monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@blatham,

No it isn't that at all (though your Latin is impressive) .

You are taking a too superficial look at the respective actions of the Clintons, those of Trump and the response of the Obama coterie within the Justice Dept. & FBI in dealing - almost simultaneously - with both.

They were the common element in a somewhat contemporaneous set of connected actions by an obviously biased group of people to whitewash Clinton and do a hatchet job on Trump,

The evidence of the bias among these folks couldn't be clearer and the stark contrast of almost simultaneous actions they took involving both tells a convincing story. Clinton obviously colluded with some Russians, both in the uranium deal and in the production of the hatchet piece she (the DNC, which she controlled) paid for. That, following all this, these folks then used this Clinton purchased Russian production, in a probably criminal evasion of normal FISA procedures, and get approval to conduct illegal monitoring of The communications of Trump and his staff to hunt for - of all things - Russian collusion, is a bit mind blowing, and indicative of their bias and self-assured arrogance. That they did it while simultaneously ignoring (and in some cases suppressing) evidence for Clinton's violations of security law while serving as Secretary of State is truly breathtaking

So far no evidence of any Trump collusion with Russians has been revealed - after ~20 months of investigations, while the fact of Hillary's collusion, both for her own financial gain and for political advantage in the election is visible to all in undisputed reports.

The long term reaction to this criminal fiasco when the facts do emerge is likely to be very interesting.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

No it isn't that at all (though your Latin is impressive) .

I've never studied Latin but I have studied Formal Logic. You are twice guilty of forwarding the tu quoque fallacy today.

And again, there are no supporting citations for your claims.

2 Replies

@blatham,

Well, why bother with facts and citations when your belief system is so strong? What is incredibly depressing to me is this bordering on hysteria 'compulsion' to destroy anyone who may even slightly disagree with a dearly held belief of another. Earlier today, I saw where one of the members discovered the word 'inbred'. Suddenly, its flung around as a condemnation of entire populations, with absolutely not a drop of truth. Regrettably there will be the few who embrace the idea because it might mean they are higher on the food chain than they originally thought......well maybe not higher on the food chain, maybe more likely just not as far down as some.

4 Replies

@blatham,

Then you should have studied harder, because, as I explained, they were connected events involving both parties and a coterie of biased Justice officials involved simultaneously in both.

Supporting citations appear to be your last line if defense. The fact is all of the events I cited have long since been published by reliable sources in the public domain. To wit;
=> Clinton foundation contributions from Russian source and a well paid speech for Bill before and after the Uranium acquisition approval,
=> the purchase of a dossier through a Clinton Campaign Law Firm & a former British agent
=> all the cited details regarding the very superficial and cooperative investigation of Clinton's criminal misuse of classified documents and the suppression of information disclosed.
= the documented omission of required, in hand information in the FISA applications for surveillance of the communications of Trump & staff
=. The evidence of deep seated bias among the key members of the Justice/FBI involved in both Clinton & Trump issues simultaneously.
=> the absence so far of any charges or evidence of Trump Russian collusion despite ~20 months of very aggressive investigation by Mueller's team
=-> and so on

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Well, why bother with facts and citations when your belief system is so strong? What is incredibly depressing to me is this bordering on hysteria 'compulsion' to destroy anyone who may even slightly disagree with a dearly held belief of another.

You have aptly described the reaction of committed Democrats, both within the government and without, to Trump's rather stunning victory in the last Primary.

glitterbag wrote:

Earlier today, I saw where one of the members discovered the word 'inbred'. Suddenly, its flung around as a condemnation of entire populations, with absolutely not a drop of truth.

By whom ? Certainly it wasn't me: Blatham perhaps?

glitterbag wrote:

Regrettably there will be the few who embrace the idea because it might mean they are higher on the food chain than they originally thought......well maybe not higher on the food chain, maybe more likely just not as far down as some.

I've read this twice but fail to understand either what it really means or how it relates to anything being discussed.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

All you've done is repeat the allegations made by mendacious political rivals. If I get a traffic ticket for going 35 mph in a 30 mph zone, it means I was speeding....it doesn't mean I was targeted by satan worshipping atheists or freedom hating thugs who hate Democrats or women, it means I was speeding and got a violation.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

Quote:

more likely just not as far down as some.

Yeah, that is it. Not sure if you've watched Deadwood but the portrayal of the relationship between EB Farum and his handicapped employee is a perfect example of how a person can try to make his low position more agreeable by casting another as lower.

We can't escape our primate origins (social hierarchies) But we can acknowledge this part of our nature and then work to mitigate it's negative consequences. We can penalize physical assault. We can set up court systems. We can help provide for those who are left down at the bottom. We can band together to resist bullies and authoritarians.

1 Reply

Quote:

Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
“These guys, the investigators, ought to be in jail. What they have done, working with the Obama intelligence agencies, is simply unprecedented. This is one of the greatest political hoaxes ever perpetrated on the people of this Country, and Mueller is a coverup.” Rush Limbaugh
1:32 PM - 17 Feb 2019

Which led to this response from Greg Sargent

Quote:

Greg Sargent
‏Verified account
@ThePlumLineGS
We are numb to this, but here the President of the United States is amplifying calls to jail U.S. law enforcement officials who are investigating a foreign power's sabotaging of our election on his behalf.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
more likely just not as far down as some.
Yeah, that is it. Not sure if you've watched Deadwood but the portrayal of the relationship between EB Farum and his handicapped employee is a perfect example of how a person can try to make his low position more agreeable by casting another as lower.

We can't escape our primate origins (social hierarchies) But we can acknowledge this part of our nature and then work to mitigate it's negative consequences. We can penalize physical assault. We can set up court systems. We can help provide for those who are left down at the bottom. We can band together to resist bullies and authoritarians.

Yes, Deadwood was a fantastic example of feral humanity, or lack thereof

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Really???

You are ignoring some very obvious and relevant facts in your evasively simplistic metaphor.
First, the obvious fact that the processing of "Clinton's " citation was a good deal more generous and accommodating than the almost contemporaneous processing of Trump's, and that the ultimate source for the latter was purchased by Clinton
Second is the fact that the two were investigated by the same team of obviously, and well-documented, pro Clinton/anti Trump investigators within the Justice Dept, FBI, and later the Mueller Investigation.

There's more

The rest is merely juvenile exaggeration.

1 Reply

Lying among Trumpian conservatives must be endemic.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Careful, Blatham will likely come after you for a borderline ad hominem and a lack of citations for the underlying facts.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Quote:

I saw where one of the members discovered the word 'inbred'. Suddenly, its flung around as a condemnation of entire populations, with absolutely not a drop of truth.

Here! Sorry, it is true, do some research.

Quote:

Inbreeding in Islam: Over 70% Of Muslims Are The Product of Incest

Quote:

According to Bengali ex-Muslim essayist Abul Kaseem, the product of rampant phenomena of inbreeding in Islam is due to several things, but two stick out in particular: 1) interpretations of the Qu’ran which permits a Muslim man to marry and have intercourse with his daughter born out of wedlock (usually 8 or 9 years old), and 2) the popular and widely accepted practice of cousin-marriage initiated by the Prophet Muhammed himself, who infamously had relations with his cousins outside of marriage (Tirmidhi 5.3214).

Regarding the first point, the Qu’ranic passage that is traditionally interpreted to permit the marriage of first cousins is found in the following excerpt:

“Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father’s sisters, Mother’s sisters; brother’s daughters, sister’s daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives’ mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful,” (Surah An-Nisa 4:23)

Of course it has nothing to do with Islam Mr. Green

. But marrying like this will cause and has caused problems.
https://steemit.com/politics/@squawker.org/inbreeding-in-islam-over-70-of-muslims-are-the-product-of-incest

Quote:

Muslim Inbreeding is a Huge Problem--And People Don't Want to Talk About It

This article from 2017, remember things like this tend to progress. Feel free to source some information that differs, I'll wait
https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/muslim-inbreeding-huge-problem-and-people-dont-want-talk-about-it

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

George, if I ever become so insecure and desperate for validation I have to resort to larding up my remarks with superfluous, redundant adjectives and condescending middle-school smarty pants put downs in a desperate attempt to become acceptable to certain people is the day you read my 5 day old obituary.

Neither you or I know all the facts, there has been no trial or trials, evidence has not been presented in a court of law, and may I remind you of how long it took the CIA to find the mole in their organization (Circle of Treason, CIA account of traitor Aldrich Ames and the men he betrayed, pub. 2012). If investigative branches were time restricted, unsolved murders would not be investigated after 30 months. How ridiculous is that???? Mueller's team has not leaked, unlike the Ken Starr investigation.

2 Replies

@glitterbag,

Speaking of Ken Starr, Sean Wilentz has a must read review of Starr's new book. If folks don't have a membership, it will cost you $1 to read (or $10 for full access to the next ten issues plus archives). Starr remains a moral grotesque.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/03/07/kenneth-starr-hillary-clinton-presumed-guilty/

0 Replies

@georgeob
Reading your posts today makes it seem pretty much certain that any finding of criminality or acts of indictable malfeasance by the Special Council or any other body presently investigating Trump, his campaign, his on-going business activities, etc will be rejected by you in the same manner that it will be by Hannity or Limbaugh. You are locked in.

1 Reply

Does "one of the members" have another source that says inbreeding in Islam is not a problem? Or is it true?

0 Replies

Example # 1

Quote:

Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Nothing funny about tired Saturday Night Live on Fake News NBC! Question is, how do the Networks get away with these total Republican hit jobs without retribution? Likewise for many other shows? Very unfair and should be looked into. This is the real Collusion!
4:52 AM - 17 Feb 2019

Example # 2

Quote:

Mrs. Betty Bowers
‏@BettyBowers
LBJ's 11/9/68 letter to Smothers Brothers after they satirized him on TV:

“It is part of the price of leadership of this great & free nation to be the target of clever satirists. You have given the gift of laughter to our people. May we never grow so somber or self-important..."

0 Replies

from Politico:

Quote:

Evidence in plain sight’ of Trump collusion with Russia, Schiff says

By Patrick Temple-West 7 hrs ago

McCabe: Trump insisted Rosenstein mention Russia in Comey firing memo

Andrew McCabe: The full 60 Minutes interview

© J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo “You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion," said Rep. Adam Schiff.
Rep. Adam Schiff, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, said Sunday that there is ample evidence Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russians.

In an interview on CNN, Schiff rejected Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr’s statements from earlier this month that evidence to date shows no collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia.
“Chairman Burr must have a different word for it,” Schiff told Dana Bash on “State of the Union” and pointed to communications involving Russia and Trump aides Donald Trump Jr., George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn.

“You can see evidence in plain sight on the issue of collusion, pretty compelling evidence,” Schiff said, but added that “there is a difference between seeing evidence of collusion and being able to prove a criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Schiff also said special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on potential Russian government influence in the 2016 election might not be the final word on the matter.
“We may also need to see the evidence behind that report,” he said.
And Schiff said that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe should be held accountable if he indeed lied to investigators — something he also said should be true of any former Trump staffers who did so.
Last year, the Justice Department’s internal watchdog found that McCabe inappropriately authorized the disclosure of sensitive information about the Clinton investigation to a reporter and repeatedly lied about it to investigators. The Justice Department on Thursday referenced McCabe’s dismissal from the bureau for his dishonesty with federal authorities in its statement disputing his claims.
“He should be held to the same standard anyone else that the Justice Department has looked at in this investigation or any other,” Schiff said.

0 Replies

@blatham,

No. The simple fact is that so far (after ~20 months of investigation) no such facts have yet emerged, while those involving Clinton's collusion and violations of criminal laws regarding the security of highly classified documents have been very well known (and uninvestigated) for a long time.

That may change in the months ahead, but there are as yet no contrary facts on the table.

Just who here is "locked in"?

2 Replies

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know