The Trump Dump!

#601

Clarence wrote: ↑
free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Clarence wrote:
Like I said, using the NYT as a source on ANYTHING Trump is a bad idea.
So why did you link to them in post 575. :lol: :lol: :lol:
To use your favorite source against you. When even the NYT (which you seem to worship despite their Shenanigans in the 2nd Gulf War -strangely enough, being too deferential and not suspicious enough of the Intelligence Community hhhmmm I'm starting to see a pattern- where they basically had a reporter that took politicized CIA content as fact) admits that The Democrats lawfirm - acting on behalf of Clinton and the DNC -hired a 'dig up dirt for money' company and used that to create a Dossier at least part of which was used for a FISA surveillance request on a US Citizen well, I needn't spell things out for you.

But it turns out that you agree with me that the Steele Dossier is a political construct, so I really had no need.

You are really grasping now. The NYT article didn't contradict anything I said. I don't worship the NYT, they are a reasonably relable source but they aren't infallible. They have long had journalists from the left and the right. The big screwup you are talking about about 14 years ago was one of their conservative reporters, Judith Miller, that now works for Fox News (which you worship :P ) and she took that information from Dick Cheney, not from the CIA. You just can't get your facts straight can you?
As for info in the dossier being used by the FBI, as long as it was accurate what is the problem.
A political construct? I'm not sure what you mean by that. It was political research, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was true, false, or anything in between. If you think that I agree with you on the Steele dossier was biased, you would be wrong, as usual.

#602

Clarence wrote:

They were accusing Trump of RUSSIAN COLLUSION before even the election was over!

Why do you think they got that from the Steele dossier? Their computer security firm informed them that the hack of the emails was by the Russians, and if it wasn't clear enough that they were favoring Trump and Trump was simultaneously sucking up to Putin, The Donald came out in a speech and asked for the Russians to find the lost emails.
When you have facts instead of a bunch of Trump/Alex Jones Koolaid come back and talk about FBI conflict of interest.

#603

"reasonably relable source"

Not when it comes to Trump.
"They have long had journalists from the left and the right. "
Please don't make me laugh. And the NYT has been caught lying and committing fraud too many times over the years for me to call the people who work for them "journalists", esp not now when it is hip to weave your personal ideology into every story you puportedly cover.
"Judith Miller, that now works for Fox News (which you worship :P )"
I don't quote Fox News most of the Time. You, on the other hand think the NYT is some sort of infallible authority, better than say, Fox and you use NYT links all the time. Me? I trust the Times and Washington Post far less than I trust Breitbart (and I know Breitbart is biased and inaccurate) and I trust them both far, far less than I trust places like the Intercept (which even STILL has some bad reporting) . This isn't an age where you can dismiss all 'news' outlets of the opposite ideology or trust a paper merely because its been around for over a century or won many prizes or whatever. This is the age where you have to do individual research and double check everything.
" If you think that I agree with you on the Steele dossier was biased, you would be wrong, as usual."
Then you have more confidence in it than the FBI for some reason, since even they admit that most of it is unverified at best.
Steele himself has expressed his anti-Trump views.
Tsk tsk. But then again, absolute credulousness is what it takes to believe the Steele Dossier ISN'T most likely biased.

#604

I don't for one minute believe the 'hack of the email server' was by Russians.
It was almost certainly an inside job.
And I don't really GIVE A SHIT ANYWAY because the LINK WAS TRUE.
Do you belong to the Democratic party so that the only bad thing here was that they were exposed, not what the exposure revealed?
Do you like corruption in your government?
You certainly seem to.
I certainly don't think Trump had anything to do with the leak, and if he benefited because corruption was exposed thats on the people who were corrupt and not him.

Anyway, TRUMP WAS ALREADY BEING ACCUSED OF COLLUSION BEFORE he made that statement about the 'lost' emails, which I always took as masterful trolling.

#605

Clarence wrote:

Then you have more confidence in it than the FBI for some reason, since even they admit that most of it is unverified at best.

