monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@maporsche,

Quote:

I'd love to engage you on the pros and cons of just one policy you support

Lash might well take you up on that as she isn't an intellectual coward, M.

Can you say the same about yourself?

0 Replies

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

So I am not sure why the white house aide announced a deal reached.

Big budget deal in Senate hailed as 'genuine breakthrough' (AP)

Maybe you should try actually readin the sources you cite, eh? I don't see nuthin there about no "white house aide" announcin nuthin:

Quote:

Senate leaders announced Wednesday they have sealed agreement on a two-year budget pact... Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York called the Senate agreement "a genuine breakthrough."

1 Reply

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, more than 136 killed to today in Syria by Russian and Syrian forces.

Shouldn't a UN meeting take place to see what can be done stop this killing? Why are people just basically ignoring it?

Uhhh, because no really gives a ****, maybe? I mean, like, after all, it's just a bunch of muslims smokin other muslims. Been goin on 24/7 for centuries, ya know?

1 Reply

@layman,

It will take very little to convince those on the Right that this is the case and there is nothing that will convince those on the Left that it is.

If it is the Dem strategy, Trump should send the memo to the FBI and tell them to redact what they don't think should be released. That way the reckless strategy won't result in the exposure of sensitive information and Schiff can't claim the WH redacted the memo for political reasons. He will still try of course, but in doing so he will have to join the crowd he claims are stooges for Putin in asserting that the FBI is making decisions and taking actions for purely political reasons.

The Comey serial debacles demonstrate that the Democrats, as a whole, are entirely without principle and integrity: A person would tie themselves into a pretzel trying to follow the course of the Dems in terms of their regard for the FBI and Comey. Hero to villain - villain to hero - back to villain and then back to hero again, and the shifts were all due to the political implications of his words and actions.

Can Democrats claim with a shred of honesty that as a party they have consistently and continuously been strong supporters of the FBI and the intelligence agencies? People like Schiff and Schummer are trying to make it seem that way. Of course, it's not true, and it should not be true.

J Edgar Hoover is the father/mother/midwife of the FBI and everyone knows how corrupt he was. For how long did Dems hold the surveillance of MLK against the FBI? The proper answer is probably until the morning after the 2016 election.

As for the Left (including the Dems) holding our intel agencies on a pedestal? It's an incredible farce.

The people who brought us

1) Political assassinations across the globe
2) Attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro using Mafia hitmen
3) The Bay of Pigs
4) Illegal investigation and infiltration of domestic political groups (Black Panthers, SDS and probably more)
5) Testing psychedelic drugs on unwitting US citizens
6) Surveillance of journalists and God knows who else
7) The Iranian coup that put the Shah on his Peacock Throne
8) Death Squads in Central America
9) The overthrow and murder of the democratically elected President of Chile
10) The Vietnam War

In just about all of these instances (if not all) elected officials (Dem and Republican) knew of, approved or and in most cases directed these actions. There wasn't a rogue agency secretly controlling the country and trying to control the world. To the extent that the CIA, NSA, and FBI have abused their authority and possibly committed illegal activities in connection with the Trump presidency, we will find that they didn't do so independent of our elected government.

Whether or not any or all of these ten examples are factually true, is there really any argument that can be made that the Left (not only in the US but across the globe) wasn't absolutely certain that they were?

Now we have Republicans and conservatives questioning the integrity of the leadership of the FBI, the CIA and other intel agencies, and the response from the Dems?

You are shamefully carrying water for Putin, and damaging not only critical American institutions but our very democracy.

4 Replies

@nimh,

Thank you very much nimh.

When I'm finished compiling it, I'm going to post a screenprint and provide links to the sources. If someone really wants to reorder the data for analytic reasons they can recreate the spreadsheet on their hard-drive, but the more I think about it, the more I think no one will want to do either.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

The Dems always remind of Randall McMurphy in Cuckoo's Nest, when he told the shrink:

Well, ya see, Doc, that Nurse Rachett, she don't like playin with a square deck, know what I'm sayin?

0 Replies

@layman,

I was referring to the link and the quote I left the post before the one below. In any event here is another link the same information.

Top White House aide announces deal on 2-year budget pact with huge increases for defense, domestic programs (TownHall)

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

As for the Left (including the Dems) holding our intel agencies on a pedestal? It's an incredible farce.

The people who brought us

1) Political assassinations across the globe
2) Attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro using Mafia hitmen
3) The Bay of Pigs
4) Illegal investigation and infiltration of domestic political groups (Black Panthers, SDS and probably more)
5) Testing psychedelic drugs on unwitting US citizens
6) Surveillance of journalists and God knows who else
7) The Iranian coup that put the Shah on his Peacock Throne
8) Death Squads in Central America
9) The overthrow and murder of the democratically elected President of Chile
10) The Vietnam War

What has brought on this massive letting of honesty from you, Finn? Honesty is totally unbecoming of you.

You surely are not trying to pin 1 to 10 solely on Democrat administrations, are you?

1 Reply

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

I was referring to the link and the quote I left the post before the one below. In any event here is another link the same information.

Well, your last post, that I responded to, was made AFTER you read the details, yet you're still expressing confusion about the issue. Clearly, as your own post admits, any "deal" referred to by anyone was one made in and by the Senate.

0 Replies

@coluber2001,

coluber2001 wrote:

Ever sinnce Lincoln, a Republican couldn't get elected in the South to save his life. After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed all of the conservative Southern Democrats deserted to The Republican Party. Ever since then a Democrat can't get elected in the South to save his life.

The forerunner to the 1964 movement was 1948. It almost caused Thurman to lose the election. In fact, it was this close:

"Dewey Defeats Truman" was an incorrect banner headline on the front page of the Chicago Daily Tribune on November 3, 1948, the day after incumbent United States President, Harry S. Truman, won an upset victory over Republican challenger and Governor of New York, Thomas E. Dewey, in the 1948 presidential election.

Granted, the biggest movement was achived after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, something the Republicans have been slowly reversing ever since. In fact, they are trying to go all the way back to 1859, if possible!

Quote:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_integration

Dixiecrat

The States' Rights Democratic Party (usually called the Dixiecrats) was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States. It originated in 1948 as a breakaway faction of the Democratic Party determined to protect states' rights to legislate racial segregation from what its members regarded as an oppressive federal government.[1] Supporters assumed control of the state Democratic parties in part or in full in several Southern states. The Party opposed racial integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and white supremacy in the face of possible federal intervention. Its members were referred to as "Dixiecrats", a portmanteau of "Dixie", referring to the Southern United States, and "Democrat".

The party did not run local or state candidates, and after the 1948 election its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party.[2] The Dixiecrats had little short-run impact on politics. However, they did have a long-term impact. The Dixiecrats began the weakening of the "Solid South" (the Democratic Party's total control of presidential elections in the South).[3]

The term "Dixiecrat" is sometimes used by Northern Democrats to refer to conservative Southern Democrats from the 1940s to the 1990s, regardless of where they stood in 1948.[4]

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

J Edgar Hoover is the father/mother/midwife of the FBI and everyone knows how corrupt he was. For how long did Dems hold the surveillance of MLK against the FBI? The proper answer is probably until the morning after the 2016 election.

Is this just another tirade against Democrats, Finn? It is warranted, no doubt, but aren't you still being highly partisan?

JE Hoover was as conservative as Atilla the Hun.

0 Replies

@revelette1,

Bottom line is that the dreamers have done been kicked to the curb by the senate. Cheese-eaters just can't understand why 600,000 Mexican citizens who are breaking our laws aren't given the "right" to shut down every aspect of our government, if they can't dictate U.S. policy. That's what eatin cheese does to ya, I guess.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Uhhh, because no really gives a ****, maybe? I mean, like, after all, it's just a bunch of muslims smokin other muslims. Been goin on 24/7 for centuries, ya know?

As far as I know, Assad and Putin aren't Muslims and they are the ones killing so many civilians in Syria and keeping the country in turmoil for their own gain.

2 Replies

@revelette1,

Assad is an Alawites, Putin an (Russian) Orthodox.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

1) Political assassinations across the globe
2) Attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro using Mafia hitmen
3) The Bay of Pigs
4) Illegal investigation and infiltration of domestic political groups (Black Panthers, SDS and probably more)
5) Testing psychedelic drugs on unwitting US citizens
6) Surveillance of journalists and God knows who else
7) The Iranian coup that put the Shah on his Peacock Throne
8) Death Squads in Central America
9) The overthrow and murder of the democratically elected President of Chile
10) The Vietnam War

It would be interesting to point out which of these 10 items were supported by liberals and which were supported by conservatives. Does anyone of prominence have a record in this regard that he (or she) can honestly be proud of? I suspect that some of us here enthusiastically supported a number of these items at one time or another, if not consistently, and should own up to it.

I've followed the national politics of this country for nearly 40 years, and I'm tired. In fact, I'm on the verge of lapsing into apathy. No wonder!

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Assad is an Alawites, Putin an (Russian) Orthodox.

Sounds kinda muslimy, somehow, don't it, Walt?

Quote:

The Alawis, also rendered as Alawites (Arabic: علوية‎ Alawīyyah), are a syncretic sect of the Twelver branch of Shia Islam, primarily centered in Syria. The eponymously named Alawites revere Ali (Ali ibn Abi Talib), considered the first Imam of the Twelver school.

I just made up that "slimy" part, but I think I'll keep it, ya know?

1 Reply

@revelette1,

Quote:

As far as I know, Assad and Putin aren't Muslims and they are the ones killing so many civilians in Syria and keeping the country in turmoil for their own gain.

This is one of the major problems in the world, rev, US citizens don't know much of anything except the US propaganda that is fed to them.

The US has been trying to overthrow the sovereign government of Syria for over ten years. Just as the US has overthrown and tried to overthrow sovereign governments over 70 times just since WWII.

These actions have made every US president since WWII Class A war criminals according to the standards established by THE USA, at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals in Tokyo and Nuremberg.

So don't you think it would behoove you to go beyond "as far as I know" and actually learn something truthful about the world?

1 Reply

@layman,

As much as they like to go off on tangents, now and again, to blow up non-muslims, if truth be told, there aint nuthin a muslim loves more than smokin some other muslim who don't buy into their ****, eh?:

Quote:

“Zarqawi favors butchering Shias, calling them "the most evil of mankind . . . the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom."

0 Replies

@wmwcjr,

Quote:

It would be interesting to point out which of these 10 items were supported by liberals and which were supported by conservatives.

They were, they all have been supported by virtually every American, not to mention most westerners of other countries, wmwcjr.

Had people spoken out the slaughter of tens of millions might have been prevented.

What will happen to Finn's honesty, your honesty? It will be buried asap by all those who make a pretense that they are kind, loving, fair and honest folk.

This is different than those Germans who never spoke out about the death camps because those Germans were living under the threat of death for speaking out.

So compared to those Germans who were silent, the multitudes of peoples of western nations who are silent, who have been silent, can, without any argument, easily be described as some of the most vile, evil people who have ever taken a breath on planet Earth.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Can Democrats claim with a shred of honesty that as a party they have consistently and continuously been strong supporters of the FBI and the intelligence agencies?

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Sure, US intelligence and law enforcement have been implicated in many scandalous actions over the years. We all hated Hoover's FBI, but that was mostly because of Hoover himself. And the CIA and NSA were distrusted for many of the things you've listed. But these are organizations made up of people and directed by people. Guess what? People change. People die. Time goes on. It would seem really juvenile to hold on to some form of undying hatred because "the CIA" overthrew some government or infiltrated some criminal network thirty or more years ago. Yeah Hoover went after MLK — but that was fifty years ago! The agents and politicians of that era are long gone.

During the time of the Church Commission, many were horrified with the revelations of the CIA's behavior. But the collapse of the Soviet Union really set the stage for a reassessment of the agency's mission. No longer obsessed with international communism and domestic communists both the CIA and the FBI were free to concentrate on organized crime, money laundering, and counter-terrorism. While I may have objected to potentially being blacklisted because of the company I kept or the books I read those are no longer concerns of these agencies — or of me, either.

Comey is neither a "villain" nor a "hero", and again, looking at people this way is childish. He's a former director of a law enforcement bureaucracy which ran into trouble because Congress tried to make the agency serve its political interests. He did some things the Democrats liked and the Republicans hated...and vice versa. No Democrats are claiming he walks on water and back during the campaign he wasn't particularly unpopular with Republicans.

I don't hold these agencies on a "pedestal" simply for doing their job. Nor would I condemn them unequivocally for the same reason. At times they'll be charged with performing missions that I admire, other times they'll do things I oppose. And so on.

2 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know