Draining The Swamp
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Friday, June 13, 2025 02:56
VIEWED: 32850
PAGE 19 of 29
Yep...
I'm the one who has problems.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let me see if I can unpack your response:
First off; the president could say something like (since he claims there is no collusion or any wrongdoing on his part or that of his administration) this:
"I'm glad you asked that question. I, for one, have every confidence that Mr. Mueller, after he's done with his investigation will be satisfied that my administration was also a victim of the Russian hacking reported on by the intelligence community. I trust that his thoroughness and dedication will be rewarded greatly and will vindicate my administration of any involvement. I will continue to support the DOJ's excellent choice of Mr. Mueller, a true professional,
as Special Counsel and trust that the media will follow the developments arising from his probe into the above named hacking of our democratic process."
Now that kills a lot of birds with one stone. Plus it will pour water on the smoldering pile of so-called "Fake News." In one fell swoop he not only puts to rest the speculation that he or his administration have anything to do with the so-called Russian hack of our democratic process, because, as he has voiced from day one of this story, he and his administration are innocent of any wrongdoing.
He also, with that statement, backs the American Intelligence community and the Special Prosecutor, while making the MSM think twice about lying in their coverage.
Perhaps even forcing them to cover other stories, thereby leaving President Trump and his totally innocent cabinet alone. Not only that, he would make them out as fools on a fool's errand. In other words, make them look bad for having pursued a,
how do you guys call it?, a "nothing burger."
But nooooooooooooooooo, Trump goes and listens to his son-in-law (who never ever had any kind of experience working in government in any capacity) and fires FBI Director Comey......that started the ball rolling. Did the MSM twist Donny's arm to fire Comey?
The question that I ask has nothing to do with appeasing me...for what? I question Donny's version of the truth because I smell a rat. If he is innocent as he says, and had nothing to do with anything Russian, then why fight the investigation?
If the police accused me of committing a murder and I was innocent; I would go to them and give my statement, alibi, and whatever they wanted to clear my name. Doesn't that make sense?
But if I were guilty, I wouldn't go around calling the cops a bunch of losers and suckers who were trying to frame me for the murder. That would piss them off and make them want to catch me and lock me up even more, now wouldn't it. Does that make sense?
So firing Comey was not smart, it just raised suspicion and gave the FBI and DOJ more of a reason to look into the matter. Enter Mueller, who everyone respects as an honorable man. And you notice that he hasn't gotten into a twitter war, or anything for that matter, with the aforementioned Donny Baby. Funny thing integrity, for some it's just a word.
But my criticism of Trump is not meant as a reason for appeasement, not for me.
He could go and grab anybody's pussy, which I'm sure he's done, that really doesn't matter to me one way or another. I'm tired of hearing about it from all news outlets, including Fox, because it's all bullshit. I don't give a shit about him, but I do care about this country because I live here. If this motherfucker has to be showing his ass, then, as a voter, I have every fucking right to complain, criticize and ask for his head on a platter - that's how democracy works. You vote, you have rights; you don't vote - STFU! Plain and simple.
And since I voted, I'm exercising my right to protest and complain. See, simple. You have that right as well, as long as you voted you can pursue your happiness.
My happiness is to call this motherfucker a pig, SOB, rich fuck who doesn't have a clue. That's what appeases me! See, simple.
Now, as to your list:
1. Ignore the questio
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
They all do it. Fuck! change the channel or turn it off.
We seem to be in agreement on a lot of things.
I'd never try to convince you that Trump was an innocent angel. I'm sure he isn't. None of us are, let alone anybody in power on any level. My issue comes with how the media has come at him relentlessly since day one. You agree on that and even made a joke about if Trump takes a shit that the MSM will dissect it and tell us what he ate last night.
I don't know why Trump would fire Comey. I can't even speculate on it. That's another problem with the media today. That's all they do is speculate. There is no investigative journalism anymore. I'm sure Trump knew how guilty doing so would make him look in the eyes of people who already hated him. (And yes, hate is not used wrong here. It is genuine hate that many people in this country have for our President).
He's a lot of things, but I don't think he's a stupid man. It's possible that he has nothing to worry about in the end and wasn't worried about the public perception of firing Comey. If anything, Comey has shown himself to be pretty incompetent and he wasn't very well respected by people on either side for his constant flip-flopping on issues. If Comey had cleared his name, people who hate Trump wouldn't have believed him. Do you think it will be easy for those same people to do that if Mueller clears his name?
Quote:
But if I were guilty, I wouldn't go around calling the cops a bunch of losers and suckers who were trying to frame me for the murder. That would piss them off and make them want to catch me and lock me up even more, now wouldn't it. Does that make sense?
Well that's just it. I wouldn't do it either. It doesn't make sense.
Unless something I said many months ago is true and that Trump is doing this all to end up catching some high ranking government officials and a large portion of the MSM in a huge GOTCHA moment when it turns out he isn't guilty.
Anyway... enough speculation on my part. I don't want to add to that shit-show.
