TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 10 of 17
I hope you don't want a point by point agreement from me for all your facts.
second, I USED to look for a reasonable, fact-based discussion from you. But after you had a lie forcibly stripped off of you, you immediately returned to lying in your very next post. So now I know without a shadow of a doubt, you're so inherently dishonest you're incapable of any even moderately fact-based discussion at all.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, I had an interesting talk with a guy at the restaurant. We're both regulars, and in fact his wife was too, so we've run across each other now and then, and have had many discussions going back at least a decade.
A bit about Bob. He's a smart guy, Vietnam vet, with a couple decades of military service behind him. And fortunately he didn't come back so damaged he was unable to make his way in society. With a good head on his shoulders he's about as financially secure as anyone in our strata of society can be. Though, as with many people our age, he has a certain number of health issues, which have taken their toll on his energy and time, at least. Also, sadly for him, his wife passed away from a second bout of breast cancer a couple of years ago. It was unhappy to see him come in, order breakfast alone, sit with his head down, not talking to anyone, sometimes blinking away tears. He did that for almost 2 years. He was obviously grieving deeply. But he seems to have gotten re-engaged with life, which is good to see.
Anyway, he is personally libertarian, and somewhat conservative, most especially about gun rights. As far as he's concerned, he doesn't care about race, sexual orientation, religion, even drug use (he includes alcohol in that) up until you get in a car or do something that puts other people at risk. But the libertarian in him wants government to go away, while the conservative in him makes him, frankly, kind of a gun nut. As a political person, he's consistently voted secular moderate republican on account of being mostly a single-issue (gun) voter.
So we have many areas of agreement and disagreement.
We had an at length discussion about politics. He used to work at Los Alamos, and unequivocally stated that it's impossible for a president to single-handedly launch a nuclear missile just on their say-so. And he castigated hillary deeply for promoting that falsehood. He also agreed with me that she will bring us to war with Russia. He also said that when it came to internal politics, it was his belief that neither candidate as president would be able to keep their domestic promises. 'They don't have enough power. In my opinion, neither of them do.'
I asked him 'who are you going to vote for?' And to sum it up, he said 'neither'. Or, as he later reiterated, but more vehemently 'if you put a gun to my head and told me I'd have to pick one or the other I'd say 'just shoot me now.'' He also said in several different ways, 'it was different 40 years ago, but now the only difference between democrats and republicans is the spelling'. And 'they're just about listening to the big money.' And also 'I blame the people for the way things are.'
But he mentioned, more than once, how completely disgusted he was with both candidates. The word 'disgusted' came up often.
It was interesting that a lifelong republican can't vote for their candidate, while a lifelong democrat can't vote for their candidate, either.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND, since you seem to deal mostly in cartoons, here are a few for you
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"What has not changed is I still don't want Trump as President"
Let's look at it another way Second: Let's look at the possibility that Americans, the group that are your average Americans, don't believe that
Trump is the answer despite the "facts" about Hillary. He has not presented
his case sufficiently to convince the undecided and middle of the road voters
that he is the answer.
Trump showed his true colors and the people, the rational thinkers of this country, stood firm in their belief in the system as we have come to know it. They were not swayed by the outrageous rhetoric and pseudo reform crap of the Trumpeters. Establishment buster my ass! He was out for Number 1 and that is that; it was as plain as vanilla ice cream.
Bottom line: Hillary will win, warts and all. "Take a whiff, cause she's the shit."
There's no denying that people are angry, but it's all smoke and mirrors folks. The real deal is that this country is turning brown and people are losing their minds about the shift in power. It is inevitable and, like the immigrants that first set foot in this country and slowly took over, the "natives" must now adapt to the change in climate.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How will you feel when the US and Russia start shooting at each other directly instead of at each other's proxies?
Or are you so invested in being brown on the outside you've forgotten that everybody bleeds red from the inside?
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
We had an at length discussion about politics. He used to work at Los Alamos, and unequivocally stated that it's impossible for a president to single-handedly launch a nuclear missile just on their say-so. And he castigated hillary deeply for promoting that falsehood. He also agreed with me that she will bring us to war with Russia.
Quote:How do you feel when your predictions don't come true? Get beyond thankful and feelings of relief.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
How will you feel when the US and Russia start shooting at each other directly instead of at each other's proxies?
www.gocomics.com/nickanderson/2016/10/25
For 1kiki, a Lock Her Up comic:
www.gocomics.com/nickanderson/2016/09/14
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:From Scientific American:
Originally posted by G:
You really think Hillary is more of a threat in that regard than W was? Or are you just lying?
Liar, Liar: How the Brain Adapts to Telling Tall Tales
As the U.S. presidential campaign has highlighted, the more a person lies, the easier it seems to become. But politics is not the only realm where dishonesty abounds. In 1996 Bernard Bradstreet, co-chief executive of the technology company Kurzweil Applied Intelligence was sentenced to jail for fraud. His initial transgressions were relatively minor: To boost quarterly accounts he allowed sales that had not quite been closed to go on the books. But before long customers' signatures were being forged, documents altered and millions of dollars in fake sales reported—allowing the company to show profits when it was losing money while investors paid millions for company stocks. Similar tales emerged after the Enron scandal, one of the largest bankruptcy cases in U.S. history.
Anecdotal reports of dishonesty escalating over time are common, so a team of researchers from University College London (U.C.L.) and Duke University decided to investigate. “Whether it’s evading taxes, being unfaithful, doping in sports, making up data or committing financial fraud, deceivers often recall how small acts of dishonesty snowballed over time,” U.C.L. neuroscientist Tali Sharot, the work’s senior author, told members of the press during a teleconference last Friday. The team's findings, published today in Nature Neuroscience, confirm in a laboratory setting that dishonesty grows with repetition. The researchers also used brain imaging to reveal a neural mechanism that may help explain why.
www.scientificamerican.com/article/liar-liar-how-the-brain-adapts-to-t
elling-tall-tales/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Will the following Trump plan work? It is exactly the kind of story Trump voters would believe with all their hearts and souls. Make America Great Again — for Free! (Will Trump's voters read the fine print in this deal? No. Those voters will pay road tolls and bridge tolls to the extremely wealthy and Trump's children, if they go into the bridge building business, until the bridges fall down. That is what "Great" means to Trump.)
Originally posted by G:
SIGNYM: "The ability to lie convincingly is the mark of an actor ... or a sociopath. The rather disturbing conclusion I reach from this example ... and pretty much most of human history ... is that most people love to be lied to, as long as it's a story they're used to hearing."
Telling in many ways, that. Personally, I like my fiction in an easy to recognize media format, not in RL.
Donald Trump believes the United States can get $1 trillion in new roads — for free
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/27/donald-trump-believes-a
merica-can-get-1-trillion-in-new-roads-for-free/
Donald Trump has finally released a plan to pump $1 trillion of new infrastructure spending into the U.S. economy.
He says it won't cost taxpayers a dime.
http://peternavarro.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/infrastruc
turereport.pdf
Trump would push Congress to authorize $137 billion in tax credits for construction companies looking to build new toll roads, toll bridges or any other sort of infrastructure project that has a revenue stream attached to it. (The revenue is critical, in that it generates a return to the private builder of the project.)
The advisers behind the plan, Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro, calculate that the tax credits would leverage $167 billion in investment by the companies that receive them, who would in turn borrow money on the private market to finance up to $1 trillion in total spending. That spending, then, would create jobs, with wages that would be taxed, and corporate profits, which also would be taxed.
Ross and Navarro calculate the added tax revenue would be enough to pay for the total cost of the tax credits, which means the overall cost to the government would be . . . nothing. They contrast that to Democrat Hillary Clinton's infrastructure plan, which is funded in part by business tax increases.
Alan Cole, an economist at the independent Tax Foundation, said the proposal likely overrates the amount of tax revenue that would be generated by the private spending, partly because it appears to assume that every worker on the infrastructure projects was not working — or paying income taxes — previously.
Still, he said, “this is not unusually out of the mainstream, particularly for a Trump proposal.”
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The GOP has decided to not confirm anyone Hillary suggests for Supreme Court. We will see if the GOP goes through with it.
www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/us/article/White-House-pans-Cru
z-pitch-for-smaller-Supreme-10418399.php
Campaigning in Colorado this week, Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz road-tested the idea of a shrunken Supreme Court - effectively blocking any justice picked by Democrat Hillary Clinton should she win the presidential election.
The idea has picked up steam in conservative circles as Donald Trump's campaign has fallen behind in the polls, alarming Republicans who fear the first liberal Supreme Court majority since the 1970s.
It also signals that the GOP blockade on nominee Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's pick to replace the late Antonin Scalia, will continue past the Nov. 8 election.
Cruz, campaigning Wednesday for a Republican Senate candidate in Colorado, stirred the political pot by suggesting that Republicans could block a Democratic president from filling a Supreme Court vacancy indefinitely.
"There will be plenty of time for debate on that issue," Cruz said. "There is long historical precedent for a Supreme Court with fewer justices. … That's a debate that we are going to have."
"I just want the people to remember: United States Supreme Court," Trump told Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network in a transcript released Thursday. "Whether they love me or like me or don't like me, we're going to put great justices, pro-life justices, we're going to put Second Amendment justices and I think for the evangelicals it's so important that they get out and vote."
But with Clinton leading in most major polls, and time running out for a Trump comeback, Republicans have begun to talk about ways to stop her from appointing a ninth justice who could tip the ideological balance of the court.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott joined the fray Thursday, praising Cruz on Twitter: "@SenTedCruz: GOP may block Supreme Court nominees indefinitely," he tweeted. "This may be only way to save the Constitution."
Cruz's rhetorical shot across the bow follows that of Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain, who said earlier this month that Republicans would be "united" in blocking any Clinton nomination. He later backed off those remarks, but the issue has taken on a life of its own.
Cruz's position takes on added significance because he is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which gets first crack at Supreme Court nominations. The committee's chairman, Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, has taken a softer tone, telling reporters last week that "we can't simply stonewall" Clinton judicial appointments.
Texas U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, also sits on the judiciary panel. He has said nothing about any prospective Clinton nominees. He has made it clear only that there is no chance the Senate will consider Garland's nomination in the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress.
The impasse over Garland and the possibility of future gridlock if Clinton gains the White House also is likely to spark a new partisan battle over the super-majority requirement for approving judges or overriding a filibuster, which currently stands at 60 votes.
Diminished activism
As questions about the Supreme Court have intensified in the presidential election, a number of conservative analysts have laid out the theoretical underpinnings for a GOP blockade. Michael Paulsen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas Law School in Minneapolis, argued in a National Review article last week that Congress could pass a law reducing the Supreme Court from nine to six seats. "A smaller court means diminished judicial activism," he wrote.
Ilya Shapiro, a legal scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, wrote an essay in the Federalist this week arguing that Republicans would be in their rights to ignore or vote down any Clinton a
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why it is so many republicans claim they love the constitution while they go about trying to destroy this republic? Ted Cruz thinks it is OK to suggest he is right in blocking Supreme Court nominees. It is something we have been doing in this country for hundreds of years. If Clinton wins then Clinton wins. She picks and the Senate advises and confirms. Cruz conveniently forgets that a Clinton win means the people voted for her to make the choice. He also forgets that he made his pitch to the American people and they said no thanks. His own party said no thanks.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:After Trump, congressional Republicans plan to keep doing the same thing Trump is now doing. The GOP's purpose in Congress is NOT to govern, but to destroy the Democrats. The USA can collapse for all the GOP cares, so long as the Democrats get the blame.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Why it is so many republicans claim they love the constitution while they go about trying to destroy this republic? Ted Cruz thinks it is OK to suggest he is right in blocking Supreme Court nominees. It is something we have been doing in this country for hundreds of years. If Clinton wins then Clinton wins. She picks and the Senate advises and confirms. Cruz conveniently forgets that a Clinton win means the people voted for her to make the choice. He also forgets that he made his pitch to the American people and they said no thanks. His own party said no thanks.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah is voting for but not endorsing Trump, while promising to undertake “years” of investigations: not of future wrongdoing that he thinks Clinton might engage in but of past pseudo-scandals that have already been thoroughly aired.
“Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up,” Chaffetz told the Washington Post’s David Weigel. “She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.” Chaffetz ain't good.
Perhaps nothing in the history of American government has been more thoroughly investigated than Hillary Clinton’s four-year tenure as Secretary of State. Seven different investigations were mounted into Benghazi alone, but when none of them turned up any wrongdoing, House Republicans decided to convene an eighth investigation — a special select committee designated exclusively to Benghazi.
As Kevin McCarthy, the number two House Republican, explained, the purpose of the eighth investigation was to harm Clinton’s presidential campaign. As he told Sean Hannity in September 2015:
“What you’re going to see is a conservative speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?”
“But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”
This eighth investigation also found no wrongdoing. But in a sense, all the various Benghazi inquiries did bear fruit because they led to the revelation of Clinton’s private email server. That in turn spawned an extensive FBI investigation that also found no crime. In total, these investigations cost about $30 million in taxpayer funds, according to Ciro Scotti of the Fiscal Times.
By contrast, something like Wells Fargo creating hundreds of thousands of fake bank accounts merited a single hearing by one House committee.
Chaffetz runs the House Oversight Committee, so doing investigations is absolutely his job. If Clinton’s administration does not generate an investigation-worthy controversy or two, I would be shocked. But he’s not saying he will investigation fresh accusations of wrongdoing. He’s saying that after tens of millions of dollars have already been spent investigating Clinton’s State Department years and after Clinton wins an election in which the fruits of those investigations were a major issue, he wants to go investigate them again.
