Russia.....

And it was bullshit then. IMO, nothing shows weakness more than throwing others under the bus. I prefer the kill them with kindness take the high road approach. It leaves your opponent little recourse. Sure it can be a little passive aggressive, but I find it affective.

An example would be instead of tweeting and lashing out about getting your appointees through the confirmation process, I would take the approach of complimenting guys like Al Franken. Something along the lines of "Am I upset that I don't have my full cabinet yet? No, I'm not. Disappointed, yes, but not angry. While I don't see eye to eye on many of the same issues as Mr. Franken, I do compliment him for doing what he feels best represents his constituents. I am new to politics, and while I respect the vetting process, I'm used to being able to put the best people in place in a timely manner and get down to business. At the end of the day, I just want to get down to work. If that means answering cold war era questions about the Soviets, then so be it. I can tell you in all honesty though, I've never been nervous about eating a nice borscht until now!" message is followed by applause and laughter, Trump looks like the stately businessman and Franken looks like a sore loser.

That's how I would handle it, but I'm not a politician.

 

They didnt take out Hillary with an ICBM...they enabled her to run and secure the Trump win.

Damn you Russia!!

 

Talk about selective reading....LOL.........I guess to you elite progressives, Donny boy should have just taken the constant abusive insults/insinuations/attacks and fabricated BS lying down like his Republican predecessor did???

It would seem to me like y'all have forgotten the attacks on Georgie for 8 solid yrs? And the incessant non stop finger pointing and blaming that followed once Mr. Hope & Change got in there. And NOW, all of a sudden, you want to talk about "decorum"???

 

Kas, I'd say I'm fiscally conservative, and socially more or less neutral. I'm not crazy with any of the parties, but do side with the republican party far more simply because it's the closest to most of my concerns. But they all suck.

It was the fiscal part I was referring to. . ..

I knew long ago both parties sucked. What I don’t get is how people don’t see the parallels of being part of a political party (communist) and being part of a political party (democracy/republic). Sure, there are differences (which everybody knows and focuses on) but there are also some striking similarities (which everybody ignores or ascribes to their opposing party).

This country was set up so it’s citizens could be free to make up their own minds and not be controlled by govt and those who were in it. Then they give up their ability to think freely and join an organization that’s set up to discourage free thought (neither party has a monopoly on that dynamic).

I'm not sure I agree with your perspective, but I understand it. I still say, HRC should have been indicted, and should have been convicted. The law requires no "intent" whatsoever in terms of dealing with classified information and Comey twisted himself into pretzels trying to avoid the situation. I also think that the fact that HRC publicly blamed a video for Benghazi when without a shadow of a doubt she knew that wasn't true is disgusting. If HRC hadn't had that race baiter Elijah Cummings in her pocket (or more accurately, just completely sold out for the Democratic party as opposed to representing citizens - and yes, I know who his direct constituents are - that's yet another problem) then perhaps things would be different.

If that’s the criteria brother. . .you shouldn’t be a republican. Between W and Reagan. . .holy shit. Check out executive branch convictions for past administrations and look at what the convictions were for. Outraged under Reagan? Decided to stick with it despite the blatant abuse of trust and stewardship of the principles you hold dear? Makes no sense to me. Show that kind of utter disregard for the principles you’re supposed to champion (especially as a “party”). . .no chance I’m identifying with you after that. . .same goes with the Dems.

Lots of people should be indicted and convicted and have their lives ruined over what they do/did in govt. I hate neither the player nor the game (takes too much time and effort and is just wasted energy that can be used on something else). G. Gordon Liddy – goes to jail, get’s a radio show, Col. North (you really think it stopped at him?). . .TV analyst, saw Petraeus’ side piece making the rounds when his name was being floated. Hell, with the amount of oxy Rush was consuming, he could have been considered his own mini cartel – the ideological mouthpiece for the right was literally on a derivative of heroin while telling people what to think. Honestly, could care less what they did or are doing now, or their liberal equivalents, just find the hypocrisy funny all around.