I think that you think I watch Fox News. I don't. I can't stomach their bullshit anymore than I can MSNBC or CNN. I immediately tune out whenever anybody puts their bias in their "reporting" and this is something that all the cable "news" networks do constantly.
None of them give a shit about the truth. It's all about ratings.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump judge nominee, 36, who has never tried a case, wins approval of Senate panel
Brett J. Talley, President Trump’s nominee to be a federal judge in Alabama, has never tried a case, was unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee, has practiced law for only three years and, as a blogger last year, displayed a degree of partisanship unusual for a judicial nominee, denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-judge-20171110-story.h
tml
Is this what Trump means by drain the swamp. This judge is clueless about what this country is about and the rule of law.
Bravo SIG, you sure can pickem. Stooge, a person who serves merely to support or assist others. You SIG are a stooge, which is only one of the many other unpleasant things that you are, comrade.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
were your propaganda bosses unhappy with you slacking off, comrade troll ?
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another brilliant move on the part of the Fake President.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Trump judge nominee, 36, who has never tried a case, wins approval of Senate panel
Brett J. Talley, President Trump’s nominee to be a federal judge in Alabama, has never tried a case, was unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee, has practiced law for only three years and, as a blogger last year, displayed a degree of partisanship unusual for a judicial nominee, denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-judge-20171110-story.h
tml
Is this what Trump means by drain the swamp. This judge is clueless about what this country is about and the rule of law.
Bravo SIG, you sure can pickem. Stooge, a person who serves merely to support or assist others. You SIG are a stooge, which is only one of the many other unpleasant things that you are, comrade.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First off, we do agree on some things. But not about "our" president. No, he's your president, not mine. Not only did I not vote for him, but I do HATE him. I say that openly and freely. This is my decision entirely, no one is making me say that (I say that just in case).
In fact, I hope he dies; that's how much I hate him, that he contracts cancer, shrivels up and dies. In case the FBI, CIA or NSA is reading this: This is my feeling on it, this is NOT a plot.
My president has been, and always will be Kennedy...JFK to be exact. Obama is a close second. TO BE CLEAR. Okay, got that out of the way.
One of the things that I have learned in my travels, is to criticize print journalism, mass media, and broadcast journalism. There is a difference. And you have correctly pointed that out...
Quote:
There is no investigative journalism anymore.
Well, to a degree. You see I dissect it this way: Print journalism does do investigative reporting; broadcast rarely does (too expensive, and sometimes too controversial). Here's how I see it:
Print journalism investigates, and when the story strikes gold (depending on the broadcast news agenda) they present it in a live interview or a panel discussion.
So, in a way, broadcast news does do investigative journalism with print journalism's help. Case in point, Rachel Maddow's follow up on the Flint Michigan water scandal. That started out as a print journalism investigative report; she picked up the ball and ran with it to expose the corrupt governor of Michigan and the state employees who did their damnedest to cover it up (I still say that the governor should have been locked up).
With the exposure given to this case, the Feds got involved, hence the appropriate people going to jail. Same thing with Bridge-Gate. I give Maddow credit, she did praise the newspaper journalist who dug out the Flint Water scandal. Back to the panel discussion, which is what I guess you have a problem with the "speculation,"
this is where the broadcast and print journalism cross paths. For example, Chris Matthews of Hardball, will often call on both print and broadcast journalists to appear on his show, but he also invites political pundits from differing political stripes to comment on the "breaking" news of the day. Sometimes they speculate, but most times they just offer an opinion based on their expertise, experience and political slant. Some even decline to offer any speculation because there isn't enough evidence or they just don't like it.
I actually have my disagreements with Matthew's questions, slants and comments cause he tends to go with whatever is the prevailing frontrunner of the day. But that's another critique for another day. He does usually invite a politico, a journalist, a republican and a democrat. Sometimes he'll invite an independent.
But I have noticed that the entire night will be devoted to Trump. That's the rating part that you mentioned, yeah, unfortunately broadcast journalism has it's
skeevy moments that they promote and allow to permeate the "news" namely - commercials, ads, selling stuff. That's built into their DNA. With the exception of the MacNeil/Lehrer report on public television.
But, you see, I'm able to discard the obvious sales pitch and retain the news feature of the day. When I watch, I separate out the important news and "opinions" for myself. I glean what I need and critique the pundits for their contributions, but I also follow print news. I know that there exists in this world propaganda, believe me I have studied this. I learned a lot by studying Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl; they wrote the book on modern day propaganda. Both print and broadcast journalism is a necessary evil in this country, do not underestimate it's importance in the grand scheme of things. That and propaganda must be given it's proper respect if we are to survive as a society.
Having said that; yes, I sometimes loathe watching it (and
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, you dutifully consume and digest that which is laid before you. That's more than most, but I think you need to be a lot more "meta" about the news: the 50,000 ft view, not the 50 ft view. The news is shaped more by selection of stories than by story content or spin. Why are certain stories featured? Which stories are NOT being told? The only way to get a sense of "why" the news, not just "what" the news, is to sample the news from everywhere. Then you can see which sources withhold which kinds of stories.