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/28/13427462/congress-gop-obstr
uction
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Why it is so many republicans claim they love the constitution while they go about trying to destroy this republic? Ted Cruz thinks it is OK to suggest he is right in blocking Supreme Court nominees. It is something we have been doing in this country for hundreds of years. If Clinton wins then Clinton wins. She picks and the Senate advises and confirms. Cruz conveniently forgets that a Clinton win means the people voted for her to make the choice. He also forgets that he made his pitch to the American people and they said no thanks. His own party said no thanks.
After Trump, congressional Republicans plan to keep doing the same thing Trump is now doing. The GOP's purpose in Congress is NOT to govern, but to destroy the Democrats. The USA can collapse for all the GOP cares, so long as the Democrats get the blame.
If they chose to go that route ( which I am sure they will ) they will have to accept Trumps policies on trade and many other issues. And that ain't gonna happen. So again they will be at odds with Trumps supporters. Which means they continue to alienate their constituents.
Trump showed himself to be unacceptable to be president. Any populist republican who was not crazy would have beaten Clinton. She is a one termer if she does not consider those voters going forward.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If this is directed at me, don't worry, SHIT I'm ready and I know where to point my gun. All I have to do is point at the first ORANGE motherfucker that comes my way. EVERYBODY BLEEDS RED!!!
This should be fun, LAST Motherfucker standing WINS!
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
How will you feel when the US and Russia start shooting at each other directly instead of at each other's proxies?
Or are you so invested in being brown on the outside you've forgotten that everybody bleeds red from the inside?
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Poor baby. Did that little lesson in reality drive you to incoherence? Or is that your natural state?
In any case, poor baby here seems to not understand that a nuclear confrontation with Russia 'trumps' every other negative possibility there is.
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It’s probably true that Trump, given his pro-Russia line, would be somewhat less likely than Clinton to immediately stumble into confrontation with Vladimir Putin over Syria. But it’s silly to imagine Moscow slipping into a comfortable détente with a President Trump; Putin is more likely to pocket concessions and keep pushing, testing the orange-haired dealmaker at every opportunity and leaving Trump poised, very dangerously, between overreaction and his least-favorite position — looking weak.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Poor baby. Did that little lesson in reality drive you to incoherence? Or is that your natural state?
In any case, poor baby here seems to not understand that a nuclear confrontation with Russia 'trumps' every other negative possibility there is.
That’s just Russia: From the Pacific Rim to the Middle East, revisionist powers will set out to test Trump’s capacity to handle surprise, hostile actors will seek to exploit the undoubted chaos of his White House, and with his promised pivot to mercantilism and trade war, our allies will build American fecklessness into their strategic plans. And again, all of this is likely to happen without Trump doing the wilder things he’s kind-of sort-of pledged to do — demanding tribute from allies, trying to “take the oil,” etc. He need only be himself in order to bring an extended period of risk upon the world.
The history of geopolitics prior to the Pax Americana is rife with examples of why this sort of testing should be feared. Overall, Trump’s foreign policy hazing, his rough introduction to machtpolitik, promises more danger for global stability — still a real and valuable thing, recent crises notwithstanding — than the risks incurred by George W. Bush’s interventionism, Barack Obama’s attempt at offshore balancing, or (yes) Hillary Clinton’s possible exposure of classified material to the Chinese, the Russians and Anthony Weiner’s sexting partners.
The Dangers of Donald Trump
Ross Douthat OCT. 29, 2016
www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/sunday/the-dangers-of-donald-trump.
html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dear America
Please do not elect that badly shaved angry orangutan as president.
Thank you
The rest of the world
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It’s probably true that Trump, given his pro-Russia line, would be somewhat less likely than Clinton to immediately stumble into confrontation with Vladimir Putin over Syria.
FINALLY ! The inklings of a breakthrough!
Though it doesn't go nearly far enough. It's not just Syria.
Remember, the pretext for nuclear arms in Europe was as a deterrent against Iran. But since the treaty, what is the new pretext? There is none. Nevertheless, NATO has installed nukes in new eastern European member countries. And in response to this clearly aggressive action on the part of NATO, Russia has deployed more troops on its western border.
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/euro.pdf
Piecing together evidence from an array of sources, the Natural Resources Defense
Council has determined that the United States is still deploying 480 nuclear weapons in Europe. That should come as a surprise. Until now, most observers believed that there were no more than half of those weapons still left on the continent. Declassified documents obtained under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, military literature, the media, non-governmental organizations, and other sources show that the 480 bombs are stored at eight air bases in six NATO countries – a formidable arsenal larger than the entire Chinese nuclear stockpile.
... the limited combat range of the nuclear strike aircraft deployed in Europe probably requires some form of staging through Eastern European air bases to effectively engage targets in Russia.
https://www.newcoldwar.org/new-nato-threats-in-eastern-europe-as-polan
d-romania-to-install-u-s-missile-system/
Russia calls new U.S. missile defense system a ‘direct threat’ 2016
‘Certainly it’s a threat’: Moscow rejects NATO claims ABM site safe for Russia
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-11/nuclear-arms-race-back-russia
-furious-us-launches-european-ballistic-missile-shield
The Nuclear Arms Race Is Back: Russia Furious As US Launches European Ballistic Missile Shield
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And btw, magon's, OF COURSE leaders around the globe are for hillary. Do you think that they aren't all grunting and nuzzling at the same global mega-corp teat?
And while hillary will win - she HAS to win - a loss would have been worse than Brexit. It would have been a crippling blow to their government/ corporate scam.
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAGONSDAUGHTER:
Dear America
Please do not elect that badly shaved angry orangutan as president.
Thank you
The rest of the world
Poor Magons.
But somehow I feel that you aren't justified speaking for "the rest of the world", especially the targets of American aggression. They would probably beg to differ. The ones that survived, anyway.
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I love the smell of guv'mint/korporate scam in the morning, don't you!?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
World domination by the NWO, controlled by the NEOCONS & bankrolled by the Russian/Syrian mob. Ah, the fun & games are just getting warmed up ladies & germs............just gettin' warmed up!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
World domination by the NWO, controlled by the NEOCONS & bankrolled by the Russian/Syrian mob. Ah, the fun & games are just getting warmed up ladies & germs............just gettin' warmed up!
YOU ... have totally lost it, my friend!
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Second, it is the biggest scam going. Years ago Senator William Proxmire would award what came to be known as The Golden Fleece Award for what he deemed wasteful spending. Perhaps that should be started up again, we could hand them out like Pez to the Repugnant Repubs who insist on wasting our tax dollars on such stupid shit as another Benghazi white wash.
Let's start with Ted Cruz and Chafe-etz. If Hillary wins, she'll get the remainder of the Obama treatment, and those assholes will continue getting paid and wasting money investigating Hillary. Plus they'll continue the obstructionists movement, the dickheads! Golden Fleeces all around.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:After Trump, congressional Republicans plan to keep doing the same thing Trump is now doing. The GOP's purpose in Congress is NOT to govern, but to destroy the Democrats. The USA can collapse for all the GOP cares, so long as the Democrats get the blame.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Why it is so many republicans claim they love the constitution while they go about trying to destroy this republic? Ted Cruz thinks it is OK to suggest he is right in blocking Supreme Court nominees. It is something we have been doing in this country for hundreds of years. If Clinton wins then Clinton wins. She picks and the Senate advises and confirms. Cruz conveniently forgets that a Clinton win means the people voted for her to make the choice. He also forgets that he made his pitch to the American people and they said no thanks. His own party said no thanks.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah is voting for but not endorsing Trump, while promising to undertake “years” of investigations: not of future wrongdoing that he thinks Clinton might engage in but of past pseudo-scandals that have already been thoroughly aired.
“Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up,” Chaffetz told the Washington Post’s David Weigel. “She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.” Chaffetz ain't good.
Perhaps nothing in the history of American government has been more thoroughly investigated than Hillary Clinton’s four-year tenure as Secretary of State. Seven different investigations were mounted into Benghazi alone, but when none of them turned up any wrongdoing, House Republicans decided to convene an eighth investigation — a special select committee designated exclusively to Benghazi.
As Kevin McCarthy, the number two House Republican, explained, the purpose of the eighth investigation was to harm Clinton’s presidential campaign. As he told Sean Hannity in September 2015:
“What you’re going to see is a conservative speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?”
“But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”
This eighth investigation also found no wrongdoing. But in a sense, all the various Benghazi inquiries did bear fruit because they led to the revelation of Clinton’s private email server. That in turn spawned an extensive FBI investigation that also found no crime. In total, these investigations cost about $30 million in taxpayer funds, according to Ciro Scotti of the Fiscal Times.
By contrast, something like Wells Fargo creating hundreds of thousands of fake bank accounts merited a single hearing by one House committee.
Chaffetz runs the House Oversight Committee, so doing investigations is absolutely his job. If Clinton’s administration does not generate an investigation-worthy controversy or two, I would be shocked. But he’s not saying he will investigation fresh accusations of wrongdoing. He’s saying that after tens of millions of dollars have already been spent investigating Clinton’s StateNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Originally posted by MAGONSDAUGHTER:
Dear America
Please do not elect that badly shaved angry orangutan as president.
Thank you
The rest of the world
Poor Magons.
But somehow I feel that you aren't justified speaking for "the rest of the world", especially the targets of American aggression. They would probably beg to differ. The ones that survived, anyway.
STIGMA against the Rest of the World now - not surprising. Only STIGMA has the answers! When are you going to run for President and save us all?? When will it dawn on you that since WHOZIT left there's only one person who agrees with you? Can't wait to hear what you definition of intelligence is. *snort*
Russia has lost it's seat on the UN human rights council. Yet SIG is still focused on the United States as being the global bad guy. That says it all.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Two experts say Donald Trump should be investigated for criminal tax evasion
by Matthew Yglesias, Oct 31, 2016, 1:00p
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/31/13474280/trump-foundation-c
riminal-charges
Various aspects of Trump's charity almost certainly violate the laws governing charities (he’s already been sanctioned by the state of New York), but several experts are also raising the question of whether Trump is guilty of criminal tax evasion. This is a difficult charge to prove, but the law requires the government to demonstrate knowledge and intent which means that scofflaws can often get off by pleading ignorance. But both Philip Hackney, a former IRS attorney now working as a professor of tax law, and Adam Chodorow, a tax law professor at Arizona State University, have written that the elements exist to at least begin an investigation.
Trump seems to have directed over $2 million in donations to his charity. That’s not illegal by any means, but “directed” donations are supposed to be reported to the IRS as personal income. How many of you reading this have a $2 million income over your entire life? Did you fail to report that income for all the years of your life?
Had Trump followed the precedent of the past 40 years worth of presidents and released his tax returns to the public, we could see if he followed the rule. He has not done so, and his campaign has been dodgy about answering reporters’ questions as to whether he reported income correctly.
Trump senior advisor Boris Epshteyn quietly admitting that Trump's income was not reported correctly, without admitting that the "mistake" was done with criminal intent by Trump.
Where Trump stands out from your average tax avoider, however, is that he claims to have an extraordinarily high level of US tax law.
At a rally in Pueblo Colorado, for example, he argued that he “brilliantly used” his understanding of the tax code to avoid personal income tax liability.
“I say we take him at his word,” Adam Chodorow of ASU Law School writes. “If I worked at the Internal Revenue Service, I would refer Trump to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation.”
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Russia has lost it's seat on the UN human rights council.
Russia against the world! Sounds familiar doesn't it?
I wonder if "learning" has any impact on "intelligence?"
Intelligence is defined as "The capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc." So the ability to learn would reveal intelligence and I would think enhance, ( develop ) ones intelligence.
I present this definition as evidence that our Russian trolls have none.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, THUGR, you went to an online dictionary and looked up the definition of "intelligence". That's probably the most learning you've done in 35 years!
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And Saudi Arabia has retained its seat. That tells me what a joke the process is.
Russia has lost it's seat on the UN human rights council.
Yes, the USA is the global bad guy. In the past 30 years, who has killed the most people?
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:“The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen,” Noam Chomsky went on. “Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers. If somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. What are people supposed to think if someone says ‘I have got an answer, we have an enemy’? For Germany it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. People will be beaten up. This could become an overwhelming force. And if it happens it will be more dangerous than Germany. The United States is the world power. Germany was powerful but had more powerful antagonists. I don’t think all this is very far away. If the polls are accurate it is not the Republicans but the right-wing Republicans, the crazed Republicans, who will sweep the next election.”
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yes, the USA is the global bad guy. In the past 30 years, who has killed the most people?
“I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime,” Chomsky added. “I am old enough to remember the 1930s. My whole family was unemployed. There were far more desperate conditions than today. But it was hopeful. People had hope. The CIO was organizing. No one wants to say it anymore but the Communist Party was the spearhead for labor and civil rights organizing. Even things like giving my unemployed seamstress aunt a week in the country. It was a life. There is nothing like that now. The mood of the country is frightening. The level of anger, frustration and hatred of institutions is not organized in a constructive way. It is going off into self-destructive fantasies.”