You have as source where they say "most" is unverified? I believe it would more likely be that most is verified. Further, whether it is verified or not can't tell you whether the info is biased or not, it only says they don't have other information to back it up.

You, on the other hand think the NYT is some sort of infallible authority, better than say, Fox and you use NYT links all the time.

Don't strawman me. I never said the NYT is an infallible authority I don't quote them "all" the time either. I don't put a lot of trust in opinion pieces, once known as editorials, and I think that strict news which purports to be factual, once known as journalism still needs to be checked and can't be taken as certain regardless of where it comes from.
For instance, the Fox news has Bret Baier and Shep Smith that are reasonably reliable and tend to stick to facts. On the other hand, you have Fox and Friends and Hannity that are columnist/opinion piece hucksters that are full of shit most of the time. The same thing applies for MSNBC.

Tsk tsk. But then again, absolute credulousness is what it takes to believe the Steele Dossier ISN'T most likely biased.

The word you are looking for is credulity and I don't think you have a really good grasp on the entire concept. Remember that the Steele dossier was basically him reporting what people were telling him. He didn't come out and say he knew it was all true, it was raw information that was relevant if true.
The fact that Steele didn't/doesn't like Trump, most intelligent people don't, doesn't mean that it should all be dismissed. Are you saying that it would be wrong for someone that was politically opposed to Clinton or Obama to investigate them? Most of the feds have been Republican party members and voters and I never once heard that they couldn't be trusted to investigate dems because they may disagree with their politics.

#606

I'm surprised to see that credulousness is a real word, so I'll give you that.

I don't for one minute believe the 'hack of the email server' was by Russians.

Almost no one believes that, except Trump, some of the time, and the conspiracy crowd.

#607

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ I'm surprised to see that credulousness is a real word, so I'll give you that.
I don't for one minute believe the 'hack of the email server' was by Russians.
Almost no one believes that, except Trump, some of the time, and the conspiracy crowd.

Look in the mirror. When I say "conspiracy" I can point to things that happened like the weaponization of the IRS, and names of people with conflicts of interest or who have expressed anti-Trump views being put in position to 'investigate' him. What do you have? After nearly a year of a "Special Counsel" you have one name, Carter Page, and a bunch of whispers of shadowy background Russian figures. Your indictments are all of people who worked a few months on the TC at most, and mostly consist of charges involving money laundering or tax evasion literally years before the Trump Campaign was even in existence. And yet would dare to assert this is good evidence that the President of United States is owned by Russia. You've got leakers and whisperers and papers that have openly declared themselves part of the "Resistance". I'll soon have an IG report and a bunch of other information being released as well. In the end, we'll see who is deluded and who is not. But just remember this: I was the guy who told you Trump had a good chance of winning and I was right.

#608

They have guilty pleas from Flynn, GeorgieP. Why did they lie Clarence?
I hope we get an honest airing of what has gone on. I suspect that the Russians have information about crooked shit Trump has done, like him helping to launder money by selling real estate to crooks. That isn't nothing.That is worse than Bubba Bill Clinton getting his cigar sucked by a consenting adult but he nearly got the heave ho. I can only hope that Trump gets just as fair treatment.

#609

The most interesting part of the Steele dossier is the alleged Rosneft deal.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1 ... wn-Parties

More than a month after Russia announced one of its biggest privatizations since the 1990s, selling a 19.5 percent stake in its giant oil company Rosneft, it still isn't possible to determine from public records the full identities of those who bought it.

The stake was sold for 10.2 billion euros to a Singapore investment vehicle that Rosneft said was a 50/50 joint venture between Qatar and the Swiss oil trading firm Glencore.

Unveiling the deal at a televised meeting with Rosneft's boss Igor Sechin on Dec. 7, President Vladimir Putin called it a sign of international faith in Russia, despite U.S. and EU financial sanctions on Russian firms including Rosneft.

A dossier with unverified claims about President Donald Trump's ties to Russia contained allegations that Igor Sechin, the CEO of Russia's state oil company, offered former Trump ally Carter Page and his associates the brokerage of a 19% stake in the company in exchange for the lifting of US sanctions on Russia.

The dossier says the offer was made in July, when Page was in Moscow giving a speech at the Higher Economic School. The claim was sourced to "a trusted compatriot and close associate" of Sechin, according to the dossier's author, former British spy Christopher Steele.

So in July 2016, according to the Steele dossier, Sechin promised a sale of 19% of Rosneft stake which would have favored associates of Trump in exchange for a deal on lifting sanctions. In December Rosneft sells a 19.5% stake to what are known to be shell corporations, and the .5% stake seems to be enough to pay for an indirect transfer to a third party, which isn't identified.

This isn't enough to prove a collusion, but surely it's kind of suspicious, especially since it looks like Trump is reluctant to enforce sanctions on Russian interests.

I'd say that these events are enough to justify a thorough investigation of the Rosneft sale.

#610

The Rosneft sale was a public, documented event, and the fact that the alleged buyers were shell corporations is also easily verifiable. Unlike in the case of the Russian hacking you don't need any information from US intelligence agencies to check this.

Similarly Trump's reluctance of enforcing sanctions is another public event, which has been reported by an independent news associations, like Reuters. You don't need to trust US media to observe it.

Even if the US intelligence services and the US media were completely unreliable there's still more than enough suspicion to justify at least strong doubts about Trump's integrity. The Senate and House of Representatives should demand Trump to answer to this under oath in a committee.

#611

If there's a document saying that Bob the Bobbie was promised money by Charlie the Crook to leave Alice the Arsonist alone, and then Charlie sells his precious car and Bob is suddenly not investigating Alice's activities, I'd say it's time for Bob and Internal Affairs to sit down and have a chat.

#612

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Clarence wrote:
They were accusing Trump of RUSSIAN COLLUSION before even the election was over!
Why do you think they got that from the Steele dossier? Their computer security firm informed them that the hack of the emails was by the Russians, and if it wasn't clear enough that they were favoring Trump and Trump was simultaneously sucking up to Putin, The Donald came out in a speech and asked for the Russians to find the lost emails.
When you have facts instead of a bunch of Trump/Alex Jones Koolaid come back and talk about FBI conflict of interest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNa2B5zHfbQ

The video, for reference.

#613

https://original.antiwar.com/justin/201 ... -republic/

#614

So one of the talking points the Trumpistas had about the Page FISA warrant was that they put the Steele dossier in without disclosing that it was opposition research, therefore hiding possible bias. It turns out that was a lie.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/ ... ant-390795

Republican leaders are acknowledging that an FBI application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page disclosed that a controversial private dossier cited by the application had political backing, undermining a once-secret memo the GOP released on Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.

#615

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ So one of the talking points the Trumpistas had about the Page FISA warrant was that they put the Steele dossier in without disclosing that it was opposition research, therefore hiding possible bias. It turns out that was a lie.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/ ... ant-390795
Republican leaders are acknowledging that an FBI application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page disclosed that a controversial private dossier cited by the application had political backing, undermining a once-secret memo the GOP released on Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.

Yeah.... I watched the Gowdy interview on "Face the Nation" on Sunday. Gowdy was honest, but it is pretty damn interesting how this "detail" was left off the memo. Haha. This make the Reps look pretty bad alright. I REALLLLLY want to read that footnote and I hope it is release soon.

#616

Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele's efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials,” the memo alleged.
But in an appearance on "Fox & Friends," Nunes was asked about reports over the weekend that the FBI application did refer to a political entity connected to the dossier. It is unclear precisely what language the application might have used.
Nunes conceded that a "footnote" to that effect was included in the application, while faulting the bureau for failing to provide more specifics.
"A footnote saying something may be political is a far cry from letting the American people know that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt that the FBI then used to get a warrant on an American citizen to spy on another campaign," Nunes said on "Fox & Friends."