But, you see, I'm able to discard the obvious sales pitch and retain the news feature of the day. When I watch, I separate out the important news and "opinions" for myself. I glean what I need and critique the pundits for their contributions, but I also follow print news.
Quote:
I know that there exists in this world propaganda, believe me I have studied this. I learned a lot by studying Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl; they wrote the book on modern day propaganda.= SHINY
Oh hon, you have no idea what propaganda is. Every storyline is propaganda; they rely on the same memes over and over: The world is filled with bad guys and heroes. The bad guys are (conveniently) our political enemies. We depend on the individual hero. Righteous violence wins the day.
BOOKS have their memes: Girls will find their prince. (There was an interesting book on that Cindrella Ate My Daughter!) Youth and beauty are associated with goodness and purity. The individual hero (again).
And most insidious of all, advertisement. If you think you know propaganda, you should watch this video about the real father of propaganda: Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, and a real sociopath when it came to manipulating "the masses"
You have probably never read a book or watched a show/ movie that crossed up your expectations; they are so inbuilt that they've become almost universal. Here are a few real-life examples of actual stories that crossed up MY expectations about how stories "should" go:
There is a brewing conflict between tow racial groups, each represented by a protagonist. Right about the time that you think violence would break out, both groups get together and negotiate a compromise.
In a post-apocalyptic world, a barely-hanging on settlement is riven by an internal dispute, where a significant minority believes it is necessary to explore upstream to look for other settlements, and the majority believes that any loss of membership would fatally weaken them. The minority sneaks away in the dead of night with supplies and canoes; the remainder manage to survive ... and the escapees are never heard from again, not even referentially in the storyline
A man is falsely accused of a crime, and placed on the prison island of Cuba, where prisoners are drugged into a blissful accepting state ... and used as the source of transplant body parts for wealthy citizens. Our hero survives on (unadulterated) sugar and water, and plans his escape by jumping into the bin of bodies as they're sluiced out to sea; he figures he'd rather take his chances with the sharks. But as his body hits the cold ocean water, the lights and sirens come on, and he's plucked from the ocean by the guards ("What, don't you think we have infrared cameras?") .... only to be rescued by a wealthy socialite that he never even heard of, who took an interest in his case.
It's like our news ... we have inbuilt expectations from years and years of exposure, and we only realize that we have them when they're violated in some way. It's a gift to learn about assumptions and paradigms that underlie response; most people don't have any insight into why they behave the way they do.
Man Against Myth by Burrows Dunham.
Blink by Malcolm Gladwell
---------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Here you are proving my point. Tax "Havens" is merely LibtardSpeak for a situation where a LOWER Tax Rate is where any reasonable and rational person would willingly pay their fair share of Taxes, instead of the option of paying obtrusively excessive high confiscatory Tax Rates outside of the "Tax Haven" environment.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You'd have to revamp the tax structure because it's far too easy for corporations and transnational elites to declare their profits in tax havens, or hide their wealth in "instant" subsidiaries and foundations
So, Lower Tax Rate results in Higher Tax Revenue for the Taxing Authority, and Higher Tax Rate results in Lower Tax Revenue. Or, more precisely, LOSS of Tax Revenue.
Pretty logical.
Quote:Is this another endorsement of Consumption Tax? Reason may be dawning.
If it were me, I'd simply drop the tax rate but also eliminate specialized deductions, exemptions, expenses, depreciations, subsidies, etc.
Quote:The Koolaid is strong with this one.
OH BTW- JSF- that concept that lower rates increvase tax revenues has been disproved over and over and over again. That is a misapplication of a concept called the aptly-named "Laffer Curve". Every tax-cutting Republican President - including Reagan- sang that song, and every one of them was proved wrong, as demonstrated by the history of actual government revenues versus tax rates.
Before you forward an idea like this, it would be useful to look up actual numbers to see if it's been validated by reality.
Please provide a valid example of this: identify one time when LOWERING the Federal Tax RATE resulted in LESS Federal Tax Revenues.
I guess "Reaganomics Denier" is a thing now, another version of Libtard Surreality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
With Trump it's about stacking the deck against any kink of oversight and accountability. This includes globally. Everything about him screams Putin wannabe.
T
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Another brilliant move on the part of the Fake President.
SGGQuote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Trump judge nominee, 36, who has never tried a case, wins approval of Senate panel
Brett J. Talley, President Trump’s nominee to be a federal judge in Alabama, has never tried a case, was unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee, has practiced law for only three years and, as a blogger last year, displayed a degree of partisanship unusual for a judicial nominee, denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-judge-20171110-story.h
tml
Is this what Trump means by drain the swamp. This judge is clueless about what this country is about and the rule of law.
Bravo SIG, you sure can pickem. Stooge, a person who serves merely to support or assist others. You SIG are a stooge, which is only one of the many other unpleasant things that you are, comrade.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME