monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The Trump campaign benefited from massive support from Russia.

Please prove your assertion.

Hurricane Harvey’s toxic impact deeper than public told

Quote:

HOUSTON (AP) — A toxic onslaught from the nation’s petrochemical hub was largely overshadowed by the record-shattering deluge of Hurricane Harvey as residents and first responders struggled to save lives and property.

More than a half-year after floodwaters swamped America’s fourth-largest city, the extent of this environmental assault is beginning to surface, while questions about the long-term consequences for human health remain unanswered.

County, state and federal records pieced together by The Associated Press and The Houston Chronicle reveal a far more widespread toxic impact than authorities publicly reported after the storm slammed into the Texas coast in late August and then stalled over the Houston area.

Some 500 chemical plants, 10 refineries and more than 6,670 miles of intertwined oil, gas and chemical pipelines line the nation’s largest energy corridor.

APNews

0 Replies

Quote:

‏

@EdKrassen
Following Following @EdKrassen
More
BREAKING: Trump has just fired attorney John Dowd. This leads me to believe that Joseph diGenova will take over as the leader of Trump’s legal team meaning the conspiracy theories will really take off now!

@IMPEACHDJT2018
6m6 minutes ago
More
Replying to @EdKrassen
Trump's lawyer resigns because the President 'was ignoring his advice'

@PanicFan2017
5m5 minutes ago
More
Replying to @EdKrassen
Fired or resigned?

@mimivarnell
3m3 minutes ago
More
MSNBC said he resigned

@silveraa
7m7 minutes ago
More
Replying to @EdKrassen
If this firing happens on a Thursday I can’t wait to see what happens on Friday.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

I do know that the Clinton campaign exerted a great deal of effort setting Trump up to win the GOP nomination.

You must have some real proof for this charge, right? Something a little more more than a few DNC operatives expressing their preference for Trump as the nominee? (Because they thought he'd be the easiest to beat.) I've asked you for this proof before and you always say, "It's in the e-mails". But they would have had to do a lot more than e-mail each other about it. Campaigns cost money. Did they pay for advertising which criticized Trump's opponents? Did they make donations to his campaign? Did they attend his campaign rallies? did they encourage members to vote for him in open primaries? What "great deal of effort" was expended on this project? What are you talking about?

Quote:

So-called journalists assisted the Clinton campaign in elevating Trump.

Intentionally? Yes we all know that media attention helped Trump a great deal but do you have any proof that this was anything other than unwittingly providing the guy with publicity? You know, people really were fascinated/horrified by his candidacy. It doesn't seem that unusual for him to have attracted lots of media attention.

Quote:

So, we KNOW that’s true.

If you "know" this it should be easily proven.

2 Replies

@hightor,

No no no no no!!

Clinton conspiracies are to be believed 100% all the time, regardless of any of the 7 investigations that have been done or other facts or extreme unlikelihood that say otherwise.

Other consipiracies against the DNC and democrats are ALSO 100% to be believed regardless of countering facts or even high levels of unlikelihood.

BUT, if it’s against anyone else, we need ALL the evidence to come in (literally all of it, this could take decades) before we make a decision on that. That evidence must also be rock solid and even if an event is extremely likely to be true, if there isn’t video and a confession then it’s not to be believed.

Oh, and just so we don’t have to be confronted with these facts, we want all these “investigations” to end after 48 hours. Better yet, they shouldn’t even get started to begin with. But remember, this does not apply to the democrats and especially not the Clintons (even Chelsea).

0 Replies

@hightor,

I just showed a legit news source that quoted the internal emails, so as usual, people who intentionally avoid facts they don’t like simply refuse to see.

Clintonspeak playbook 101: lie in your face, obfuscate, gaslight, divert.

Let’s all pay homage to the guy who birthed what we can now call the post-truth world, the one who defended himself on a witness stand with the immortal words: “It depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is...”