Hmmm. I'm seeing that Nunes memo said the FBI failed to disclose the Dossiers ties to the Clinton campaign and the DNC, not that they didn't disclose it was compiled with the backing of a 'political entity' (how non-specific can you get?!!). I don't see a lie here. I see professional disinformation agents trying to work their magic and make the Nunes memo say something it did not say. I mean if we are going to play 'parse the words the way I like them' and all this bullshit.

I'm calling for the release of ALL relevant FISA applications. Let's see if the 'intelligence' agencies back that.

#617

So...if verified by more sources (and I think it will be) this is a bombshell:

Carter Page met with the Russians in 2013 as an UNDERCOVER FBI agent.

Layers upon layers upon layers of lies and spin.
No wonder people hate & mistrust the political class in Washington DC so much.

#618

Jeezus fucking christ, you are a gullible idiot, Clarence. Seriously. You complain about the New York Times, but dump blog stuff from a site (antiwar.com) that also says Trump is a danger to world peace. https://original.antiwar.com/Robert_Dod ... -cold-war/ It has a very poor reputation, Clarence. But you don't care as long as it confirms your biases.

So if the FBI was so against Trump and for Hillary, why did they announce the renewed investigation against Clinton and not that the FBI had serious reservations about Trump's team? Doesn't make much sense, does it? Why did the FISA warrant against Page get renewed three times, once by Rosenstein, a Trump appointee? That's some serious deep state shit. Or you take Occam's razor out and see that it is a bunch of post hoc explanations to try and undermine and discredit a legitimate investigation that is in fact non-partisan. Mueller had the support of both parties and a sterling reputation before it was feared he might find something.

What would it take for you to admit Trump is awful? Bannon already suggested the treason word for the clandestine, never-actually-happened, details-spun-on-a-plane meeeting with Trump Jr. and Eric Trump and some Russians. Treason, a serious word which Trump is now applying to people that didn't clap for his turgid State O' the Union Address. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white- ... on-n844851

My guess is you'll pretend you didn't see any of this and ignore me. That amuses me to no end.

#619

Trump lie? Well, I never.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... oncerns-he

#620

CaptainRetardedBunny:
I've had you on ignore for probably...I dunno...a year now? I can see that you posted but not what you posted unless someone else quotes you.
I don't respond to posts full of personal insults and that seems all you are capable of doing.
The only reason I know you've responded to me in this thread is that I sometimes check out the thread before signing in and I glanced at your last few posts and noted that some of them were addressed to me and skimming, had lots of insults, so I've literally read none of them except this very last one where you call me all sorts of names and I suppose rhetorically ask me questions you fool yourself into thinking I can't answer. For instance, I quoted Justin Raimondo, who is pretty much my only normal go-to source on the Antiwar site. I've tried to tell you and dumbass (free thoughtpolice) to think on your own and do your own research and, as an example do not confuse a websites reputation with every single person who contributes to it For instance, I trust Glenn Greenwald more than some other contributers at The Intercept, yet even I know that GG can't really be fair when it comes to certain subjects such as Radical Islam (which he acts as an apologist for). There are HOW MANY CONTRIBUTERS to antiwar.com? Is it your contention absent proof that they are all equally bad?

Anyway, you are not as smart as you think you are, most of your 'gotcha's' aren't really gotcha's, you don't do your homework and try to figure out relationships (business, political, social) among the mainstream entities that feed your oversized ego what it wants to gobble up. As an example Neil King used to work for The Wall Street Journal. He now works for Fusion GPS. Who is his wife? Obama’s last Senior Adviser SHAILAGH MURRAY who used to also work for the journal, has a degree in Communications (so knows how to 'shape' news) and is important enough to have her own Wikipedia entry. Information pipeline? You aren't intelligent enough or possibly intellectually honest enough to ask that question or to admit that such business/personal relationships stink to high heavens and that's just one of many I know about some of which are much more involved in the "Steele Dossier" bullshit that is currently engulfing our country. Or my country. I think you are Canadian or some shit, same as your pal, Freeper.