“I listen to talk radio,” Chomsky said. “I don’t want to hear Rush Limbaugh. I want to hear the people calling in. They are like [suicide pilot] Joe Stack. What is happening to me? I have done all the right things. I am a God-fearing Christian. I work hard for my family. I have a gun. I believe in the values of the country and my life is collapsing.”
www.filmsforaction.org/articles/noam-chomsky-has-never-seen-anything-l
ike-this/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Added Sep 1st, 2015
So, not about Trump.
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:1kiki is wrong again. It turns out that Noam Chomsky was right about Trump when he foresaw in Sep 1st, 2015 that the Republicans would run a charismatic figure who is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Added Sep 1st, 2015
So, not about Trump.
More about Trump:
Mike Pence promised during the vice presidential debate that Trump would release his tax returns. So far that promise has gone unfulfilled.
Voters are still in the dark about how much the Republican presidential candidate earns, how much he has donated to charity and how much he has paid in taxes. Beyond personal habits, voters still don’t know whether Trump has financial ties with foreign governments.
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/05/mike-pence/pen
ces-false-claim-trump-hasnt-broken-tax-return-p/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This spring, a group of computer scientists set out to determine whether hackers were interfering with the Trump campaign. They found something they weren’t expecting.
Originally posted by G:
We are an incredibly coddled and spoiled nation - very thin on ideals and maturity. Not too unlike Russia. A good butt whuppin' might do us both some good.
Sadly: We'll get who we deserve.
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_ser
ver_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html
Frank Foer reports on the very peculiar transmissions between a Trump computer and a computer owned by Alfa Bank—a Russian bank run by oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin. The transmissions began early this year, peaked in early August, and then abruptly ceased a few weeks ago when a New York Times reporter began inquiring about them.
“The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.” Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance.
Voters still don’t know whether Trump has financial ties with foreign governments because Trump has not released his income tax returns.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:1kiki is wrong again. It turns out that Noam Chomsky was right about Trump when he foresaw in Sep 1st, 2015 that the Republicans would run a charismatic figure who is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Added Sep 1st, 2015
So, not about Trump.
More about Trump:
Mike Pence promised during the vice presidential debate that Trump would release his tax returns. So far that promise has gone unfulfilled.
Voters are still in the dark about how much the Republican presidential candidate earns, how much he has donated to charity and how much he has paid in taxes. Beyond personal habits, voters still don’t know whether Trump has financial ties with foreign governments.
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/05/mike-pence/pen
ces-false-claim-trump-hasnt-broken-tax-return-p/
1kiki's always wrong. That's because she's wrong headed.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Donald Trump used a dubious loophole to make millions in taxable income disappear.
His own lawyers thought it was dodgy.
We learned from Trump’s reaction to a different story about his tax-dodging that he had, in fact, gone years without paying federal income tax. But that gave rise to a new mystery. Trump did not have $1 billion in cash to lose. What happened is that his casinos went bankrupt and he secured massive relief from his creditors, making bondholders share in his misfortune.
Forgiven debts, however, are supposed to show up as taxable income. So how did Trump pull it off? New legal documents obtained by the New York Times indicate that Trump filed the transaction as a ‘‘debt for equity swap,’’ a move that allowed him to not count hundreds of millions of dollars in debt relief. His lawyers told him the IRS would probably not allow this move (and maybe it didn't), but we do know from legislative history that the loophole remained arguably on the books until Congress explicitly closed it in 1993.
Since Trump continues to refuse to engage in routine tax disclosure, it’s impossible to say exactly what happened after that. But the hint that he used a tax minimization strategy his lawyers advised against is further evidence that an investigation of his management of his foundation could lead to criminal charges. Trump in federal prison -- Sad!
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/1/13485576/donald-trump-tax-lo
ophole
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Blah blah blah ....
This spring, a group of computer scientists set out to determine whether hackers were interfering with the Trump campaign. They found something they weren’t expecting.
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_ser
ver_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html
Frank Foer reports on the very peculiar transmissions between a Trump computer and a computer owned by Alfa Bank—a Russian bank run by oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin. The transmissions began early this year, peaked in early August, and then abruptly ceased a few weeks ago when a New York Times reporter began inquiring about them. ...
Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-dona
ld-trump.html
Then either the FBI is lying, or they're incompetent.
Quote:This is what the western financial media has to say about Alfa Bank's so-called "ties" to Putin
Alfa Bank—a Russian bank run by oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin
Not All Russian Billionaires Are Putin Cronies
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-03-05/not-all-russian-bil
lionaires-are-putin-cronies
I guess Bloomberg must be part of the conspiracy too!
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Not ALL? So, 25%? 55%? How many? How would you know, how can you tell?- GSTRING
Why don't you read the article to find out?
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I have suspected Trump for being the prime suspect for voter tampering ever since the media reported him saying he suspected Hillary and the Dems would rig the election. It's the same "deflection method" that we see our resident Ruskies use when attacking other posters, They'll say, "You're a liar!" right after they've told a whopper. Deflect the thing you do by accusing others of doing it - a simple and obvious political chess move to most of us.- GSTRING
What kind of mechanism might they use? Are these machines vulnerable to internet hacks? If not, do they own or have connections to a company that makes voting machines? Or do they have a team of operatives which goes around the nation, tampering with the vote-counting equipment?
Or are you in the habit of dreaming up impossible conspiracies which have no possible means of being carried out?
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Added Sep 1st, 2015
So, not about Trump.
Originally posted by second:
1kiki is wrong again. It turns out that Noam Chomsky was right about Trump when he foresaw in Sep 1st, 2015 that the Republicans would run a charismatic figure who is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself.
Honey, you're lying, yet again. What IS it with you hillarities, anyway? Is this site the dumping ground for the pathologically dishonest?
WHAT CHOMSKY SAID:
“The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen,” Noam Chomsky went on. “Every charismatic figure is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself, like McCarthy or Nixon or the evangelist preachers. If somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. What are people supposed to think if someone says ‘I have got an answer, we have an enemy’? For Germany it was the Jews. Here it will be the illegal immigrants and the blacks. We will be told that white males are a persecuted minority. We will be told we have to defend ourselves and the honor of the nation. Military force will be exalted. People will be beaten up. This could become an overwhelming force. And if it happens it will be more dangerous than Germany. The United States is the world power. Germany was powerful but had more powerful antagonists. I don’t think all this is very far away. If the polls are accurate it is not the Republicans but the right-wing Republicans, the crazed Republicans, who will sweep the next election.”
“I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime,” Chomsky added. “I am old enough to remember the 1930s. My whole family was unemployed. There were far more desperate conditions than today. But it was hopeful. People had hope. The CIO was organizing. No one wants to say it anymore but the Communist Party was the spearhead for labor and civil rights organizing. Even things like giving my unemployed seamstress aunt a week in the country. It was a life. There is nothing like that now. The mood of the country is frightening. The level of anger, frustration and hatred of institutions is not organized in a constructive way. It is going off into self-destructive fantasies.”
“I listen to talk radio,” Chomsky said. “I don’t want to hear Rush Limbaugh. I want to hear the people calling in. They are like [suicide pilot] Joe Stack. What is happening to me? I have done all the right things. I am a God-fearing Christian. I work hard for my family. I have a gun. I believe in the values of the country and my life is collapsing.”
Is Trump in there? In Chomsky's fears that an HONEST, CHARISMATIC FIGURE might arise?
You know, second, you read, you quote, but you obviously don't address the topics honestly, or even intelligently.
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A long story for 1kiki about the "reasons" for Peter Thiel's support of Trump:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Honey, you're lying, yet again. What IS it with you hillarities, anyway? Is this site the dumping ground for the pathologically dishonest?
www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/31/thiel_on_trump_and_downtrodden_millio
naires/
31 Oct 2016 at 20:22, Kieren McCarthy
Billionaire venture capitalist and professional contrarian Peter Thiel hailed a new political reality this morning with another public endorsement of fellow billionaire Donald Trump just days before the US elections.
The Paypal cofounder and early Facebook investor travelled from Silicon Valley to Washington DC to hold a press conference, in which he warned at length that the entire country had gone down the wrong path. Just like Trump, however, he failed to move from diagnosis to cure and outline any actual proposals to fix things.
A worrying 64 percent of people over age 55 have less than a year’s worth of savings, Thiel warned. Healthcare is 10 times in the US what it is in the rest of the world. College tuition continues to rise above inflation. Incomes aren't moving. And the government is "wasting trillions of dollars" on wars.
What's he going to do about it as someone with access to huge amounts of capital and brainpower? Complain, of course.
"No matter what happens in this election, what Trump represents is not crazy, and it's not going away. He points to a new Republican Party beyond the dogmas of Reaganism," said Thiel, adding: "When the distracting spectacles of this election season are forgotten, the only important question will be whether or not that new politics came too late."
At a time when the political establishment has increasingly and publicly distanced itself from the Republican nominee following months of racist, sexist and other similarly offensive comments, it is perhaps unsurprising that Thiel – who relishes taking the opposite view to whatever becomes commonly accepted – has become a fervent supporter. He recently donated $1.25m to Trump's campaign.
Who's in Peter's file?
In 2012, Thiel supported Ron Paul for the presidency, then Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan when Ron Paul dropped out. That was a dead-end move. Next in 2016, Thiel supported Carly Fiorina; when she dropped out, Ted Cruz. Only when Cruz dropped out did Thiel express his support for Trump, later appearing on stage at the Republican convention to express his pride at being gay – to a political party that "supports traditional marriage."
In just one of a list of seemingly endless contradictions, Thiel's pride at being gay comes after tabloid rag Gawker told the world that he is indeed very gay – a decision that so infuriated him that he secretly funded a number of lawsuits, including Hulk Hogan's, against Gawker in an effort to bankrupt the online publication. He succeeded.
Asked specifically about that funding effort, Thiel argued that Hogan was not able to use the legal system properly himself because he was only "a single-digit millionaire." Thiel said:
If you're a single-digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system.
He also claimed that a number of journalists had told him privately that they supported his secret legal campaign against Gawker – a claim that, again, matches Trump's willingness to say whatever helps his argument at the time, regardless of whether it is based in reality.
As for his sexuality, Thiel was asked if he had asked Republicans behind the scenes if they would protect gay rights – in particular recent decisions on equality such as same-sex marriage. Thiel said he had not had any such conversations.
So... when Donald said...
Inevitably, Thiel faced a series of questions asking how he excused the enormous range of concerns against Trump. The religious test for immigrants aka Ban the Muslims? Thiel "wouldn't support the specific langu
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Strawman, in the pantheon of DISHONEST ARGUMENTS! Your specialty.
You write about Chomsky. I write about Chomsky. So you QUOTE ME me writing about CHOMSKY and YOU write about --- Peter Thiel!
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why do you accuse me of lying because of your ignorance?
Didn't you hear about previous testimony, under oath, where a software engineer admitted to inserting fraudulent code into touchscreen voting machines?
Haven't you heard about the connection between Karl Rove and tech guru Michael Connell in 2004? Didn't you know that Mr Connell died in a "plane crash" after being deposed about his vote-counting server?
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Chomsky once replied after 9/11 to an angry, insane author: “It may be possible to disentangle some intended line of argument, but I’m not going to make the effort, and fail to see why others should. Since 1kiki evidently does not take what she is writing seriously, there is no reason for anyone else to do so. The fair and sensible reaction is to treat all of this as some aberration, and to await the return of the author to the important work that she has often done in the past.”
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Strawman, in the pantheon of DISHONEST ARGUMENTS! Your specialty.
You write about Chomsky. I write about Chomsky. So you QUOTE ME me writing about CHOMSKY and YOU write about --- Peter Thiel!
www.thenation.com/article/reply-hitchens/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because you believe in Trump? I am just throwing that hypothesis out there for lead in to this article:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Why do you accuse me of lying because of your ignorance?
Truth After Trump
from The Chronicle of Higher Education
www.chronicle.com/article/Truth-After-Trump/238174
Much of the disagreement about Donald Trump among American voters has to do with which sort of character he is: a lowly fraudster or a larger-than-life revaluer of values. It does not have to do with whether or not he is telling the truth. And so, frustratingly to many opponents, simply pointing out that he is speaking falsehoods can do nothing to set him back. In politics, the Bush administration’s manipulations are often said to have inaugurated a "post-truth" era, whose ascendancy has been confirmed by Trump’s campaign. But here we need to distinguish between truth and fact. In one view we have Trump, the bullshitter and con man, who plays fast and easy with the facts, not because he has any grand conception of the truth that he believes might justify his deceptions, but simply because he sees that he can say whatever he wants and get away with it, and this is fun for him. In another view, we have the Bush aide’s understanding of the mission of the president, which involves the realization of higher truths (democracy in the Middle East, for example) that are far more important than whatever particular facts happen to be the case.
That certain claims may be morally true while empirically false is an idea far older than George W. Bush. It is in play in the lexical distinction in Russian between two different sorts of truth — pravda, which in principle must be grounded in fact, and istina, which is somehow higher than fact. This distinction was inverted by the Bolsheviks, who with no apparent irony gave the name of Pravda to the newspaper that didn’t so much report on what was the case as describe what they would have liked to be the case.
A similar transcendence of the merely empirical helps to explain the reaction, in 16th-century Spain, to the fabrications of the Jesuit historian Jerónimo Román de la Higuera, author of the so-called Falsos cronicones, which purported to document the antiquity of the Christian faith in the Iberian peninsula. When it was discovered that he had made it all up, that there had been no martyrs or miracles in Spain in the first few centuries after Christ, Román de la Higuera was not denounced as a fraud, but instead the empirical falsity of his chronicles was taken as a sign of their power to convey a deeper truth. He had succeeded — by invention, by writing, by telling a story — in retrojecting Christianity into Spain’s distant past, which is surely a far greater accomplishment than simply relating facts.
But this, again, is not what Trump is doing. He is a mere bullshitter, and what comes out of his mouth has more to do with pathologies of personality than with any real vision of how the world, or America, ought to be brought into line with some super-empirical truth to which he alone has access.
Trump is a bullshitter, but the forces that have buoyed him go well beyond bullshit. His connection to whatever was left of the GOP has been severed, and he has drifted irretrievably into the arms of the alt-right, the gutter conspiracy-mongers who speak of a great global cabal, and the crowds that whoop and holler in agreement when this conspiracy is evoked, with barely a clue as to what is being claimed, let alone as to the standards of evidence that might be brought to bear to confirm or refute those claims. It is not that they have consented to buy into bullshit, but rather that they find themselves ensorcelled by an idea of truth independent of and superior to the facts. This is the same idea that turned the pseudohistorian Román de la Higuera into a popular hero, and that enabled Pravda to pretend to be delivering istina for the better part of a century. It is a powerful idea, and dangerous, and it speak
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SO, YOU DON'T INTEND TO DISCUSS YOUR OWN ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT'S TOO COMPLICATED FOR YOU
HERE'S THE RECAP
asswipe (that's you) (posting about Trump and quoting Chomsky)
“The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen,” Noam Chomsky went on. ..."
me in reply
Added Sep 1st, 2015
So, not about Trump.
asswipe in reply
It turns out that Noam Chomsky was right about Trump when he foresaw in Sep 1st, 2015 that the Republicans would run a charismatic figure who is such an obvious crook that he destroys himself.
me in reply
“The United States is extremely lucky that no honest, charismatic figure has arisen,” Noam Chomsky went on. ...
Is Trump in there? In Chomsky's fears that an HONEST, CHARISMATIC FIGURE might arise?
asswipe in reply
A long story for 1kiki about the "reasons" for Peter Thiel's support of Trump
And that's a strawman, asswipe, in the pantheon of DISHONEST ARGUMENTS! Your specialty.
It's a way of misrepresenting your opponent's position.
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow. Kiki's really funny when she doesn't get her way. The internet equivalent to a toddler scream&stomp right there. LOL!
Wicked interesting news about Trump and his Russian internet connection. Also interesting that the FBI won't talk about it, though they're all into releasing ill-defined innuendo regarding Clinton. I wish this madness would be over in a week, but clearly it's going to go on for far longer. This stuff goes deep.
Not like 8th, 9th, 10th, fruitless investigation into Clinton's emails kind of fake-deep, but like a traitorous idiot racist sexist con-man got so damned close to the keys to power and how the hell did our system fail so bad to let this happen? The roots of this insanity run all through our government and our citizens. It won't be going away anytime soon, sadly.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
Battle is the Great Redeemer. It is the fiery crucible in which true heroes are forged. The one place where all men truly share the same rank, regardless of what kind of parasitic scum they were going in.
*-----------------------------------------------------------------*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Actually, it's a way to ensure that second can't pretend s/he didn't post what s/he did. I've found it to be a reliably effective way to make sure second isn't able to misrepresent either my posts, or a conversation, like in this thread; and it's a good way to make sure lies don't pass by unnoticed. see below
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MEANWHILE
You posted this:
You're a whore for Russia, we get that. You are whole heartedly a nut for the Drumph. You haven't been coy about it. We've noticed your obvious spread thigh position and we are well aware of the ship you're sailing.
And I posted this:
You're a whore for Russia ... You are whole heartedly a nut for the Drumph. You haven't been coy about it.
Then you should have no problem finding ample quotes supporting your claims. Because without them, you're just another liar going blah dah blah dah blah ... endlessly.
GO GIRL! FETCH!
So, any luck finding proof of your claims? Or are you lying, again?
MEANWHILE, speaking of lies you keep repeating and just can't seem to give up -
I don't need to bother to ask *again* if you are willing to do the same. I know you aren't. I know what a coward you are. Can't stand up to your own convictions. Because you're a troll and you don't really care if you're wrong as long as you get you nickel per word for your posts. pffffft. Loser. :p
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60955&mid=1
018905#1018905
Oh btw mal, aside from you being a chronic liar - and how does that feel?, btw - I actually did respond to your challenge - twice. Once in response and once where I quoted myself to point out to you I answered it. But you must have missed it both times, or claim to have missed it both times, either because you're insane, illiterate, or a liar. I'd want to see to that if I were you. Repeatedly missing chunks of reality that you seem to be paying attention to, or claiming that you're missing them, doesn't bode well for your mental or moral health. http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60745&p=1
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:as written by
Wicked interesting news about Trump and his [lack of] Russian internet connection.
FBI investigations into Trump-Russia ties yield little
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/politics/donald-trump-russia-fbi-investi
gations/index.html
Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-dona
ld-trump.html
Quote:Except apparently to CNN and the NYT. Alas for you and Hillary!
Also interesting that the FBI won't talk about it
Quote:
though they're all into releasing ill-defined innuendo regarding Clinton. I wish this madness would be over in a week, but clearly it's going to go on for far longer. This stuff goes deep. Not like 8th, 9th, 10th, fruitless investigation into Clinton's emails kind of fake-deep, but like a traitorous idiot racist sexist con-man got so damned close to the keys to power and how the hell did our system fail so bad to let this happen? The roots of this insanity run all through our government and our citizens. It won't be going away anytime soon, sadly.
Just to clarify, what is this "this stuff" and "this insanity"? What do you think is "insane"?
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ahem!
Why do you accuse me of lying because of your ignorance?- SIGNY
Because you believe in Trump?
Quote:Yeah I figured you weren't serious!
I am just throwing that hypothesis out there for lead in to this article
Truth After Trump
from The Chronicle of Higher Education
www.chronicle.com/article/Truth-After-Trump/238174
Quote:I have no idea what this means. This kind of thinking is why people can convince themselves that they're bombing people to promote peace, or some such
Much of the disagreement about Donald Trump among American voters has to do with which sort of character he is: a lowly fraudster or a larger-than-life revaluer of values. It does not have to do with whether or not he is telling the truth. And so, frustratingly to many opponents, simply pointing out that he is speaking falsehoods can do nothing to set him back. In politics, the Bush administration’s manipulations are often said to have inaugurated a "post-truth" era, whose ascendancy has been confirmed by Trump’s campaign. But here we need to distinguish between truth and fact. In one view we have Trump, the bullshitter and con man, who plays fast and easy with the facts, not because he has any grand conception of the truth that he believes might justify his deceptions, but simply because he sees that he can say whatever he wants and get away with it, and this is fun for him. In another view, we have the Bush aide’s understanding of the mission of the president, which involves the realization of higher truths (democracy in the Middle East, for example) that are far more important than whatever particular facts happen to be the case.
That certain claims may be morally true while empirically false is an idea far older than George W. Bush.
Quote:
And then there is the usual gratuitous anti-Russian comment that has nothing to do with the article, but seems to be required in the media today ...
Trump is a bullshitter, but the forces that have buoyed him go well beyond bullshit. His connection to whatever was left of the GOP has been severed, and he has drifted irretrievably into the arms of the alt-right, the gutter conspiracy-mongers who speak of a great global cabal, and the crowds that whoop and holler in agreement when this conspiracy is evoked, with barely a clue as to what is being claimed, let alone as to the standards of evidence that might be brought to bear to confirm or refute those claims.
Evidence: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/artic
le/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
Quote:No, it's just that they realize that their lives are shit and getting shittier, that DC doesn't respond to what they need or want, that we've been ensnared in one pointless war after another, and the elite just roll along sucking up more wealth and power as they go.
It is not that they have consented to buy into bullshit, but rather that they find themselves ensorcelled by an idea of truth independent of and superior to the facts.
SECOND, it seems to me that despite having posted the same thing over and over and over, you haven't fully understood what I posted. I don't know about Trump supporters, but I know why I would vote for him, and it has nothing to do with either "believing" Trump or "believing IN Trump".
1) Hillary and Trump are MORAL EQUIVALENTS. Neither one is better or worse than the other. Hillary does not have an advantage over Trump: She lies just as much, she is just as greedy, she is just as racist, she has just as big a temper, she is just as much a misogynist ... in every regard, she is just as horrible a person.
2) HOWEVER, I give Trump the edge because he does not have a policy record advocating and promoting the bombing of brown people far away. In fact, he wants to make nice with Russia, w
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Excellent summary of your position, Signym. I think President Trump will kill Obamacare and President Hillary will not. It is about as certain as any promise can be in politics. Less certain is Hillary's chance of winning.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
No, it's just that they realize that their lives are shit and getting shittier, that DC doesn't respond to what they need or want, that we've been ensnared in one pointless war after another, and the elite just roll along sucking up more wealth and power as they go.
SECOND, it seems to me that despite having posted the same thing over and over and over, you haven't fully understood what I posted. I don't know about Trump supporters, but I know why I would vote for him, and it has nothing to do with either "believing" Trump or "believing IN Trump".
1) Hillary and Trump are MORAL EQUIVALENTS. Neither one is better or worse than the other. Hillary does not have an advantage over Trump: She lies just as much, she is just as greedy, she is just as racist, she has just as big a temper, she is just as much a misogynist ... in every regard, she is just as horrible a person.
2) HOWEVER, I give Trump the edge because he does not have a policy record advocating and promoting the bombing of brown people far away. In fact, he wants to make nice with Russia, which I personally think is a great idea.
3) In addition, he is speaking out for OUR NATIONAL BORDERS. He's not one of these open-border globalist-types who want all our decisions made in a trade tribunals or an IMF boardroom in Geneva or Singapore. He speaks out against so-called "free trade" and illegal immigration.
Trump's heart may be in the right place, but he hasn't the faintest clue how to get where he wants to go. I winced, I really did, when I heard about his first hundred days. He will probably muck things up royally for the elites, which means, of course, that we peons will suffer. But when I see who is against him ... the banksters and financiers and neocons and globalists and "value signaling" liberaloids whose values place them in strange company ... well, if you can judge a person by their enemies I guess Trump isn't so bad.
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
Trump’s chance of winning is at 30% and climbing fast. If the election could be delayed a month, it would be almost certain he would win.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrp
romo#now
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump does not personally seem very engaged with policy issues, but if he wins, he’ll have a nearly unprecedented ability to enact a sweeping policy agenda.
The main reason for that is if he wins it’s all but guaranteed he’ll have a Republican congressional majority to work with.
Imagine, in other words, that Trump does what he says he wants to do on taxes, the environment, immigration, and health care. His agenda is there, and on all but the immigration issues his views are basically in line with the vision put forth by Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who will do the boring work of drafting the bills for Trump to sign.
The result would be a sweeping transformation of American life. Millions would be forcibly removed from their homes and communities as new resources and a new mission invigorate the pace of deportations. Taxes would drop sharply for the richest Americans while rising for many middle-class families. Millions of low-income Americans would lose their health insurance, while America’s banks would enjoy the repeal of regulations enacted in the wake of the financial crisis.
Millions of Americans would love some or all of these changes, and millions of others would hate them. But most of all, the vast majority of Americans would simply be confused. Someone who’d been following the election moderately closely — scanning headlines, watching cable news, and tuning in to debates — would simply have no idea that this sweeping shift in American public policy by Congress will become law if Trump wins. Beneath the din of email coverage and the mountains of clichés about populism, the media has simply failed to convey what’s actually at stake in the election.
House Republicans have already cooked up a massive agenda on domestic policy that commands majority support and that Trump has largely endorsed. The centerpiece is a major cut in taxes for high-income people financed by deep cuts to anti-poverty programs, paired with broad deregulation of the finance and health insurance sectors.
Trump’s agenda is largely identical to this, except that his proposed tax cut for the wealthy is much larger . . .
There is more at www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/2/13483020/policy-stakes-2016
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Even without Trump, there will be trouble.
Originally posted by G:
I know you know, but just for the record: SIGNYM and KILLKILL just aren't interested.
Here's a happy, positive spin I just thought of. Stay with me: Trump wins. The scenario you describe above comes true in full. In the second year of the Trump reign, The People - especially those that voted for him - are finally unable to deny the destruction and false promises made by Trump. An actual, physical revolt happens and sweeping gov. change finally occurs. Had it not been for Trump it would have been another 35 years before such progress would be made. He goes down as The Failure that Saved America.
America's constitutional democracy is going to collapse some day just like crappy democracies in Latin America because, in retrospect, the Founding Fathers made some very poor decisions while writing the US Constitution. Matthew Yglesias explains why other countries with constitutions modeled after the US Constitution have had the very same troubles that the USA is now having between Democrats and Republicans.
www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed
“Voiced in another register, my outlandish thesis is actually the conventional wisdom in the United States. Back when George W. Bush was president and I was working at a liberal magazine, there was a very serious discussion in an editorial meeting about the fact that the United States was now exhibiting 11 of the 13 telltale signs of a fascist dictatorship. The idea that Bush was shredding the Constitution and trampling on congressional prerogatives was commonplace. When Obama took office, the partisan valence of the complaints shifted, but their basic tenor didn't. Conservative pundits — not the craziest, zaniest ones on talk radio, but the most serious and well-regarded — compare Obama's immigration moves to the actions of a Latin-American military dictator. . . .