1 Reply

@Lash,

It is next to impossible to prove the extent of Russian influence on the general election votes, just like it is next to impossible to prove that Hillary's pied pieper strategy influence Republican primary votes, because we don't have an alternative universe where Putin did not try to influence the general election and Hillary never opted for that strategy in the primaries. Such a comparator or counter-factual would be necessary to prove both assertions.

What we know is that both Putin and Hillary tried to shore up Trump, at different times and for different reasons. We also know that Putin's efforts were vastly more aggressive, structured and sophisticated than Hillary's.

Yet you seem to believe Hillary succeeded and Putin failed, for some bizarre reason.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I just happen to believe the assessments made by US intell agencies, at least on this subject. It's a very embarassing for them to admit to having been screwed by the Russians, so i trust them on it.

None of them have concluded that a foreign dictator purchased the presidency.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

"Massive?" In what way?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

My bad. Putin didn't 'purchase' the US presidency. He just rented it for 4 years.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Massive in terms of the extent of effort, the number of tweets, posts, facebook pages, audience reached and engaged, etc.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

for 4 years.

8 years, deal with it. And I believe your country has some huge problems too.

0 Replies

March 21, 2018 - U.S. Voters' Hopes On North Korea Hit New High, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Confidence In Trump On N. Korea Grows, But Still Short

0 Replies

Trump Says He ‘Would Like To’ Talk To Mueller’s Team

0 Replies

John Bolton Recorded Video For Russian Gun Group Linked To NRA

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

I just showed a legit news source that quoted the internal emails, so as usual, people who intentionally avoid facts they don’t like simply refuse to see.

What you've provided merely shows that in April, some people in the DNC thought it would be good if Republicans voted for the most conservative (or, in the case of Trump, disruptive) candidate in hopes that the party would be seen as extreme and not attract the votes of moderates and independents. What you have manifestly failed to provide is any evidence whatsoever that effective means were employed to accomplish this end. How'd they do it?

It's interesting that a few e-mails are all you need to convince you that the DNC (hardly known as a powerful, or even effective, organization) was able to influence the Republican primaries in such a spectacularly successful manner — citing evidence provided to Wikileaks by Russian hackers!

Doesn't it really make more sense to see the election as a chaotic field situation with different sources of power and influence vying to get their negative message heard amidst the static? It really seems farfetched to credit the DNC with having so much power and reach — an assumption long belied by its bad reputation and below average performance.

1 Reply

@hightor,

See. Both CAN be true.

https://able2know.org/topic/355218-2255#post-6617864

0 Replies

https://c3.legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Data-Mining-600-LI.jpg

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/03/moral-relativism/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29

0 Replies

@nononono,

nononono wrote:

Quote:
I doubt it. Blatham knows how to skirt the line. You probably blew through the line like a drag car.

I called Hillary a ****. Blatham called Trump a dick. I was banned for two weeks, he wasn't. Explain to me exactly what the difference is.

As far as anyone with two eyes and a brain who isn't retarded can tell, the line is that it's acceptable to use pejoratives against conservatives and men on a2k, but not against liberals and women.

Maybe you like to think the two words have equal weight, and perhaps in the circles you travel they do.....however not everyone expresses themselves in such a base and craven fashion. Now that is glaringly apparent that a certain element in this country finds Trump to be a role model. The wanna-be bullies, the ones who feel disrespected and left behind and the ones who fear education because smart people are show-offs find a hero in Donald Trump because Trump values nothing and believes loyalty is a one-way street and he is brutal when offended. Reminds me of Caligula but not quite as charming.

2 Replies

If no one reported Bernie for his remark, but someone did report nononononononono, that would explain the difference. In addition, I believe the moderators look at the frequency with which members are reported, and the severity of their remarks. Remarks about public figures are only likely to be considered if they are deemed severe, as those public figures are not members here.

Personally, if I were a monitor here, I'd bounce the childish whiners, too.

2 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know