Comey is a perfect example of the insanity: “Twisted pretzel” to “hero” to “?” (all based not on the facts, but what people perceive are the facts). None of us are in the FBI. . .none of us even remotely knows what’s going on at his level or the information he has. . .yet we “know” - no we don’t.

Now, I’m not advocating total laissez faire for citizens, but if people are going to get involved, be strategic about it. Bitching to friends is one thing, tracking down your representatives and figuring out how to influence them. . .that’s a totally different thing. People do it everyday. Our system is founded on the principle. . .is it easy -no, will you always be successful – no. Name one thing in life that has those guarantees?

But I promise you this. . .anybody who does get involved already has a built in advantage because our society is pathetically a-political. What was the turn out for the last election? Effectively, your competition is reduced by half. . .and people still complain it’s too hard.

I also disagree with the entire Fox "number 1" thing. Standing on its own, then yes. But when contrasted with virtually ALL other media sources - which are clearly in the bag for the Dems, then no.

Big guy, I see more obscure right wing bullshit websites on these threads than I ever thought was possible to exist. Newspapers, magazines sure they lean left but the conservative voice is well represented (look how many times conservative points are made with “liberal” papers on here). Just like with business (and almost everything else) – 80/20 90/10. MSNBC literally makes me cringe as much as Fox. CNN blows but they have some smart people on from time to time (and they are plugged in with sources). It’s all a big sifting game. . .is that way it should be – no – but our economic system is set up so that if you want to create your own media outlet you can (look at the ages of a lot of “mainstream” news sources – they’re relatively recent creations).

There's another bit of difference. With HRC there is clear, factual, documented data available concerning HRC. There is innuendo, suspicion and accusations available concerning Trump and Russia. Not talking about his idiotic crap with Twitter, and his utterly stupid comments about "Obama wiretapping him" (which may be true, but NEVER make such a statement without clear factual basis). But talking about this specific issue.

Who cares?!?!?! She’s done. Personally, if I was a Trump supporter (or conservative) I’d be less pissed about her getting away with it under Obama than I would be with Trump backing down on his claims that he was going to appoint a special prosecutor to put her in jail (which is allowing her to still get away with it when Republicans control everything). How does that even make sense? Have the power to go after her, don’t, ok with it; don’t have all the power to go after her, complain she should be locked up. . .not ok with it.

I may be reading too many of deepsexpa’s posts, but that’s some serious mind control. There’s no way if I was invested in her going to jail, I’d stop trying to put her there just because my team told me to “let it go”. . .unless, of course, putting her in jail was convenient political bullshit that was useful at the time, and serves no purpose now (except to cry about how unfair an insult hurling billionaire, with three ex model wives, whose daughter and son in law are part of the administration, whose sons still run his billion dollar business interests, whose party controls all branches of govt when he’s President. . . is being treated unfairly).

Ok, on second thought deepsexpa, I’m officially convinced of this psy-ops thing you speak of.

I am, however, disturbed with the lengths that the liberals are going to now. I honestly feel that many liberals are now way over the line and am not sure there is a way back. There is wrong being done on both sides, but in terms of actual "people" (not elected officials) I'm amazed at the terrible behavior of many many liberals. People on this site talking about how they hope somebody "offs" Trump. All kinds of crap. Billboards with Trump and Nazi symbols. IMHO, these people are traitors. They are undermining the country. They are not disagreeing with policy, or even with the election. It's far far worse.

The side that holds power almost always sees the other side as being “over the line”. Google “Obama protests” and click on the images. . .there’s some over the line disturbing shit on there. Member of congress yelling “you lie” on the House floor ect. Dems thought the way you do now. . .Repubs cheered. Who’s right, no one. . .yet they all think they are.

I don’t agree with either side doing it. . .think it’s childish and indicative of weak minds all around. . .I agree with them being constitutionally protected to voice their opinions PEACEFULLY – no matter how appalling or contrary they are to my own. I don’t know about you, but for months after 2008, one of the on going conversations was “who was going to try to take him out first?”. It wasn’t being talked about like a joke. I don’t think anybody should be joking (or seriously) talking about killing anybody (regardless of if they are the President or not).

One of things that was stressed studying politics – don’t focus on the rhetoric – focus on the results. Just to keep it objective, on a hunch, I googled “assassinated American politicians”. . .was curious to see if a trend was easy to spot based upon party. Check it out when you get a chance.

I have a serious question for you – how can you call that billboard treasonous and undermining the country but justify being “blah” about Russians messing with our elections. . .wouldn’t that be considered treasonous as well?


And I’m finding something seriously f’ing sinister to do to you the next time we’re in the paddock together just for making me type this much today. . .

 

Dad was an international development banker that worked with the UN, various development banks and different governments and agencies. Spent a lot of time around these people growing up. Parents didn’t believe in “keeping stuff from the kids”. . .rather they wanted us to know what they knew so we would be prepared for the real world. People think all this stuff going on right now is new when it’s just the same old shit that’s been going on for ages (people just had 3 channels back then instead of the internet). Seen and heard a ton of shit growing up that lets me know just how full of shit the media (and people) can be.

Knew the Clintons were dirty since the 90’s (just like Reagan was dirty since the 80’s). At times the Presidency can be the filthiest job on the planet – everybody just wants it to look clean at the times it’s not. I have no such illusions

 

I posted a vid in the youtube thread last week (part 1)

this is the last (part 6) of that series from Dan Benham:


with your background you probably wont need to see the prior vids in this series leading upto this one to comment on the gist of it. Im curious how much you may know about these things, but not in order to gain prophet from you in some way, rather, to see how compartmentalized the banking systems info may be. (how tight the secrets of it are kept)

Dan is an ace from the mortgage side of things but he doesnt get into the negotiable instruments, securities, etc. (dangerous waters) and just sticks to helping people in foreclosure situations.

i'd like to get your input about it and see if you may be more interested in discussing the deeper end of this sea of commerce.

ive been a student of Law (not a law student or law school student) for many years and Banking is now the major area of that that im currently focusing in on, but not for financial reasons (in the common sense of that word anyway).

Im in way over my head but just treading water and not creating any big waves, my goal is to learn to walk on it ;-)

 

This explains a lot. Corruption at the highest levels.

 

Who farted?

 

Haven’t had a chance to watch the video but I’ll check it out when I get a chance. Highly doubt anything I can think of will be insightful but if anything sticks out, I’ll PM it to you. . .(honestly, based upon your post about Buick engines in NASCAR. . .something tells me it’ll be similar to what you’ve already experienced because at the end of the day, most of the strategies are the same when people want to hide shit they aren’t supposed to be doing).

I’m the wrong person to converse with about commerce. . .my first semester of college was at Wharton. . .hated it. . . couldn’t switch my major fast enough. . .

As far as being way over your head – dad grew up in abject poverty, was the first in his family to go college – has multiple degrees and speaks several different languages. His first job in banking was at the lowest level (even though both parents had their MBA’s, in order to make ends meet in the beginning - he worked construction on the weekends, my mom waitressed - both had their professional 9/5 jobs during the week and my brother and I were already born – still remember the cockroaches in their first apartment). They really “took off” in their 40’s but it never would have happened without their work ethic and dedication. One of the things I saw with some frequency – everybody assumed the success they saw was “easy” for them – nobody saw the blood and tears to get there. They just assumed it was instant success – furthest thing from it – it was decades. My brother and I are thankful every day for all their sacrifices and what they taught us through example – love them to death (and respect the hell out what they accomplished).

We're all in over our heads whenever we start anything new. Treading water is better than drowning. . .only way you’ll swim like a fish (or walk on it) is if you stick with it.

 

It's beginning to look like the Dems might want to stop worrying about Russia and look into covering their own asses for the surveillance of private citizens for political reasons...kinda pretty much on the level of what they are accusing the Russians of doing.

 

I predicted that here weeks ago:

I mean who could not see this coming?

 

thnx. I'd have to review it myself to recall exactly how much he gets into again but at the heart of the "banking" matters, is HJR192, Public law 73-10, and The trading with the enemy act.

there is no money, the public debt shall not be questioned!

 

And you're right about the fiscal conservative part. There are probably two areas that I'm "mid right" if you point a needle. It would be fiscal and defense. Probably for everything else, my meter is pretty much dead center.

But the problem here is that we're stuck with what we have. When it comes to things like SCOTUS, etc, we're stuck with it either being Dem or Repub. Third party votes are really just handing your vote to the "majority" of the other party in your state, etc. So, we're forced to deal with those choices.

Kas, there are some "violations" that I can tolerate better than others. And frankly, I have to consider the purpose, intent, and circumstances around them. I fully acknowledge that nobody in these offices are perfect, and nobody is innocent. However, I also have to make a distinction between actions which may be "wrong" but for at least potentially good reason, and those done out of pure personal gain, deception and dishonest. HRC is by any measure, clearly the latter.

I'm no Comey fan. Rush doesn't even belong in the discussion. Last I heard, nobody "voted" for him. I've already mentioned what I think about North, etc. The difference for me is that HRC acted dishonestly, with malice, for no reason other than personal benefit to deceive the public, placing both US and foreign nationals at risk of death, with some of them factually losing their life.

Agree - and believe me, I've reached out multiple times and met with, multiple times, with my elected representatives.

I'm sorry, Kas, but I have to really really disagree with you on this. The media is overwhelmingly liberal. It's overwhelmingly in the Dem bag. I have very little respect for any of them - to be honest, including Fox. Matter of fact, I'll be honest about two people on Fox that I do have some respect for. O'Reilly, and Dana Perino. O'Reilly isn't afraid to contradict or criticize conservatives/republicans. I don't always agree with him, but I respect that there is at least thought behind his comments. Perino seems level headed. The rest? Gutfeld makes me laugh. That's about it. That Carlson guy? I can't even remotely listen to him. MSNBC? CNN? They're a joke. And you can't even remotely say it's "even" because of crazy wacked out web sites. We really need to be honest about it. In the area about where the average American gets their news, it is primarily a liberal 4th estate. Or, better put - I think it ought to be called a 4th world. It's no longer responsible or respectable enough to be called the 4th estate.

I care. She is singularly responsible for tremendous harm. She personally lied to the victims of attacks. I never ever believed Trump would (or even should) go after her. Politically, it would be a losing proposition. However he should never been put in that situation. She should have been prosecuted - period. End of story.

I'm sorry, I don't think there is even remote similarity. The left is way over the line. First of all, the guy who yelled out "you lie"? He was actually factually correct. He was also disrespectful and should not have done it. But exactly how is that even remotely similar to what's going on now? I'm not seeing it. And as you have to admit- you know I'm not a Trump fan at all. So, it's pretty far fetched to say I'm just being defensive of the guy.

I'm not seeing it that way. I'm all for looking into allegations. No problem. And if there are facts there, then we should see them. No doubt. I'm not seeing anything treasonous there. AFAIK, there are still ongoing investigations. Nothing has been concluded yet, so we don't know. I personally have serious doubts. I also take it with a grain of salt, because we're all arguing about how factual, true emails got leaked where the contents of those emails made the Dems look bad - while not all that long ago the other side was arguing about how we shouldn't worry that the content of emails that were leaked were WAY more important than how they got leaked......

But the billboard to me is treasonous. It goes over a line. Legally? Maybe not. But I have nothing but the deepest of contempt for the sorry, miserable excuse for a low life scum of a human being that would put that billboard up. No differently than I would have felt about a similar billboard being put up about Obama - even though I could not stand the guy.

 

Indeed...



Etc.....

But the snowflaky Trump supporters forgot about these...

 

Says who? Last time I checked, Roberts was a tried and true conservative when he was nominated. . .and Donald Trump identified more as a democrat than a republican.

Trump was essentially the first third party candidate to get elected – he just used an established party’s apparatus to get it done. The tea party has an “R” next to their names. . .they consider the majority of republicans RINOs and the majority of RINOs think they operate like a separate party. Constituencies matter. . .if you’re a democrat from a conservative state (or vice versa). . .you’re going to buck the letter next to your name if you want to get re-elected.

If in order to prove your point, you have to put quotes around words so they change “crimes” to “violations” and “illegal covert weapons sales” to “actions that may be wrong”. . .you may want to stay away from arguments that have a moral and legal component to it. Which one is it – crimes are punished or are they not. . .if you can’t apply your standards equally – it looks suspiciously like your conclusions are based on personal opinions that “fluctuate” based upon political orientation/consideration.

Fun fact: all of those examples listed were not elected to anything. Another fun fact: Clinton was not elected to Sec of State. Final fun fact – in the executive branch. . .the only elected officials are the President (and by extension the VP) which means that the people in their administrations that are convicted are not elected.

“Acted dishonestly”. . .come on – you really shouldn’t be in any political party.

“With malice” – I’ll give that one to you because you’re consistent with applying that to POTUS.

“For no reason other than personal benefit” – challenge – answer how you know that definitively without using opinion.

“Placing US and foreign nationals at risk of death. . .” - research our foreign policy under Republicans. . .total the body counts compared to democrats, then tell me again how righteously indignant I should be about what she did in the grand scheme of things compared to Republicans putting US and foreign nationals at risk of death, with some of them factually losing their life.

If those are the main reasons for hating her, you really need to get the F*&K out your party.

Agree to disagree.

You’re emotionally compromised on the subject. You can tell just by the words you use. If you're not emotionally compromised on the subject, the alternative is not pretty.

Besides saying a President shouldn't be put in a tough situation to make good on a campaign promise; you literally just wrote that political considerations are more important than locking this evil bitch up, yet you want to lock her up for the political considerations that she made. Then you took it to the higher level because it can be inferred by your earlier statements of what she's responsible for, that you appear to condone the same callousness towards honoring those aforementioned US and foreign nationals by advocating that politics is more important than holding her accountable for her tremendously harmful actions against them.

Here's an emotional counter arguement - would you tell their families to their faces - "yes, she should have been prosecuted, but we can't now because politically it would be a losing proposition (even though we control everything)"?

I get the hate for her - don’t get that people can’t see how their hate drives irrational responses, which leads them to make over the top statements (that would trigger immediate red flags about partiality and the ability to remain objective on the subject matter in any normal human being).

That mental contortion act you just pulled, in a nutshell, is why I despise political parties.

I don’t think you’re being defensive, as stated above, I think you’re emotionally compromised on the subject. And you know me, that’s not figurative (as in stupidly equating you with “snowflakes” “needing a safe place” or questioning your manhood – I’d be direct if I was doing any of those. . .. You’re not seeing it because you don’t want to. Take your emotions out of it and look at it objectively. . .same shit. . .different party.

Funny, that same exact thing is what appears to be going on with the POTUS campaign.

I have no problems with the billboard (or similar shit against Obama). In Nazi Germany, the opposition would never be allowed to do shit like that without promptly getting shot. . .along with their families. You see low life scum, I see people with different opinions than mine who are free to express them so we don't turn into Nazi Germany.

And thank God for that – because if history is any indication – the sides flip flop every couple of years so each side gets to act the victim and be all shocked and shaken by the depravity of the sore losers on the other side.

IMHO, both sides need to collectively gather up all the tampons they stole from their lady friends, give them back, and actually become the alphas they think they are.

#merica

 

No dude,

First of all, please don't ever EVER call me a "snowflaky Trump supporter". If you're smart enough to comprehend the English language, you ought to know better than that.

Second, as far as I'm concerned those are way over the line too. One of the problems with some folks is that they make statements full of shit because they sometimes assume others are as biased as they are.

 

Mmmmh, not everything is about you.... Don't be too susceptible.


I was actually agreeing with your last or so sentence about the anti-Barry billboards that the right never ever posted because they don't do such things.....

 

I'm splitting some of this up because the post is just ridiculously too long to keep track of quotes and responses

No, you missed my point in that. The point was IMHO the idea of actually making a vote "count", and making sure that it's likely that the closest to what I believe in is used to select SCOTUS appointments. That's really it.

I don't think Trump was a third party candidate. I think all the parties are somewhat fractured - including the Dems And this for me just goes back to the previous issue. When push comes to shove, who is getting nominated, and how likely is it that crazy ass legislation can be stopped. I've given up on getting "good legislation" through.

No, I just understand we live in a world of grey, and not black and white. I'm sorry, but I have to consider moral implications. It's not that personal opinions based on political orientation, it's more that political beliefs fluctuate based on moral implications.

Yes, I know. I was just making a point. I probably should have phrased it better. Rush (who I detest, btw) is not obligated to any voter. He's not a public official paid by public funds.

Sorry, just how I feel.

Because there is a complete absence of any fact whatsoever that could under any circumstances explain her actions, and an overwhelming amount of facts suggesting this is so. Is it conclusive to the point that she (like Donna B) confessed? No. But it's convincing enough for me, and my personal opinion is that there is just so much evidence that contrary to your belief, it actually takes being emotionally compromised to overlook it.

I'm sorry, but you can't measure it by body count. You need to consider what the action was, what the basis and justification was, and what the result was.

Please don't use the word hate. 2 years before the election, I was publicly making positive comments about her. I actually thought she should have been the democratic nominee back in 2006.

You're very mistaken about this. Hillary has two strikes against her with me. My problem is that unfortunately for her, I have two different areas of "expertise" that collectively completely expose her at having been criminally responsible for actions that would have landed anybody else in jail. I served and had TS-SBI clearance for a long period of time. I'm extraordinarily familiar with the training and policies around the handling - and mishandling - of classified material. I'm very familiar with people having been prosecuted, and with the appropriate disposition of classified material. And guess what? The material she was working with and the levels of classification were far above mine. That's the first strike. Then, the second. Thats that my second career is in Technology, and I'm very VERY aware of how IT systems - including email - work. And, how the government handles them. Bottom line is that there is simply no room for doubt in my mind, and her actions are what resulted in my changed position of her - not the other way around. I don't want to lock her up for the political considerations she made. I want to lock her up because I remain completely, totally and utterly convinced beyond redemption of what she did, and that she did it for PERSONAL reasons. And that puts it in a very very different category for me than somebody doing something with actual good intentions and not for personal gain. If you don't like that, I understand. But I have a moral code and it's pretty important to me. Probably a byproduct of so long in the military, but it is what it is.

Now, as for why I don't think Trump should have continued going after her? Simple. For the better good. Is she guilty? Hell yes. What penalty or punishment would she receive? Almost nothing. So, Trump goes after her, has the Justice Department reopen the investigation, and then what? Lawsuits. More distraction. And it's still very different. What would I tell those families? Well, I'd tell them to their face that the former POTUS failed to do his job, that given the time frame and the tremendous efforts already being made to "bring down" the current President, that it is very unlikely that a successful prosecution could be made. I'd share as much actual information as possible, and apologize to them.

Like I said, I am not emotionally compromised. I fully acknowledge that neither "side" is remotely perfect, and there are really no white hats and black hats As a matter of fact, it's one of the things I hate about todays politics, and why I have such low expectations at the moment. Everybody vilifies everybody else. Team sports. I was never on a political team. I see the flaws on both sides - heck, you know of my feelings about many in both the D and the R Camp - as well as knowing I really do NOT like Trump. But it is what it is. My Hillary beliefs are not emotional. They are based on personal experience and after evaluating the data. After doing that my conclusion is that she is a dishonest criminal acting for purposes of personal gain.

 

Can y'all stop with the fucking book writing, war and peace novel level responses?

Fuck who wants to read all that? Get your fucking point across in 1/10th the words.