The breakdown of American constitutional democracy is a contrarian view. But it's nothing more than the view that rather than everyone being wrong about the state of American politics, maybe everyone is right. Maybe Bush and Obama are dangerously exceeding norms of executive authority. Maybe legislative compromise really has broken down in an alarming way. And maybe the reason these complaints persist across different administrations and congresses led by members of different parties is that American politics is breaking down.”
I should mention that 1kiki and Signym are ordinary in Texas. 1kiki is very much like the far left wingers I know at the University of Texas at Austin and Signym is very much like my Republican neighbors in Baytown Texas. 1kiki and Signym would argue that that is not them at all, as would their argumentative clones living in Texas.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"When I found out about Trump’s treatment of a Scottish family in his attempt to force them off their land I had to make a film about it. Now he wants to sue."
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/03/youve-been-trumped-too-f
ilm-donald-trump
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On the financial disclosure forms that Donald J. Trump has pointed to as proof of his tremendous success, no venture looks more gold-plated than his golf resort in Doral, Fla., where he reported revenues of $50 million in 2014....But this summer, a considerably different picture emerged in an austere government hearing room in Miami, where Mr. Trump’s company was challenging the resort’s property tax bill.
Mr. Trump’s lawyer handed the magistrate an income and expense statement showing that the gross revenue had indeed been $50 million. But after paying operating costs, the resort had actually lost $2.4 million.
Well, really, what's the difference between plus 50 million and minus 2.4 million? According to Trump, nothing much. But it goes a long way toward explaining why he filed bankruptcy so many times, doesn't it?
Donald Trump’s Income Isn’t Always What He Says It Is, Records Suggest
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/donald-trump-money.html?_r=0
Trump listed gross revenue, as opposed to net income after expenses, on his disclosure forms without acknowledging that choice. Thus he made himself look far more important than he is. In news releases, the Trump campaign said that “Mr. Trump’s income” was $362 million in a 2015 report, and was more than $557 million in a 2016 report required by ethics laws. During the debate with Mrs. Clinton in September, he mentioned $694 million. So much hot air in so little time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
On the financial disclosure forms that Donald J. Trump has pointed to as proof of his tremendous success, no venture looks more gold-plated than his golf resort in Doral, Fla., where he reported revenues of $50 million in 2014....But this summer, a considerably different picture emerged in an austere government hearing room in Miami, where Mr. Trump’s company was challenging the resort’s property tax bill.
Mr. Trump’s lawyer handed the magistrate an income and expense statement showing that the gross revenue had indeed been $50 million. But after paying operating costs, the resort had actually lost $2.4 million.
Well, really, what's the difference between plus 50 million and minus 2.4 million? According to Trump, nothing much. But it goes a long way toward explaining why he filed bankruptcy so many times, doesn't it?
Donald Trump’s Income Isn’t Always What He Says It Is, Records Suggest
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/donald-trump-money.html?_r=0
Trump listed gross revenue, as opposed to net income after expenses, on his disclosure forms without acknowledging that choice. Thus he made himself look far more important than he is. In news releases, the Trump campaign said that “Mr. Trump’s income” was $362 million in a 2015 report, and was more than $557 million in a 2016 report required by ethics laws. During the debate with Mrs. Clinton in September, he mentioned $694 million. So much hot air in so little time.
Good reporting SECOND
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, I agree, this is good reporting.
Allow me to add this:
Melania gave a speech that defies comprehension. She spoke of cyber bullying and how she would concentrate on the young children exposed to this unsavory
exposure. What's completely baffling is the fact that her dear husband is the King of Cyber Bullying. What gives!? Doesn't that go against message?
The Trump campaign is falling apart at the seams and no one seems to be capable of righting the ship. By the way, Kelly Anne appeared on The View and it was a total disaster as Donald says.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/the-view-clashes-with-trump-campaign-
manager-kellyanne-conway/ar-AAjLKKi?OCID=ansmsnnews11
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
On the financial disclosure forms that Donald J. Trump has pointed to as proof of his tremendous success, no venture looks more gold-plated than his golf resort in Doral, Fla., where he reported revenues of $50 million in 2014....But this summer, a considerably different picture emerged in an austere government hearing room in Miami, where Mr. Trump’s company was challenging the resort’s property tax bill.
Mr. Trump’s lawyer handed the magistrate an income and expense statement showing that the gross revenue had indeed been $50 million. But after paying operating costs, the resort had actually lost $2.4 million.
Well, really, what's the difference between plus 50 million and minus 2.4 million? According to Trump, nothing much. But it goes a long way toward explaining why he filed bankruptcy so many times, doesn't it?
Donald Trump’s Income Isn’t Always What He Says It Is, Records Suggest
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/donald-trump-money.html?_r=0
Trump listed gross revenue, as opposed to net income after expenses, on his disclosure forms without acknowledging that choice. Thus he made himself look far more important than he is. In news releases, the Trump campaign said that “Mr. Trump’s income” was $362 million in a 2015 report, and was more than $557 million in a 2016 report required by ethics laws. During the debate with Mrs. Clinton in September, he mentioned $694 million. So much hot air in so little time.
Good reporting SECOND
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If Trump is elected - which is doubtful- the globalists, neocons, media, financial institutions, international corporations, "IP" companies, and Janet Yellen will do everything that can to torpedo his Presidency ... without actually, yanno, hurting themselves too badly. So they might engineer a quick contraction of the stock market by raising rates, crank up some trouble spot on the globe, allow a major terrorist incident at home, and try to create a real "color revolution" within the borders of the USA. It's been done before many times elsewhere; there's a whole playbook of options, and people are so divided in the USA that it's entirely possible.
I know you know, but just for the record: SIGNYM and KILLKILL just aren't interested.
Here's a happy, positive spin I just thought of. Stay with me: Trump wins. The scenario you describe above comes true in full. In the second year of the Trump reign, The People - especially those that voted for him - are finally unable to deny the destruction and false promises made by Trump. An actual, physical revolt happens and sweeping gov. change finally occurs. Had it not been for Trump it would have been another 35 years before such progress would be made. He goes down as The Failure that Saved America.
Quote:Truer words were never spoke.
Even without Trump, there will be trouble.
Hillary, if she is elected and runs true to form, will be ridiculously belligerent abroad and shred the Constitution ever further at home under the guise of being "at war". I'm sure she will take this opportunity to stuff even more money into her pantsuit. There could be a real showdown between her and the House; and she COULD - under dire enough circumstances that she herself creates - suspend Congress to avoid impeachment.
Quote:Well, the Presidential system was a poor choice, Parliamentarian systems work much better.
America's constitutional democracy is going to collapse some day just like crappy democracies in Latin America because, in retrospect, the Founding Fathers made some very poor decisions while writing the US Constitution.
But, as a liberal- SECOND, you should note that the article points a finger at BOTH Bush and Obama as Constitution-shredders. Bush was no progressive, but neither is Obama. And Hillary for sure isn't: she is a dyed-in-the-wool globalist, neocon, and transnational ass-licker.
Quote:What you have yet to figure out, SECOND, is that when I criticize Obama, I'm criticizing him from the LEFT. Since you define yourself as the leftward edge of politics (clearly, you have no one else to compare yourself to except troglodytes) I think you just don't know what the even further-left thinks of liberals. HINT: My even more leftward friends call you folks "liberaloids". Basically, liberals like you would never actually attempt to fundamentally challenge those in power.
I should mention that 1kiki and Signym are ordinary in Texas.
The word that comes up frequently in the liberal agenda is "help". Liberals want to "help" immigrants escape their home nations (which the USA has likely destabilized, exploited, or bombed) and liberals want to "help" the poor (who can't find jobs because transnationals have outsourced or automated the work in pursuit of maximized profits). The only reason liberals want to "help" the disadvantaged is so that open revolt doesn't occur. Liberals have no intention of SOLVING problems - they just want to soften the worst aspects of "business as usual" so that things can continue as they have been.
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Yes, I agree, this is good reporting.
Allow me to add this:
Melania gave a speech that defies comprehension. She spoke of cyber bullying and how she would concentrate on the young children exposed to this unsavory
exposure. What's completely baffling is the fact that her dear husband is the King of Cyber Bullying. What gives!? Doesn't that go against message?
The Trump campaign is falling apart at the seams and no one seems to be capable of righting the ship. By the way, Kelly Anne appeared on The View and it was a total disaster as Donald says.
I watched it. All the press was left scratching their heads over her hypocrisy on the subject of cyber bullying. And they said as much.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What you have yet to figure out, SECOND, is that when I criticize Obama, I'm criticizing him from the LEFT. Since you define yourself as the leftward edge of politics (clearly, you have no one else to compare yourself to except troglodytes) I think you just don't know what the even further-left thinks of liberals. HINT: My even more leftward friends call you folks "liberaloids". Basically, liberals like you would never actually attempt to fundamentally challenge those in power.
The word that comes up frequently in the liberal agenda is "help". Liberals want to "help" immigrants escape their home nations (which the USA has likely destabilized, exploited, or bombed) and liberals want to "help" the poor (who can't find jobs because transnationals have outsourced or automated the work in pursuit of maximized profits). The only reason liberals want to "help" the disadvantaged is so that open revolt doesn't occur. Liberals have no intention of SOLVING problems - they just want to soften the worst aspects of "business as usual" so that things can continue as they have been.
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"
By design, the USA Constitution rules gives the nation a government that cannot go forward or backward, turn left or right, unless it is pushed very hard by some powerful external force that is not part of the system of voters and Congress and Presidents. Often the external force is war.
Sometimes the external force might be economics, for example, Napoleon wanting to sell the Louisiana Purchase. Before the purchase was finalized, the decision faced Federalist Party opposition; they argued that it was unconstitutional to acquire any territory. Per usual, a political party was bullshitting because their real motive was economic self-interest. They did not want US grain being shipped from New Orleans rather than the East Coast.
It was the greatest land bargain in history and the Federalist Party wanted to pass up this deal because, they said but were insincere, the U.S. Constitution does not contain explicit provisions for acquiring territory. Jefferson went outside the Constitution and made a treaty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase#Domestic_opposition_a
nd_constitutionality
The cheapest land deal in history and the USA almost decided to not take the deal.
The House called for a vote to deny the request for the purchase, but it failed by two votes, 59–57. If even one more Congressman had changed their vote on the treaty, this important decision would have gone undecided. That was 1803 and the Federal Government was not running right even back then. They came so very close to making no decision, or the stupidest imaginable decision, looked at another way.
The Feds of 2016 show that the system has not changed in two centuries. The Feds are constantly dithering, unable to decide whether to go left or right, forward or backward.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What you have yet to figure out, SECOND, is that when I criticize Obama, I'm criticizing him from the LEFT. Since you define yourself as the leftward edge of politics (clearly, you have no one else to compare yourself to except troglodytes) I think you just don't know what the even further-left thinks of liberals. HINT: My even more leftward friends call you folks "liberaloids". Basically, liberals like you would never actually attempt to fundamentally challenge those in power.
The word that comes up frequently in the liberal agenda is "help". Liberals want to "help" immigrants escape their home nations (which the USA has likely destabilized, exploited, or bombed) and liberals want to "help" the poor (who can't find jobs because transnationals have outsourced or automated the work in pursuit of maximized profits). The only reason liberals want to "help" the disadvantaged is so that open revolt doesn't occur. Liberals have no intention of SOLVING problems - they just want to soften the worst aspects of "business as usual" so that things can continue as they have been.
"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"
SECOND
We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
Wrong SECOND. SIG doesn't see a government full of bad people doing bad things so she posts about it. If that were true she would not defend the likes of Russia. No SIG wants to get others to believe democracies like Americas are failures. Therefore we should be angry and rebel. That's why she is always poking them, delegitimizing them. It is her defense of everything Russian that gives it away. If you want a clear window into what SIG and 1kiki are about look to Putin. They believe as he does. They believe as Russians do.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I DO see the design flaw. In fact, I see several. And I have posted about this more than once: How to design a system where bad people don't eventually take over anyway.
We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.
Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Electoral College is the Flaw.
Immediately the Democrats always have 100 pts in just 5 states, EVERY year.
I don't believe in a Popular vote, but I believe that all states should split the Electoral votes based off of the popular votes.
It's bullshit that 20 Electoral votes swing one way with only a 1% majority.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In theory the voters can sort the sheep from the goats, the evil politician from the wholesome politician. The voters even think that is what they are doing, but if you stand far enough back where you can't hear the voters' glib rationalizations for their decisions and look only at what voters do, I think voters know no more than a flipping coin. Elections are too much like heads for Democrat, tails for Republican. There is an article on that very subject called Why Are US Presidential Elections So Close?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.
Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
http://nautil.us/issue/42/fakes/why-are-us-presidential-elections-so-c
lose
Only four times since 1824 has the winner received more than 60 percent of the popular vote. Since 2000, the candidates have been separated by an average of 3.5 points. The article dissects several very popular, and probably wrong, explanations then it gets to the best one that nearly every expert that the author talked to zeroed in on: the median voter theorem.
The median voter model seems to assume that the voters are uniformly distributed across the political spectrum. However, what if the distribution has changed so that there is greater concentration towards both right and left ends of the spectrum? That would explain why both politicians have moved away from centrist platforms. As long as both politicians are able to accurately assess the 'average' mood of their bases, and position themselves accordingly, the race can still be close, without either party’s platform being centrist.
When one politician misreads the public mood while the other doesn't the race won't be close.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
When one politician misreads the public mood while the other doesn't the race won't be close.
All of everything else was bullshit in between. Forgive me for editing it Second....
This is exactly the entire race.
Where you gonna go?
Where you gonna run?
Where you gonna hide?
Nowhere....
Because there's no-one like you left....
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:I DO see the design flaw. In fact, I see several. And I have posted about this more than once: How to design a system where bad people don't eventually take over anyway.
We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.
Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
Read this carefully folks. I don't have time now but I will be back to break this down.
OK, I'm back
SIG
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!
My response
What we have in fact, is three separate branches of government that assures a stringent thought process, debate and compromise before policy is made law. The executive, legislative and judicial branches. So why does SIG constantly attack our system and suggest we change it? She tells us having a president, chairperson or CEO is a bad thing. What she describes as what she wants is pure Socialism. Everything controlled by a central government. And yet she continually champions the republican party. The party that promotes the purist form of capitalism and works diligently to cut our existing social programs. Below is a quote of her promoting socialism and bashing capitalism. I provide a link.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What I should have said was- Democracy is a POLITICAL system. It describes how our government is made up, and how our laws our made. Usually, it has something to do with a vote.
If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives, not only would that be democracy, it would be socialism. In fact, it would be "democratic socialism". As opposed, for example, to tyrannical capitalism, in which there is a non-elected government and privately owned business.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=3
My Response
Again, I must point out that while SIG writes about turning all business and companies over to government, she is voting republican. Can you spell schizophrenic. At best, all she does is babble subjectively while trolling. Here is another quote below.
Quote SIG
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things. Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
My Response
Here we have SIG who praises Putin (war crimes Syria) claiming our system of governing promotes people doing bad things. She even suggests almost everyone in power is bad. Clearly she does not understand the differences between how our system of checks and balances is working as opposed to Putin ruling with an iron fist. She is working to u
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The design flaw has come home to roost, Thgrri, I await your response with great anticipation.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The "mood" is circumvented by the "lies" and who does it better, or so it would seem. Politicians poll the voters to death and gear up for the battle
to gain the edge in every possible manner, but the rule of the day is to outmaneuver your opponent toward that goal.
Manipulating the Big Lie, seems to me, to be the weapon of choice. Propaganda
and it's control have ceased the day. Careful and methodical manipulation.
For example: Giuliani reveals, in a Fox interview, that he had an inkling as to the October surprise of Comey's last minute reveal of the Weiner/Huma e-mails. He was gleeful in his reveal to the point of smacking his lips over
how delighted he was.
Then Chris Matthews interviews him and he back-pedaled so fast he almost choked on his words. It was really sad to see. As Matthews pressed, as he
is known to do, Giuliani stumbled and gagged his way to a safer position.
He now claimed that he knew nothing and even offered a differing account of what he meant to say. No, he said, I received my info from "former" FBI agents. When he clearly stated before that "they" were angry that Comey had
abandoned the prosecution path. The interview also broached the subject of
"leaks" within the FBI ranks. Who are these so-called "leakers" and if they
want to "expose" Hillary for being "crooked" then step forward and present the facts. Congress could appoint a Special Prosecutor. End of story.
Comey reveals that he wanted to prevent a leak. So he writes a letter to Congress stating that they found something, new e-mails, that may be
pertinent to the case.
650,000 e-mails, allegedly. All on Weiner's laptop, shared by Huma. But Comey offered few details, leaving a huge opening for speculation and innuendo. When was this discovered? How many e-mails were "pertinent"? How many e-mails belonged to Huma, specifically and how many were to Clinton?
What is the time frame? How long did they have this laptop? When did they actually make the discovery? Nothing, nada, zilch......we found something,
that was it! Comey was CYA.....that's what's real. He needs to worry about that "leak" within the Bureau. Why would he inform Congress of an ongoing investigation? Isn't he supposed to stay neutral?
For example: The Judge Curiel - he could have easily set the trial for Trump's fraud case well before the election, citing pressure from the Dems.
But he set the trial for late November, the 28th, as Trump mistakenly cited as the day of the election in one of his rallies. The judge was obviously
sticking to Justice Dept. tradition and protocol regarding not influencing
the general election. Yet, some have completely ignored that little tidbit.
The case has been on the docket since 2010, according to a CBS News report, and Curiel was concerned about a trial during the campaign, partly out of concern for the jurors' safety. "Ultimately that's my Number 1 concern."
To this day, the FBI have refused to reveal more about their discovery of
the contents of the Weiner laptop. Curious that the discovery came now, since the investigation into Weiner's online sexting started in September. Hillary's Secretary of State tenure was from 2009 to 2013, that's 4 years. So the FBI can narrow down the search to those years and limit the e-mails to Huma's part of the laptop. If they find criminal behavior, I say go for it. But, I think it's all BULLSHIT. They, the FBI agents that are "angry" about Comey's lack of balls, they have forced the issue. But do "they" have the smoking gun? The hard evidence that a crime was committed. Really!?
Don't you think that by now they would have found something to nail her ass?
Regardless, "they" can be angry all they want, the proof is in the pudding.
It's pretty simple: Cough up or shut the fuck up! Oh, and by the way, How is it that Colin Powell isn't facing the same scru
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just as an aside, SECOND, here is a list of possible design flaws to consider:
As you mentioned, Presidential v Parliamentarian system.
As SIX mentioned, the electoral college.
Here are a few more:
The people who get to decide the boundaries of voting districts are partisan. Gerrymadering much?
The people purchase and manage the voting machines and the voting districts are partisan. Rigging much?
The media is privately owned, which means that the media will represent the will of private owners and private ownership.
In fact, the idea that we have a group pf people who we elect to make decisions for us concentrates so much power in so few hands that it's tempting and cheap for the elites to buy off those few. If we had direct democracy, the elites would have to buy off at least half the people, right?
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:I DO see the design flaw. In fact, I see several. And I have posted about this more than once: How to design a system where bad people don't eventually take over anyway.
We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.
Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
Read this carefully folks. I don't have time now but I will be back to break this down.
OK, I'm back
SIG
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!
My response
What we have in fact, is three separate branches of government that assures a stringent thought process, debate and compromise before policy is made law. The executive, legislative and judicial branches. So why does SIG constantly attack our system and suggest we change it? She tells us having a president, chairperson or CEO is a bad thing. What she describes as what she wants is pure Socialism. Everything controlled by a central government. And yet she continually champions the republican party. The party that promotes the purist form of capitalism and works diligently to cut our existing social programs. Below is a quote of her promoting socialism and bashing capitalism. I provide a link.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What I should have said was- Democracy is a POLITICAL system. It describes how our government is made up, and how our laws our made. Usually, it has something to do with a vote.
If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives, not only would that be democracy, it would be socialism. In fact, it would be "democratic socialism". As opposed, for example, to tyrannical capitalism, in which there is a non-elected government and privately owned business.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=3
My Response
Again, I must point out that while SIG writes about turning all business and companies over to government, she is voting republican. Can you spell schizophrenic. At best, all she does is babble subjectively while trolling. Here is another quote below.
Quote SIG
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things. Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
My Response
Here we have SIG who praises Putin (war crimes Syria) claiming our system of governing promotes people doing bad things. She even suggests almost everyone in power is bad. Clearly she does not understand the differences between how our system of checks and balances is working as opposed to Putin rulinNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:I DO see the design flaw. In fact, I see several. And I have posted about this more than once: How to design a system where bad people don't eventually take over anyway.
We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.
Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
Read this carefully folks. I don't have time now but I will be back to break this down.
OK, I'm back
SIG
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!
My response
What we have in fact, is three separate branches of government that assures a stringent thought process, debate and compromise before policy is made law. The executive, legislative and judicial branches. So why does SIG constantly attack our system and suggest we change it? She tells us having a president, chairperson or CEO is a bad thing. What she describes as what she wants is pure Socialism. Everything controlled by a central government. And yet she continually champions the republican party. The party that promotes the purist form of capitalism and works diligently to cut our existing social programs. Below is a quote of her promoting socialism and bashing capitalism. I provide a link.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What I should have said was- Democracy is a POLITICAL system. It describes how our government is made up, and how our laws our made. Usually, it has something to do with a vote.
If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives, not only would that be democracy, it would be socialism. In fact, it would be "democratic socialism". As opposed, for example, to tyrannical capitalism, in which there is a non-elected government and privately owned business.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=3
My Response
Again, I must point out that while SIG writes about turning all business and companies over to government, she is voting republican. Can you spell schizophrenic. At best, all she does is babble subjectively while trolling. Here is another quote below.
Quote SIG
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things. Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
My Response
Here we have SIG who praises Putin (war crimes Syria) claiming our system of governing promotes people doing bad things. She even suggests almost everyone in power is bad. Clearly she does not understand the differences between how our system of checks and balances is working as opposed to Putin ruling with an iron fist. She is working to
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Trump campaign is falling apart at the seams and no one seems to be capable of righting the ship.
Then why bother posting about it, sgg? You seem obsessed with something that - according to you - is all but defunct.
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In theory the voters can sort the sheep from the goats, the evil politician from the wholesome politician.
I disagree.
The problem with our system is the feedback cycle takes too long. In a parliamentary system, the minute the party-in-power strays from voter mood, that party can be challenged and voted out. It makes parties that much more accountable and therefore more careful about the promises they make. In the US we elect short-term dictators - politicians that make all sorts of promises just to get elected, knowing full well that should they fall short, they won't be held accountable until the next election cycle.
And it makes voters cynical and disenfranchised. Except for the people who've really drunk deep of their party's kool-aid - like, for example, people who really think hillary is going to reform obamacare, provide good jobs, or that Trump could actually launch nuclear war on his whim alone - voters know that the promises made are beyond pointless, and that any new person is likely to be just as bad as the old one.
And there's nothing they can do about it.
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Comey ... Why would he inform Congress of an ongoing investigation? Isn't he supposed to stay neutral?
Other FBI investigations have been made public from the start - Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick, Nixon and Watergate. I honestly don't see why all the outrage. It's well within historical norms.
How is it that Colin Powell isn't facing the same scrutiny?
The rules changed after Powell. the rules governing electronic communication changed considerably — and got more strict — between Powell's time in office and Clinton's. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/19/hillary-clin
tons-colin-powell-did-it-defense-of-her-email-practices-is-just-plain-wrong/
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Huh? Socialism is an economic system; it is a description of "who owns what". A democracy ... well, in reality a what we have is a representative democracy ... is a political system; it describes how laws are written.
Read this carefully folks. I don't have time now but I will be back to break this down.... OK, I'm back = THUGR
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!- SIGNY
What we have in fact, is three separate branches of government that assures a stringent thought process, debate and compromise before policy is made law. The executive, legislative and judicial branches. So why does SIG constantly attack our system and suggest we change it? She tells us having a president, chairperson or CEO is a bad thing. What she describes as what she wants is pure Socialism.= THUGR
Quote:Again, you seem to be very confused. Most people - you included- conflate socialism with tyranny and capitalism with democracy. What I was pointing out is that it is possible to have democratic capitalism and democratic socialism and tyrannical capitalism and tyrannical socialism. And what I'm advocating is decentralization.
Everything controlled by a central government.
Quote:
And yet she continually champions the republican party.
No. Here I am, pissed off at Bush and Cheney
Quote:
Since Conyers is being browbeaten by the Dems NOT to look into the misdeeds of the Bush/ Cheney administration, others Dems are taking the bull by the horns. So if you want to add your voice to the chorus of Cheney! go here....
http://wexlerwantshearings.com/
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=31941
And here I am, pissed off at one of Bush's executive orders
Quote:
Or the Secret Service, CIA, FBI, and the President Himself. (Mistaken renditions, people cleared from motorcade areas, invading Iraq because it posed an "imminet threat". Sheesh!)
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=31672
Here I am, angrily quoting Bush
Quote:
A dictatorship would be a heck-of a lot easier; as long as I’m dictator.
This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base.
A lot of folks don't think I can string a sentence together, so when I was able to do so, it uh - Expectations were so low, all I had to do was say, 'Hi, I'm George W. Bush.'
Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. (ObL) And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=31682
Quote:Since I've proved you wrong, I guess I don't have to address this again.
The party that promotes the purist form of capitalism and works diligently to cut our existing social programs.
Quote:No, I was trying to explain the difference between a political system and an economic one. The Founding Fathers and the Constitution describes our political organization, but doesn't address an economic system. So, let me ask you a question: Did you see any reference to capitalism in the Constitution???
Below is a quote of her promoting socialism and bashing capitalism.
Yeah I thought not!
Quote:
What I should have said was- Democracy is a political system. It describes how our government is made up, and how our laws our made. Usually, it has something to do with a vote.
If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected rNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bernie does not agree with your fundamental position.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
In the US we elect short-term dictators - politicians that make all sorts of promises just to get elected, knowing full well that should they fall short, they won't be held accountable until the next election cycle.
And it makes voters cynical and disenfranchised. Except for the people who've really drunk deep of their party's kool-aid - like, for example, people who really think hillary is going to reform obamacare, provide good jobs, or that Trump could actually launch nuclear war on his whim alone - voters know that the promises made are beyond pointless, and that any new person is likely to be just as bad as the old one.
And there's nothing they can do about it.
Bernie answers https://newrepublic.com/article/137103/bernie-looks-ahead
Q: All right, let’s talk about the young voters you mentioned. During the primaries, almost three-quarters of voters under the age of 30 cast their ballots for you. What do you say to your younger supporters who don’t plan to vote for Clinton because they see her as too establishment-oriented?
Look, I ran against Hillary for over a year, so I understand where she is coming from. For me, this is not a tough choice. I am a United States senator, and I know what would happen to our government if Donald Trump became president. I think Donald Trump is the worst candidate for a major party that has surfaced in my lifetime. This guy would be a disaster for this country and an embarrassment to us internationally. A man who is a pathological liar. Somebody who, to the degree that he deals with issues at all, changes his position every day. That is clearly not the kind of mentality we need from somebody who is running for the highest office in the land.
What is particularly outrageous and disturbing is that the cornerstone of his campaign is based on bigotry—trying to turn people against Mexican-Americans or against Muslims or against women. To my mind, it’s very clear that Donald Trump would be an incredible disaster to this country, and I will do everything I can to see that he is defeated.
Q: But is there a case to be made for Hillary, solely on her own merits?
On a number of issues, I believe Hillary Clinton’s positions are quite strong. I was happy to negotiate an agreement with her in the party’s platform which said that she would support making public colleges and universities tuition-free for families making $125,000 or less. That is pretty revolutionary. That will not only transform the ability of people to go to college, it will have an impact on kids in elementary school today who know that if they study hard, they can get a college education. She and I also agreed to a doubling of the expansion of community health centers. That’s tens of millions more people who will have access to primary health care and dental care and low-cost prescription drugs and mental health counseling. I want to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and I think Clinton is open to moving in that direction, to at least $12 an hour. She supports infrastructure projects that will put millions of people back to work. She understands the significance of not acting on climate change, while Donald Trump does not believe that climate change is real, which is a real threat to the planet.
So what I would ask people is to take a hard look at (a) what a Donald Trump presidency would mean for this country, which in my view would be a disaster, and (b) how Clinton’s views on a number of issues are fairly good. That is what we should be focusing on—not the personalities of the candidates, but what their policies will do for the middle class and working families of this country.
Q: You certainly played a major role in pushing Clinton to the left on some key issues, at least in the party’s platform. But many of your supporters don’t believe that Hillary really supports those positions or will make good on those promises. They
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bernie seems to be speaking for himself. I'm talking about voter turnout, which has run between 52 - 64% in the last 4 presidential election cycles, and voter apathy.
But all of this is beside the point. hillary's going to win.
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is a one-third chance Trump will be President, so it is not beside the point. And there is certainty that a Republican will be elected President in 2020 if Trump loses next week. Sixteen years in a row of Democratic Presidents looks impossible. The points Bernie made in his interview should be kept in mind for the next four years, no matter what happens this month.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But all of this is beside the point. hillary's going to win.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is a one-third chance Trump will be President ...
Whether or not hillary's elected, she'll win. It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.
I predict she'll win. And my prediction is based on the documented extensive collusion between her campaign, the DNC, the Justice Department, the Obama administration, and the media; as well as the proven hackability of electronic voting where there's no paper trail.
It's clear she's meant to win. And so, she will.
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So now that you're discovering the possibility of a GOP President in the near future - perhaps the VERY near future - you're rediscovering your liberal principles???
The points Bernie made in his interview should be kept in mind for the next four years, no matter what happens this month.
MY, HOW CONVENIENT!
You should have thought of that BEFORE you started thumping for one of the most corrupt politicians in the pantheon, and his wife. Maybe next time you'll think about that BEFORE you attach yourself to the asshole of the Democratic Party.
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Every single time you make comments like that I think that Signym spends too much time in troll mode. Neither Bernie nor I agree with your evaluation of what President Trump would do. Or that Hillary is the worst of the two. I'll give you Bernie's comments on Trump. Everyone in the world, including conservative Republicans who won't vote for Trump or Hillary, knows Bernie's truth about Trump:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So now that you're discovering the possibility of a GOP President in the near future - perhaps the VERY near future - you're rediscovering your liberal principles???
MY, HOW CONVENIENT!
You should have thought of that BEFORE you started thumping for one of the most corrupt politicians in the pantheon, and his wife. Maybe next time you'll think about that BEFORE you attach yourself to the asshole of the Democratic Party.
Look, I ran against Hillary for over a year, so I understand where she is coming from. For me, this is not a tough choice. I am a United States senator, and I know what would happen to our government if Donald Trump became president. I think Donald Trump is the worst candidate for a major party that has surfaced in my lifetime. This guy would be a disaster for this country and an embarrassment to us internationally. A man who is a pathological liar. Somebody who, to the degree that he deals with issues at all, changes his position every day. That is clearly not the kind of mentality we need from somebody who is running for the highest office in the land.
What is particularly outrageous and disturbing is that the cornerstone of his campaign is based on bigotry—trying to turn people against Mexican-Americans or against Muslims or against women. To my mind, it’s very clear that Donald Trump would be an incredible disaster to this country, and I will do everything I can to see that he is defeated.
https://newrepublic.com/article/137103/bernie-looks-ahead
The following is real. It is not a satire. (Well, it is a satire but it is so close to describing Trump's actual speech-making that it is true. ) Donald Trump's speeches were written by a temperamental child. And then Trump actually gives the speech.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The FBI is not on Hillary's side. A cabal of NYC FBI agents (including, or solely, Bret Baier’s false “indictment” leaker), may well have PLANTED those emails on Weiner’s laptop–possibly at the behest of Rudy Giuliani or James Kallstrom, or both, who ARE part of the cabal’s conspiracy to violate the Hatch Act (to name just one of a slew of federal criminal statutes these folks have violated).
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Whether or not hillary's elected, she'll win. It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.
I predict she'll win. And my prediction is based on the documented extensive collusion between her campaign, the DNC, the Justice Department, the Obama administration, and the media; as well as the proven hackability of electronic voting where there's no paper trail.
It's clear she's meant to win. And so, she will.
http://angrybearblog.com/2016/11/i-retract-my-retraction-a-cabal-of-ny
c-fbi-agents-including-or-solely-bret-baiers-false-indictment-leak-may-well-have-planted-those-emails-on-weiner.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tonight's news: at a Trump rally in Reno, a guy lifted his hands to hold up a sign. Someone nearby panicked, thinking he was raising a gun. The Secret Service hustled Trump offstage, and Trump reappeared shortly after it became clear that nothing had happened. Here's the reaction—as always, nothing but class from Trump and his supporters. See their tweets at www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/trump-not-assassins-target
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Any facts (supported by evidence) in your link that you would like to point out?
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The FBI is not on Hillary's side. A cabal of NYC FBI agents (including, or solely, Bret Baier’s false “indictment” leaker), may well have PLANTED those emails on Weiner’s laptop–possibly at the behest of Rudy Giuliani or James Kallstrom, or both, who ARE part of the cabal’s conspiracy to violate the Hatch Act (to name just one of a slew of federal criminal statutes these folks have violated).
http://angrybearblog.com/2016/11/i-retract-my-retraction-a-cabal-of-ny
c-fbi-agents-including-or-solely-bret-baiers-false-indictment-leak-may-well-have-planted-those-emails-on-weiner.html
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GOOD LORD!!!
HOW MANY RUSSIANS do you imagine are reading any of these posts??
2
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Any facts (supported by evidence) in your link that you would like to point out?Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The FBI is not on Hillary's side. A cabal of NYC FBI agents (including, or solely, Bret Baier’s false “indictment” leaker), may well have PLANTED those emails on Weiner’s laptop–possibly at the behest of Rudy Giuliani or James Kallstrom, or both, who ARE part of the cabal’s conspiracy to violate the Hatch Act (to name just one of a slew of federal criminal statutes these folks have violated).
http://angrybearblog.com/2016/11/i-retract-my-retraction-a-cabal-of-ny
c-fbi-agents-including-or-solely-bret-baiers-false-indictment-leak-may-well-have-planted-those-emails-on-weiner.html
Meet Donald Trump’s Top FBI Fanboy
Trump supporters with strong ties to the agency kept talking about surprises and leaks to come—and come they did.
Two days before FBI director James Comey rocked the world last week, Rudy Giuliani was on Fox, where he volunteered, un-prodded by any question: “I think he’s [Donald Trump] got a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next few days. I mean, I’m talking about some pretty big surprises.”
Pressed for specifics, he said: “We’ve got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn this thing around.”
The man who now leads “lock-her-up” chants at Trump rallies spent decades of his life as a federal prosecutor and then mayor working closely with the FBI, and especially its New York office. One of Giuliani’s security firms employed a former head of the New York FBI office, and other alumni of it. It was agents of that office, probing Anthony Weiner’s alleged sexting of a minor, who pressed Comey to authorize the review of possible Hillary Clinton-related emails on a Weiner device that led to the explosive letter the director wrote Congress.
Hours after Comey’s letter about the renewed probe was leaked on Friday, Giuliani went on a radio show and attributed the director’s surprise action to “the pressure of a group of FBI agents who don’t look at it politically.”
“The other rumor that I get is that there’s a kind of revolution going on inside the FBI about the original conclusion [not to charge Clinton] being completely unjustified and almost a slap in the face to the FBI’s integrity,” said Giuliani. “I know that from former agents. I know that even from a few active agents.”
Along with Giuliani’s other connections to New York FBI agents, his former law firm, then called Bracewell Giuliani, has long been general counsel to the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA), which represents 13,000 former and current agents. The group, born in the New York FBI office in the early ’80s, was headed until Monday by Rey Tariche, an agent who just retired from the New York FBI office. In Tariche’s letter to the Association stepping down as president because he's retiring from the Bureau to take a job "within the Banking Industry," he wrote that “we find our work—our integrity questioned” because of it, adding “we will not be used for political gains.”
When the FBIAA threw its first G-Man Honors Gala in 2014 in Washington, Giuliani was the keynote speaker and was given a distinguished service award named after him. Giuliani left Bracewell this January and joined Greenberg Traurig, the only other law firm listed as a sponsor of the FBIAA gala. He spoke again at the 2015 gala. The Bracewell firm also acts as the association’s Washington lobbyist and the FBIAA endorsed Republican Congressman Mike Rodgers, rather than Comey, for the FBI post in 2013. Giuliani did not return a Daily Beast message left with his assistant.
There is more at www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/03/meet-donald-trump-s-top-fbi-
fanboy.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stephen Hawking Angers Trump Supporters with Baffling Array of Long Words
By Andy Borowitz , May 31, 2016
LONDON (The Borowitz Report)—The theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking angered supporters of Donald J. Trump on Monday by responding to a question about the billionaire with a baffling array of long words.
Speaking to a television interviewer in London, Hawking called Trump “a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator,” a statement that many Trump supporters believed was intentionally designed to confuse them.
Moments after Hawking made the remark, Google reported a sharp increase in searches for the terms “demagogue,” “denominator,” and “Stephen Hawking.”
“For a so-called genius, this was an epic fail,” Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, said. “If Professor Hawking wants to do some damage, maybe he should try talking in English next time.”
Later in the day, Hawking attempted to clarify his remark about the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, telling a reporter, “Trump bad man. Real bad man.”
www.newyorker.com//borowitz-report/stephen-hawking-angers-trump-suppor
ters-with-baffling-array-of-long-words
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
second - not only did I read the entire article you linked, I read the linked articles in it as well. And I went through them line by line, parsing out the unsupported (no evidence), the rumors, the false - for example, the authors fundamentally misrepresent the Hatch Act*, and the irrelevant. And I came up with nothing. Literally nothing to discuss. (If you want I can post the long post that goes into tedious detail.)
And not only did the articles fail to support their own conclusions, they failed to support your point, whatever it is (it got hazier and hazier the more I delved into articles that seemed unrelated). I couldn't decide what point you were trying to make, and what you found in the articles that was so compelling you wanted to discuss them. Which is why I gave up on posting my long post that looks at it all.
So, rather than me posting all sorts of things that might or might not respond, let me ask you directly - what is your claim? I thought it was that the FBI is part of a cabal to bring down hillary. Is that your claim? And, whatever claim you ARE making - what facts in these articles support it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
*The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of that branch,[1] from engaging in some forms of political activity. (which means neither Giuliani nor Kallstrom are covered)
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The FBI is not on Hillary's side. A cabal of NYC FBI agents (including, or solely, Bret Baier’s false “indictment” leaker), may well have PLANTED those emails on Weiner’s laptop–possibly at the behest of Rudy Giuliani or James Kallstrom, or both, who ARE part of the cabal’s conspiracy to violate the Hatch Act (to name just one of a slew of federal criminal statutes these folks have violated).
http://angrybearblog.com/2016/11/i-retract-my-retraction-a-cabal-of-ny
c-fbi-agents-including-or-solely-bret-baiers-false-indictment-leak-may-well-have-planted-those-emails-on-weiner.html
Meet Donald Trump’s Top FBI Fanboy
Trump supporters with strong ties to the agency kept talking about surprises and leaks to come—and come they did.
Two days before FBI director James Comey rocked the world last week, Rudy Giuliani was on Fox, where he volunteered, un-prodded by any question: “I think he’s [Donald Trump] got a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next few days. I mean, I’m talking about some pretty big surprises.”
Pressed for specifics, he said: “We’ve got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn this thing around.”
The man who now leads “lock-her-up” chants at Trump rallies spent decades of his life as a federal prosecutor and then mayor working closely with the FBI, and especially its New York office. One of Giuliani’s security firms employed a former head of the New York FBI office, and other alumni of it. It was agents of that office, probing Anthony Weiner’s alleged sexting of a minor, who pressed Comey to authorize the review of possible Hillary Clinton-related emails on a Weiner device that led to the explosive letter the director wrote Congress.
Hours after Comey’s letter about the renewed probe was leaked on Friday, Giuliani went on a radio show and attributed the director’s surprise action to “the pressure of a group of FBI agents who don’t look at it politically.”
“The other rumor that I get is that there’s a kind of revolution going on inside the FBI about the original conclusion [not to charge Clinton] being completely unjustified and almost a slap in the face to the FBI’s integrity,” said Giuliani. “I know that from former agents. I know that even from a few active agents.”
Along with Giuliani’s other connections to New York FBI agents, his former law firm, then called Bracewell Giuliani, has long been general counsel to the
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
She is also working to convince Russians to accept their plight by implying it is the same everywhere.= THUGR
GOOD LORD!!! HOW MANY RUSSIANS do you imagine are reading any of these posts?? = SIGNY
2= THUGR
My point exactly.
Why would I be working to "convince Russians to accept their plight" on this forum if only two (or none) are reading it? You just shot yourself in the foot. That problem may be why you were dishonorably discharged from the army.
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:1kiki, when you quote the Hatch Act, you forgot to mention that all the FBI agents involved work for the government. They will be in trouble. Those agents are connected to Trump through ex-government employees Giuliani and Kallstrom.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
second -
So, let me ask you directly - what is your claim? I thought it was that the FBI is part of a cabal to bring down hillary. Is that your claim? And, whatever claim you ARE making - what facts in these articles support it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
*The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of that branch,[1] from engaging in some forms of political activity. (which means neither Giuliani nor Kallstrom are covered)
There is one HUGH fact that can’t be verified until after the election: The FBI will NOT file charges against Hillary. If the FBI agents had anything they could have already announced it, but if they were working for Trump the FBI agents will take as much time as possible, about 4 years, before announcing they have nothing to charge Hillary with.
If the FBI does NOT file, then we know this was a political dirty trick played by Giuliani, Kallstrom and their friends inside the FBI. Kallstrom is the former head of the New York FBI office. Kallstrom has often been on Fox, where he’s called the Clintons a “crime family.”
If Trump wins, nobody in the FBI loses their job for playing this trick. Giuliani and Kallstrom won't lose their new government jobs in the Trump White House, either.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is that your claim? That FBI agents violated/ are violating the Hatch Act?
You can find more details @ wiki, but these I believe are the salient points of the Hatch Act:
ORIGINALLY: The 1939 Act forbade the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricted political campaign activities by federal employees, using public relief or public works funds electoral purposes, forbade officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support, and forbade persons below the policy-making level in the executive branch of the federal government from generally illegal political practices
HOWEVER, it was amended in 1993 to ALLOW personal activity in "political management or political campaigns." Federal employees are still forbidden to use their authority to affect the results of an election, run for office in a partisan election, solicit or receive political contributions, and engage in political activities while on duty or on federal property.
So, political activity in and of itself is allowed, as long as it's otherwise legal, and doesn't take place on employer time, or property.
I think the political activities of Guiliani and Kallstrom are evident - and as private citizens their involvement is completely legal.
What I find more tenuous are the claims that active FBI agents working on the Weiner case were and/ or are, actively involved. That rests on the very inconsistent statements by Guiliani (and it's not like he's never exaggerated his part or connections), and Kallstrom. As for Kallstrom, while he verified he knows agents actively involved in email-gate, it was after the investigation was closed (and before it was re-opened). He's fairly consistent in saying he has no contact with, in fact doesn't even know, any agents on Weiner-gate.
So, the whole idea that it's a 'fact' that there's a cadre of FBI agents in the NY office violating the Hatch Act trying to take down hillary via Weiner-gate seems to based on the inconsistent claims of a blowhard. And also the innuendo it must be true because all of the players knew each other from way back.
That's why I'm hoping you can point out the facts (things backed by evidence). I didn't find any, just claims to 'know' things made by a dubious source. But certainly I might have missed the facts that exist that show that indeed, FBI agents violated/ are violating the Hatch Act.
I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You have the sneering attitude of Trump's defense lawyer proclaiming everybody is presumed innocent until all the FBI agents working on Weinergate testify under oath that they know Trump, Hillary, Guiliani and Kallstrom and the agents were colluding against Hillary. Only with such self-incriminating testimony by FBI agents would 1kiki be convinced that Hatch Act was violated by FBI agents.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What I find more tenuous are the claims that active FBI agents working on the Weiner case were and/ or are, actively involved. That rests on the very inconsistent statements by Guiliani (and it's not like he's never exaggerated his part or connections), and Kallstrom. As for Kallstrom, while he verified he knows agents actively involved in email-gate, it was after the investigation was closed (and before it was re-opened). He's fairly consistent in saying he has no contact with, in fact doesn't even know, any agents on Weiner-gate.
So, the whole idea that it's a 'fact' that there's a cadre of FBI agents in the NY office violating the Hatch Act trying to take down hillary seems to based on the inconsistent claims of a blowhard. And also the innuendo it must be true because all of the players knew each other from way back.
That's why I'm hoping you can point out the facts (things backed by evidence). Certainly I might have missed them.
A lawyer prosecuting Trump would tell the court that every FBI agent working on Weinergate can quickly and convincingly prove they are innocent by filing charges against Hillary. I look forward to the day the FBI files those charges and proves those agents are innocent.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The New York Times has a truly remarkable piece this morning about the final days of the Trump campaign:
Aboard his gold-plated jumbo jet, the Republican nominee does not like to rest or be alone with his thoughts, insisting that aides stay up and keep talking to him. He prefers the soothing, whispery voice of his son-in-law.
....Mr. Trump’s candidacy is a jarring split screen: the choreographed show of calm and confidence orchestrated by his staff, and the neediness and vulnerability of a once-boastful candidate now uncertain of victory.
....Aides to Mr. Trump have finally wrested away the Twitter account that he used to colorfully — and often counterproductively — savage his rivals. But offline, Mr. Trump still privately muses about all of the ways he will punish his enemies after Election Day, including a threat to fund a “super PAC” with vengeance as its core mission.
His polished older daughter, Ivanka, sat for a commercial intended to appeal to suburban women who have recoiled from her father’s incendiary language. But she discouraged the campaign from promoting the ad in news releases, fearing that her high-profile association with the campaign would damage the businesses that bear her name.
Staring at Defeat, Donald Trump Is Sleepless and Vengeful. How...Nixonian.
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/donald-trump-presidential-race.
html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, no facts.
That's why I'm hoping you can point out the facts (things backed by evidence). Certainly I might have missed them.- KIKI
You have the sneering attitude of Trump's defense lawyer proclaiming everybody is presumed innocent until all the FBI agents working on Weinergate testify under oath that they know Trump, Hillary, Guiliani and Kallstrom and the agents were colluding against Hillary. = SECOND
Also, isn't "presumed innocent" the way it works?
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Presumed innocent means that FBI does not accuse Hillary of a crime before indicting her. Here is another fact for you. I hope you're as angry as Trump was. Fortunately, Trump was wearing brown pants when he "lost control of his bowel movement" because he was so furious at the FBI's Comey for backing down. Trump then changed his suit:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:So, no facts.
That's why I'm hoping you can point out the facts (things backed by evidence). Certainly I might have missed them.- KIKI
You have the sneering attitude of Trump's defense lawyer proclaiming everybody is presumed innocent until all the FBI agents working on Weinergate testify under oath that they know Trump, Hillary, Guiliani and Kallstrom and the agents were colluding against Hillary. = SECOND
Also, isn't "presumed innocent" the way it works?
FBI Director James B. Comey said Sunday that after reviewing newly discovered Hillary Clinton emails, his agency had again determined that the Democratic presidential candidate should face no criminal charges for her email practices, clearing a distraction that had dogged the final days of Clinton’s campaign and providing perhaps the last twist of the wild 2016 election year.
Comey notified key members of Congress of the finding in a letter sent Sunday afternoon, writing that investigators had worked “around the clock” to review all the emails found on a device used by former congressman Anthony Weiner that had been sent to or from Clinton and determined that the emails did not change “our conclusions expressed in July.”
With the letter, Comey removed the pending FBI investigation from the last 48 hours of the campaign. But the central role the FBI has played in the political process for months could cause lingering trouble for the nation’s top law enforcement agency, including personally for Comey, who must work with whoever is elected president on Tuesday.
Investigators reviewing the material found that the emails were either duplicates of correspondence they had reviewed earlier or personal e-mails that did not pertain to State Department business, a government official said. The official said Comey’s letter was not an “interim report” but rather represented a conclusion of the investigation.
Comey had upended the campaign just nine days ago, when he alerted Congress that new emails had been located that were related to Clinton’s use of a private server as secretary of state.
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-director-comey-says-agency-wont-re
commend-charges-over-clinton-email/2016/11/06/f6276b18-a45e-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The points Bernie made in his interview should be kept in mind for the next four years, no matter what happens this month. = SECOND
So now that you're discovering the possibility of a GOP President in the near future - perhaps the VERY near future - you're rediscovering your liberal principles??? MY, HOW CONVENIENT!
You should have thought of that BEFORE you started thumping for one of the most corrupt politicians in the pantheon, and his wife. Maybe next time you'll think about that BEFORE you attach yourself to the asshole of the Democratic Party. =SIGNY
Every single time you make comments like that I think that Signym spends too much time in troll mode. = SECOND
I'm in troll mode? This from the person who posts everyone else's opinion except their own, plus snarky cartoons, satire, and lies?
Here's my problem with you and the rest of the liberaloids, SECOND. You've been responding to "identity politics" no matter what Hillary has done that was illegal or immoral or dangerous to the nation. Somehow, your principles and your objectivity - if you have any- have become defunct.
So the "identities" that you respond to - women, nonwhite, Democratic, poor.
Yanno I was listening to NPR the other day, and they had this little piece on The poor illegal immigrant felon! So there he was, describing (in Spanish) his pathetic current life, how he can't see his (American) family except once a week. How he got to this sorry state because he immigrated illegally twice, got amnesty under Reagan, got a green card, married and had four children, then made a "mistake" by transporting drugs. How he got caught, and booted out of the USA. Pobrecito! And these liberaloids are whining that this guy deserves another chance. So, he hasn't even bothered to learn English, he's already broken the law three times: WHY in god's name does he "deserve" another chance? We don't even give those kinds of chances to our own felons!
And then there was this long disquisition on "Fresh Air" about how Trump, the Republican, took the place of the democrats when it came to represent the white working class. So by rationalizing its transition ... how the Democratic party stopped representing people on the "lower socioeconomic scale" (although it claims to represent blacks and Hispanics), how the Democratic party came to stop representing the "less educated" (although it claims to represent blacks and Hispanics), how the Democratic party stopped representing "workers" (although it claims to represent immigrant workers) ... the Democratic party came to become IN MY OPINION a biased, racially-based political party.
And there was some outrage, and perhaps a little fear, that the Republican party was pandering to self-identified group of white working-class Americans, and I thought ...
Wait, isn't "black lives matter" a self-identified, racially-motivated group?
Isn't "la Raza" a self-identified cultural (they claim "racial") group?
Aren't WOMEN a self-identified gender group?
Is every other group allowed some sort of self-identification, but not allowed for Trump supporters? Does the process of self-identification suddenly become dangerous ONLY for this group of people?
Now, you might think that I'm aiming at "white" self-identification, but I'm not.
Select to view spoiler:
What is wrong with identifying yourself as a worker?
What is wrong with identifying yourself as American?
The purview of our government is the United States and Americans, not every other fucking nation on this globe and every other person elsewhere. WE can't do anything about Mexico's corrupt politics that might impoverish their people and drive them towards our border, but what we can do is stop our transnationals from fucking up their internal processes. WE can't s
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t mind too much if Trump wins because I will get a huge tax cut from Trump. He promised! Hillary will only raise my taxes. She takes me for granted.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Here's my problem with you and the rest of the liberaloids, SECOND. You've . . .
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/final-numbers-are-trumps-t
ax-plan-huge-windfall-wealthy
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What good will your "tax cut" do if we are at war?
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Time for the trolls to crawl back under the rocks from whence they came.
FBI Completes Review of Newly Revealed Hillary Clinton Emails, Finds No Evidence of Criminality
FBI Director James Comey said Sunday that the bureau won't change the conclusion it made in July after it examined newly revealed emails related to the Hillary Clinton probe.
"Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton," Comey wrote in a letter to 16 members of Congress.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/fbi-completes-review-new
ly-revealed-hillary-clinton-emails-finds-no-n678701
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Julian Assange was correct: Trump will not be allowed to win.
Well, we get to see if the FBI will ever investigate Saudi Princess and operative Huma Abedin, or the criminal enterprise that is the Clinton Foundation, or if we Americans will be sold down river.
THUGR is an anti-American Soros troll.
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Julian Assange was correct: Trump will not be allowed to win.
Well, we get to see if the FBI will ever investigate Saudi Princess and operative Huma Abedin, or the criminal enterprise that is the Clinton Foundation, or if we Americans will be sold down river.
Trump has had a year and a half to make his case. The people will vote and that will be that. You can shove your conspiracy theories. They are for stupid people who are led around by the nose. Trump will not be allowed to win. Just how stupid are you?
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME