances makes it obvious that the hatred of her was EXTREME.
oristarA
 
  0  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 07:18 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
Well, is a new horror fiction about Trump by King in making?
Fiction?


King is best known for his horror fictions.
layman
 
  -4  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 07:22 am
@layman,
Ya know a bitch aint got no real support when the majority of white women vote against her, sayin "I sho nuff aint with that skank," eh?

0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  2  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 07:23 am
@layman,
layman wrote:


She also had the FBI, DOJ, CIA, et al, and their corresponding dirty tricks expertise, surveillance equipment, etc., all worth MANY billions in her pocket, eh?



No. FBI Comey's last minute betrayal helped Trump climb up the throne.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 07:23 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
Do you guys care about such grammatical mistakes?

Nah.

I do try to correct them in my own posts if I notice soon enough to edit.

And if I notice someone else's mistake within their 15 minute edit deadline, I'll send them a private message to give them an opportunity to fix it.

But otherwise if someone makes a mistake, I don't worry about it. I just try to determine their intent to the best of my ability and then respond to that.

One thing I notice is that these little errors don't seem apparent when I'm composing my posts (even if I preview), but they look glaringly obvious to me after I've posted a message. I always try to review my posts right after I post them and fix all the little errors that I find before my edit deadline expires.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 07:25 am
@blatham,
Foghorn Leghorn doesn't make your flesh creep.
layman
 
  -1  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 07:35 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

One thing I notice is that these little errors don't seem apparent when I'm composing my posts (even if I preview), but they look glaringly obvious to me after I've posted a message. I always try to review my posts right after I post them and fix all the little errors that I find before my edit deadline expires.


Yeah, same here. I treat every post I make as a very rough draft. They're full of errors, and missing a lot of things I should have said.

And, yeah, I don't give a rat's ass about others' typos, misspellings, incorrect grammar, etc. As long as I can tell what they mean, they're irrelevant.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  3  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 07:42 am
@blatham,
Quote:
digby
‏@digby56
Can someone explain to me how the subject of an investigation gets to read information about the investigation against him? And then decide whether it's appropriate to make it public?


I agree with this guy digby. The presidents behavior in the Russian probe as been nothing but unethical to say the least from the very beginning. Kelly is beginning to be the biggest enabler.

Quote:
President Donald Trump’s frustrations with the Russia investigation boiled over on Air Force One last week when he learned that a top Justice Department official had warned against releasing a memo that could undercut the probe, according to four people with knowledge of the matter.

Trump erupted in anger while traveling to Davos after learning that Associate Attorney General Stephen Boyd warned that it would be “extraordinarily reckless” to release a classified memo written by House Republican staffers. The memo outlines alleged misdeeds at the FBI and Justice Department related to the Russia investigation.

For Trump, the letter was yet another example of the Justice Department undermining him and stymieing Republican efforts to expose what the president sees as the politically motivated agenda behind Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

Trump’s outburst capped a week where Trump and senior White House officials personally reproached Attorney General Jeff Sessions and asked White House Chief of Staff John Kelly to speak to others -- episodes that illustrate Trump’s preoccupation with the Justice Department, according to two of the people.

Trump warned Sessions and others they need to excel at their jobs or go down as the worst in history, the two people said.

The incidents -- and the extraordinary level of Trump’s personal involvement with Justice Department officials on the matter -- are the latest signs of the growing pressure on Trump as a federal investigation into him, his campaign and his administration stretches into its second year.

Trump met with Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray at the White House last Monday to discuss missing text messages sent between two FBI agents who had expressed anti-Trump views. One of the agents later left his investigation and Mueller removed the other after learning of the texts.

Kelly held separate meetings or phone calls with senior Justice Department officials last Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday to convey Trump’s displeasure and lecture them on the White House’s expectations, according to the people. Kelly has taken to ending such conversations with a disclaimer that the White House isn’t expecting officials to do anything illegal or unethical.

After Trump’s strong reaction on Air Force One over the Boyd letter, White House officials, including Kelly, sprang into action again, lashing Justice Department officials Thursday over the decision to send the letter, according to the people. Sarah Isgur Flores, director of public affairs at the Department of Justice, declined to comment.

Despite the president’s frustrations over the probe, Trump’s lawyers have been cooperating with Mueller and plan to continue working with him, but they are starting to push for him to wrap things up, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Mueller is getting close to wrapping up a portion of his probe that is focusing on whether the president or his associates obstructed justice, although other parts of the investigation are expected to last at least several months longer, according to current and former U.S. officials.

McCabe Resignation.

Several people close to Trump insist he isn’t preparing to fire Wray, Sessions or other senior officials. But the Justice Department’s decision to send the Boyd letter to the House Intelligence Committee last week has intensified Trump’s concern that his own department is undercutting him, several people familiar with the matter said.

The president is frustrated that Justice Department officials keep getting involved in issues related to the probe when they don’t need to, leading him to wonder if anyone was trying to protect people implicated in the GOP memo, according to one person familiar with the matter.

Kelly called Sessions directly to complain about the letter, and several other White House officials chided officials at Justice as well. Sessions was also at the White House Monday for an immigration meeting and for a discussion Tuesday of the department’s goals for the coming months.



Bloomberg
hightor
 
  3  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 07:43 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
What did you expect him to do, commit genocide against the Pastun tribes?

Well, yeah, something like that. Or just declare victory and leave. He seemed really opposed to foreign wars and "nation building" during the campaign so I thought we might see radical change.
Quote:
Not really. We only have a very small force there, and mostly not involved in any ground combat.

It's still costing us buku $$$ and we're still losing troops there. The Afghan army is hemorrhaging and the insurgents can escape to safety in Pakistan. The Taliban controls more of the country than they did a year ago, and it looks like they're cooperating with the I.S. fighters now. Sooner or later the Afghan army, like the Afghan government, will be reduced to helplessness and guess who'll be doing the heavy lifting?
Quote:
Self defense against people who are resolved to commit genocide against us.

Hey wait a second — we live thousands of miles away across an ocean, we've got the most heavily-armed civilian population in the world, and we're working to ban Muslims from even entering the country. So what are we afraid of? "Home of the brave", my ass.
hightor
 
  2  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 07:51 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
She had the media...

Wrong.

Quote:
(Toobin says)“I think there was a lot of false equivalence in the 2016 campaign. That every time we said something, pointed out something about Donald Trump — whether it was his business interests, or grab ’em by the p–––y, we felt like, ‘Oh, we gotta, like, talk about — we gotta say something bad about Hillary.’ And I think it led to a sense of false equivalence that was misleading, and I regret my role in doing that.”

(...)

A study by Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy found that in the campaign’s final months, the media’s aggregate coverage performed pretty much as Toobin described to Wilmore. “When journalists can’t, or won’t, distinguish between allegations directed at the Trump Foundation and those directed at the Clinton Foundation, there’s something seriously amiss. And false equivalencies are developing on a grand scale as a result of relentlessly negative news. If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there’s a leveling effect that opens the door to charlatans,” wrote Thomas Patterson in the Shorenstein study.

WP


Lash wrote:
...and black America in her back pocket.

Wrong.

Quote:
The 7-percentage-point decline from the previous presidential election is the largest on record for blacks. (It’s also the largest percentage-point decline among any racial or ethnic group since white voter turnout dropped from 70.2% in 1992 to 60.7% in 1996.)

Pew Research

layman
 
  -2  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 07:57 am
@hightor,
Nice try. Your claim that the MSM was neutral is just too ridiculous to respond to.

And your sophistry about black voters is really too transparent to merit a reponse too, but, just for the record, something like 93% of black voters went for Clinton, and you know it.

Your posts say a lot more about you than they do about either the MSM or black voters.

Nice try, cheese-eater.
Lash
 
  0  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 08:01 am
@hightor,
LOL! Documentation from their own emails proves with no doubt MSM was in the Clinton pocket.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/static.theintercept.com/amp/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship.html

As these internal documents demonstrate, a central component of the Clinton campaign strategy is ensuring that journalists they believe are favorable to Clinton are tasked to report the stories the campaign wants circulated.

At times, Clinton’s campaign staff not only internally drafted the stories they wanted published but even specified what should be quoted “on background” and what should be described as “on the record.”

One January 2015 strategy document — designed to plant stories on Clinton’s decision-making process about whether to run for president — singled out reporter Maggie Haberman, then of Politico, now covering the election for the New York Times, as a “friendly journalist” who has “teed up” stories for them in the past and “never disappointed” them. Nick Merrill, the campaign press secretary, produced the memo, according to the document metadata:


That strategy document plotted how Clinton aides could induce Haberman to write a story on the thoroughness and profound introspection involved in Clinton’s decision-making process. The following month, when she was at the Times, Haberman published two stories on Clinton’s vetting process; in this instance, Haberman’s stories were more sophisticated, nuanced, and even somewhat more critical than what the Clinton memo envisioned.
—————————————
This is but one of a multitude of specific examples.

Lash
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 08:05 am
Blacks in Hillary’s pocket: 88%

You’re wrong again.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/election-us-2016-37922587

The poll suggests that 53% of men voted for Mr Trump, with 41% voting for Mrs Clinton - those proportions are almost exactly reversed for women.

Among white voters (who made up 70% of voters), Mr Trump won 58% to Mrs Clinton's 37%, while the Democratic candidate won the support of a huge majority of black voters - 88% to Mr Trump's 8% - and Hispanic voters - 65% to his 29%.

Looking specifically at white women, they favoured Mr Trump, with 53% supporting him compared with 43% for Mrs Clinton.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 08:06 am
@layman,
Quote:
Your claim that the MSM was neutral is just too ridiculous to respond to.

You're right. Come to think of it, the only place anyone mentioned the Clinton Foundation or the missing e-mails was in the conservative press. I never heard anything about it. I didn't even know it was an issue until after the election.
Quote:
...just for the record, something like 93% of black voters went for Clinton, and you know it.

Just for the record, the overall number of black voters declined significantly, so it appears that a lot of black voters actually weren't in "Hillary's back pocket".
Quote:
Your posts say a lot more about you than they do about either the MSM or black voters.

Well that makes sense since I don't belong to either group.
layman
 
  -3  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 08:06 am
@Lash,
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 08:13 am
@Lash,
Quote:
The following month, when she was at the Times, Haberman published two stories on Clinton’s vetting process; in this instance, Haberman’s stories were more sophisticated, nuanced, and even somewhat more critical than what the Clinton memo envisioned.

The activities of Clinton's campaign, such as its vetting process, were newsworthy and it's interesting to note that Haberman didn't write the "puff piece" you'd expect if she were really a tool of the DNC.

The story here is not that the DNC thought these journalists were friendly, but that, in actual practice, the MSM felt compelled to match negative Trump coverage with negative Clinton stories.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 08:15 am
@hightor,
You’re such a dodger.

Anytime any group votes en bloc for one party at percentages exceeding 70%, they’re owned.

It was 88% — and this wasn’t a small demographic, this is an enormous race of people. An astonishing coup to control a vast group with these numbers.

Nobody should lose with that kind of support.
layman
 
  -4  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 08:19 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

You’re such a dodger.

Anytime any group votes en bloc for one party at percentages exceeding 70%, they’re owned.

It was 88% — and this wasn’t a small demographic, this is an enormous race of people. An astonishing coup to control a vast group with these numbers.

Nobody should lose with that kind of support.


Hispanics in this country outnumber blacks by a wide margin. How'd that vote go?

Just takin a wild-ass guess, Imma say it was strongly in favor of Hillary "Imma give alla yawl amnesty and I aint gunna be buildin no wall, AMIGO" Clinton, ya know?
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 08:24 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Anytime any group votes en bloc for one party at percentages exceeding 70%, they’re own

Anytime the candidate of one party and his visible supporters actively work to insult and marginalize members of a particular group of voters is it surprising that members of that group tend to support the opposition?

The Republicans used to be smarter. Bush II got lots of support from hispanic voters by reaching out to them and showing concern in a meaningful way. The right wing of the party has since done all it could to drive hispanics into the Democratic camp.
Lash
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jan, 2018 08:25 am
@layman,
I knew I’d seen the 93% black voting bloc...

That was the percentage of black Americans who voted for Obama.

https://www.google.com/amp/politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/09/blacks-outvoted-whites-in-2012-the-first-time-on-record/amp/

Hispanic voters were 65% Clinton; 29% Trump.

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 8.11 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 09:01:00