Let me give you one piece of homework: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/20 ... al-crisis/

Yes, I know its a lot of reading (but notice all the links and documents that you can verify for your goddamn self as I have), but who said this was going to be easy?

Now, if you want to discuss THAT (or disprove it if you can you haven't shown that you are even aware of practically any of it, no surprise since you mostly read mainstream sources and lefty rags and nothing else) and do so without INSULTING me I will show you the same courtesy. Otherwise you can bug off again. I've had many months free of your Anti-Trump Derangement Syndrome and your personal insults and I will gladly keep that string going.

Regardless , like I said, I have names, relationships, and relatively soon I will have much more indictments than just Mr. Steele. And you can take to the bank.

#621

Clarence wrote: ↑ Regardless , like I said, I have names, relationships, and relatively soon I will have much more indictments than just Mr. Steele. And you can take to the bank.

jmcc.jpg: (78.14 KiB) Downloaded 192 times

#622

Oh, jeepers! Clarence is in the big leagues, he's a regular InfoWars! And I will be taking that to the bank. Won't they be impressed?

You're embarrassing yourself, Clarence. Again.

#623

And Clarence, little dude, you were the one that started with the insults. Long ago. Don't be surprised when people insult you back. This is the reason you have no friends and have never known a woman.

#624

Any Trumpsters wanna guess why the administration isn't enforcing the sanctions against Russia. They were voted in with overwhelmingly large margins, yet Trump has decided not to enforce them.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reute ... SKBN1FI2V7

Looking forward to some pretzel logic explanation.

#625

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes. ... utType=amp
$130,000. Lots of presidents have cheated before him, it's true. But have a thought for poor Melanie who apparently believed Trump.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.busine ... ort-2018-1
I'm sure there is no lesson to be learned for people trusting Trump. Nope :whistle:

#626

DTulbh5W0AAnk5S.jpeg: (79.14 KiB) Downloaded 161 times

#627

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ Any Trumpsters wanna guess why the administration isn't enforcing the sanctions against Russia. They were voted in with overwhelmingly large margins, yet Trump has decided not to enforce them.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reute ... SKBN1FI2V7

Looking forward to some pretzel logic explanation.

This is yet another reason to be investigating the Rosneft sale.

#628

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑ If there's a document saying that Bob the Bobbie was promised money by Charlie the Crook to leave Alice the Arsonist alone, and then Charlie sells his precious car and Bob is suddenly not investigating Alice's activities, I'd say it's time for Bob and Internal Affairs to sit down and have a chat.

Worth reiterating.

#629

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ Any Trumpsters wanna guess why the administration isn't enforcing the sanctions against Russia. They were voted in with overwhelmingly large margins, yet Trump has decided not to enforce them.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reute ... SKBN1FI2V7

Looking forward to some pretzel logic explanation.
This is yet another reason to be investigating the Rosneft sale.

The Trumpsters will ignore this or engage in whataboutery. It isn't a president for them, it is a cult of personality. Notice the insults that turn to victimization when it's turned back on them. The snide insinuations and conspiracy theories that would dent the sturdiest tinfoil hat. They take it personally and then project it on everybody else. I mean, it's funny and all, but doesn't leave a great deal of room for faith in humanity.

#630

Kirb, you're a fella wise beyond your years. You've a book in you, or am I wrong?

#631

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ Any Trumpsters wanna guess why the administration isn't enforcing the sanctions against Russia. They were voted in with overwhelmingly large margins, yet Trump has decided not to enforce them.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reute ... SKBN1FI2V7

Looking forward to some pretzel logic explanation.
This is yet another reason to be investigating the Rosneft sale.
The Trumpsters will ignore this or engage in whataboutery. It isn't a president for them, it is a cult of personality. Notice the insults that turn to victimization when it's turned back on them. The snide insinuations and conspiracy theories that would dent the sturdiest tinfoil hat. They take it personally and then project it on everybody else. I mean, it's funny and all, but doesn't leave a great deal of room for faith in humanity.

I never had much faith in humanity to begin with.

There's a great quote in Men in Black:

A person is smart. People are dumb,
panicky animals, and you know that

Pretty deep for a summer blockbuster.

#632

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑ The Rosneft sale was a public, documented event, and the fact that the alleged buyers were shell corporations is also easily verifiable. Unlike in the case of the Russian hacking you don't need any information from US intelligence agencies to check this.

Similarly Trump's reluctance of enforcing sanctions is another public event, which has been reported by an independent news associations, like Reuters. You don't need to trust US media to observe it.

Even if the US intelligence services and the US media were completely unreliable there's still more than enough suspicion to justify at least strong doubts about Trump's integrity. The Senate and House of Representatives should demand Trump to answer to this under oath in a committee.

Notice how thoroughly Clarence has explained this away...? :roll:

#633

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑ The Rosneft sale was a public, documented event, and the fact that the alleged buyers were shell corporations is also easily verifiable. Unlike in the case of the Russian hacking you don't need any information from US intelligence agencies to check this.

Similarly Trump's reluctance of enforcing sanctions is another public event, which has been reported by an independent news associations, like Reuters. You don't need to trust US media to observe it.

Even if the US intelligence services and the US media were completely unreliable there's still more than enough suspicion to justify at least strong doubts about Trump's integrity. The Senate and House of Representatives should demand Trump to answer to this under oath in a committee.
Notice how thoroughly Clarence has explained this away...? :roll:

He's probably busy doing research. Like walking around the streets in a trenchcoat all spy like. Besides, Reuters is lame stream media

#634

Trump wants a big fancy military parade. I like them too!

#635

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ Trump wants a big fancy military parade. I like them too!

Aren't Republicans supposed to be fiscal conservatives who don't like wasting tax money on needless expenses? Or is public spending bad only when it's about healthcare, welfare, or rebuilding Puerto Rico?

#636

Aren't Republicans supposed to be fiscal conservatives who don't like wasting tax money on needless expenses?

They say that all the time so it must be true.

#637

#638

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑

Treason! Whoever did that should be spanked by a porn star with a copy of Vogue.

#639

Ever notice how some people freely dispense insults, get insulted back, then play the victim? "All you have is insults!" they whine. Perhaps later they'll come by to tell us they were only trolling.

db0.jpg: (26.15 KiB) Downloaded 122 times

#640

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑

Wow, I didn't notice how Ted Cruz's clapping looks painfully forced and insincere. He looks like he's swallowing a lemon. Tillerson also looks like he's about to puke.

#641

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2ibkHGRyaQ

A pragmatic takedown (for the most part) of Trump's State of the Union from Bernie Sanders. The best part is reminding people of the promises that Trump didn't deliver, like Draining the Swamp or improving healthcare, or having a plan for rebuilding infrastructure which isn't "sell roads off to the highest bidder".

Sanders' pragmatism is what the US left needs. Note how he doesn't blame the white working class, or Trump voters. Instead he tells them "Trump conned you, he's not working in your best interests".

I don't think that this will convince the hardcore Trump fans, but those who voted Trump just because they didn't want Clinton, the independents and the undecided might be more easily won by arguments like this than by screaming "you're privileged white males who need to die off/men are trash/we live in a Patriarchy", etc.

#642

Yes, I know, there's the bit about the "gender pay gap" and the sexual harassment thing, which aren't entirely clear in Sanders' speech (he doesn't go over any specifics) and might be twisted into the SocJus narrative. But still, leaving that aside, it's a honest attempt to tell to the American public WHY Trump and the GOP are wrecking things, without just screaming "RACIST/SEXIST/HE'S THE DEVIL AND HITLER COMBINED".

#643

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/think-yo ... rydenborg/
It has a lovely picture with many of the players. Russians and money.

#644

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... cent?amp=1
What's the worst that happens?

#645

Transparency in action. Where does the excess money go, you'd think a year would have it sorted out.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... -after?amp

#646

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... cent?amp=1
What's the worst that happens?

"We'll have the best droughts, the biggest droughts that the world has ever seen."

#647

For better or worse, the USA is going from a world leader to a carnival act. I hope everybody enjoys the Chinese and Russians taking over.

#648

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:37 pm
For better or worse, the USA is going from a world leader to a carnival act. I hope everybody enjoys the Chinese and Russians taking over.

It had to happen sooner or later, no empire lasts forever. The Chinese and Russians only care about their spheres of influence, though, they're not interested in playing World Leader as much as they want to maintain their structures, get great deals, and expand their control over the areas next to their borders. I expect that Putin will try to get more areas in the Ukraine where Russian speakers live, while the Chinese leadership will try to control the South China Sea.

The biggest incognita is Syria. Turkey has invaded the Idlib area and attacked the US-financed SDF (the Kurds and others) with the support of many Salafi militias. Assad isn't taking this lying down, even though he doesn't give a shit about the Kurds he's pissed at the idea of the Salafis taking over and forming their new caliphate under Turkish protection. Russia will likely try to get Erdogan and Assad to kiss and make up, but it's going to be tough. The Kurds will likely end up being the scapegoat.

#649

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/p ... DA&gwt=pay
Well, #ReleaseTheMemo only goes one way. How the fuck does anybody fall for this clown's act anymore? He thinks he can brazen through a bluff as president as though it were one of his shady business deals. He may as well tattoo "I am guilty" on his forehead.

#650

Today's Venn diagram-not all Trump supporters are holocaust deniers are Trump supporters, but all holocaust deniers are Trump supporters. :think:

#651

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ Today's Venn diagram-not all Trump supporters are holocaust deniers are Trump supporters, but all holocaust deniers are Trump supporters. :think:

Somehow that doubled up. Not all Trump supporters are holocaust deniers, but all holocaust deniers are Trump supporters.

#652

Don't worry, he will release the treasonous lying "democrat" memo very soon. I'm guessing it is getting audited and every idiot knows that liars can't give out facts while they are being audited.
So I am guessing the lying demoncrat memo may be released even before the tax returns that show that the Donald has never sold properties to shady numbered companies that could be fronts for russian or columbian gangsters that are trying to launder money. Or made shady loans through Deutschebank, or tried to receive benefits from the sales of Russian state energy concessions.
reefer :character-beavisbutthead:

#653

Okay, am I wrong here, or did Clarence pull a classic Feminist Shuffle-spew insults and then, when insulted back retreat to "All you have is insults!" and then retreat? Classic victim ploy or am I wrong?

#654

You can't expect Boss Tweet to release something the Justice Department and FBI have concerns about. Unless, of course, it was written by a Republican and is something the president wants to hear. Then transparency is the order of the day. This memo was written by commie faggot Democrats. Secrecy holds sway in this case.

#655

Was Russiagate produced by the primary leaders of the US intelligence community, not just the FBI? If so, it is the most perilous political scandal in modern American history, and the most detrimental to American democracy. And if so, it does indeed, as zealous promoters of Russiagate assert, make Watergate pale in significance. (To understand more, we will need to learn more, including whether Trump associates other than Carter Page and Paul Manafort were officially surveilled by any of the agencies involved. And whether they were surveilled in order to monitor Trump himself, on the assumption they were or would be in close proximity to him, as the president once suggested in a tweet.)

§ If Russiagate involved collusion among US intelligence agencies, as now seems likely, why was it undertaken? There are various possibilities. Out of loathing for Trump? Out of institutional opposition to his promise of better relations—“cooperation”—with Russia? Or out of personal ambition? Did Brennan, for example, aspire to remaining head of the CIA, or to a higher position, in a Hillary Clinton administration?

§ What was President Obama’s role in any of this? Or to resort to the Watergate question: What did he know and when did he know it? And what did he do? The same questions would need to be asked about his White House aides and other appointees. Whatever the full answers, there is no doubt that Obama acted on the Russiagate allegations. He cited them for the sanctions he imposed on Russia in December 2016, which led directly to the case of General Michael Flynn (not for doing anything wrong with Russia but for “lying to the FBI”); to the worsening of the new US-Russian Cold War; and thus to the perilous relationship inherited by President Trump, who has in turn been thwarted by Russiagate in his attempts to improve relations through “cooperation” with Putin.

§ With all of this in mind, and assuming Trump knew most of it, did he really have any choice in firing FBI Director Comey, for which he is now unfairly being investigated by Mueller? We might also ask, given Comey’s role during Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign (for which she and her team loudly condemned him), whether as president she would have had to fire him.

https://www.thenation.com/article/russi ... intelgate/

#656

Clarence wrote: ↑ Was Russiagate produced by the primary leaders of the US intelligence community, not just the FBI? If so, it is the most perilous political scandal in modern American history, and the most detrimental to American democracy. And if so, it does indeed, as zealous promoters of Russiagate assert, make Watergate pale in significance. (To understand more, we will need to learn more, including whether Trump associates other than Carter Page and Paul Manafort were officially surveilled by any of the agencies involved. And whether they were surveilled in order to monitor Trump himself, on the assumption they were or would be in close proximity to him, as the president once suggested in a tweet.)

§ If Russiagate involved collusion among US intelligence agencies, as now seems likely, why was it undertaken? There are various possibilities. Out of loathing for Trump? Out of institutional opposition to his promise of better relations—“cooperation”—with Russia? Or out of personal ambition? Did Brennan, for example, aspire to remaining head of the CIA, or to a higher position, in a Hillary Clinton administration?

§ What was President Obama’s role in any of this? Or to resort to the Watergate question: What did he know and when did he know it? And what did he do? The same questions would need to be asked about his White House aides and other appointees. Whatever the full answers, there is no doubt that Obama acted on the Russiagate allegations. He cited them for the sanctions he imposed on Russia in December 2016, which led directly to the case of General Michael Flynn (not for doing anything wrong with Russia but for “lying to the FBI”); to the worsening of the new US-Russian Cold War; and thus to the perilous relationship inherited by President Trump, who has in turn been thwarted by Russiagate in his attempts to improve relations through “cooperation” with Putin.

§ With all of this in mind, and assuming Trump knew most of it, did he really have any choice in firing FBI Director Comey, for which he is now unfairly being investigated by Mueller? We might also ask, given Comey’s role during Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign (for which she and her team loudly condemned him), whether as president she would have had to fire him.

https://www.thenation.com/article/russi ... intelgate/

We'd probably have more answers if Trump released the Democratic memo, eh? And what proof is presented anybody was illegally survailed? If they had illicit contact with the Russians, then surveillance is the appropriate thing.

All these Trumpian distractions. The Mueller probe was agreed to by the vast majority of Democrats AND Republicans. That some Republicans now are concerned, even before the probe is complete is very telling. They are trying to undermine the legitimacy of the findings in advance, which tells even the simple among us that they know bad things were done and hidden.

ext.jpeg: (426.64 KiB) Downloaded 48 times

#657

For the more credulous Trump supporters-ever wonder why he won't release his taxes? Ever wonder why he said his business finances were off-limits? We may be about to find out! Wheeee!

#658

Nunes admits he didn't read his source material. I wonder if he is any relation to Steersman?
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/37211 ... ssion=true

#659

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/jero ... veillance/

Now I'm not really saying this is what happened, but why would Jerome Corsi lie about this?
If they look a little deeper it will be clear this whole Russia derangement syndrome is just a diversion away from the giant Pizzagate scandal.
It explains why Musk and Trump want to start a Mars shuttle. To get to the child sex slave colony!

#660

A little bit of fun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... Vt3WdZYm3E

Please, PLEASE tell me that it's real AND made in China.