Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

 

As far as the "there's been no conviction....", well, you have your posting history.

And then there's distortion memes and lemmings. You're a lemming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 21.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's 7:00am, maybe, it could be 8:00am. It's hard to tell. The electricity has been off for, well, a very long time. The sun is starting to rise over the horizon with the red mist slowly lifting to li

Jack, I think you actually believe this. That's kind of scary, because it shows just how effective propaganda can be.  The dossier has not been disproven, administration and campaign officials ha

Posted Images

image.thumb.png.89d757bfe90c53d6203134b439e85684.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

That's a great idea. I wonder if Depends would be interested in putting out a Trump Special with his face on the inside.

Do they make them big enough to cover that ass? Each cheek is the size of a large head.

image.thumb.png.d1fc7faa110f0d1795ae933f750d30e9.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Do they make them big enough to cover that ass? Each cheek is the size of a large head.

image.thumb.png.d1fc7faa110f0d1795ae933f750d30e9.png

Not for him, for the millions of his supporters, so they are close to the Chief Asshole at all times.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dog said:

Really.... what has Mueller revealed about Trump's relationship with the Russians and what indictments have anything to do with Trump and Russians?

Read what I wrote. The investigation continues and indictments continue. Just because the House GOP has declared Russia a dead end has not changed Mueller's job or how he carries it out at all. Despite how much you want him to stick a fork in it and declare it done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bent Sailor said:

Just because the House GOP has declared Russia a dead end has not changed Mueller's job or how he carries it out at all.

Needs to be in BOLD and LARGE FONT for some .

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dog said:

Get real....People talk to people, (I just had a Russian leave my office). Talking to Russians is not evidence of collusion. As for Trump's disposition towards Russia with the exception of his inexplicable failure to apply the sanctions he has been more hostile towards Russia than his predecessor. (Who BTW did collude with Russia with his "space" in return for "flexibility" hot mic deal). Trump has resumed the  sale of weapons into Eastern  Europe, he's encouraging energy production with the expressed purpose of relieving European dependence on Russia. For their part Russia is organizing and funding anti Trump demonstrations here..... That's some partnership they got going there.

Inexplicable  failure?

 

There's  plenty of column inches devoted to  explaining the inexplicable. ....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ease the sheet said:

Where's the  fun in that?

I don't  understand  American  style bdsm...

It's the defilement of the previous occupant's private space. Trump was always a pissant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Read what I wrote. The investigation continues and indictments continue. Just because the House GOP has declared Russia a dead end has not changed Mueller's job or how he carries it out at all. Despite how much you want him to stick a fork in it and declare it done. 

I agree, and I've said several times. The search for a crime (to chargre Trump) continues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dog said:

I agree, and I've said several times. The search for a crime (to chargre Trump) continues.

Not necessarily. The crime quite likely has already been found. Ensuring the body evidence has no wiggle room a man with the powers of POTUS can abuse takes time. I'm glad Mueller & his team are doing a proper job, unlike the craven House GOP "investigation".

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

I agree, and I've said several times. The search for a crime (to chargre Trump) continues.

I don’t think we will hear of any allegations directed at Trump personally until Mueller wraps up. He’s working up the pyramid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's lawyer in Mueller probe, John Dowd, cited for Trump campaign contribution above the legal max

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sean said:

I don’t think we will hear of any allegations directed at Trump personally until Mueller wraps up. He’s working up the pyramid.

Of course that standard is more constrained than Mueller’s mandate, and takes shelter behind the notion that a sitting President can not be indicted, but it facilitates the Mueller’s got nothing narrative for the Doggy stylers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Mueller seeks interview, Trump left without easy options

Quote

Prosecutors trying to establish whether Trump took steps to obstruct justice have conveyed interest in talking with the president about his decision to fire Comey as FBI director last May and about multiple conversations between the two men, including one in which Comey says he was encouraged to end an investigation into national security adviser Michael Flynn, people familiar with the investigation say.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-mueller-seeks-interview-trump-left-without-easy-options/2018/03/14/4f74059e-27af-11e8-a227-fd2b009466bc_story.html?utm_term=.00deb8bbcf1e

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mid said:

I don’t support Trump but he should not agree to an interview or testimony of any sort under any circumstances, if he wants me to be able to continue to say that Mueller has nothing on him. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GOPClownCar said:

Move along folks, nothing to see here.......

 

Mueller Subpoenas Trump Organization, Demanding Documents About Russia

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/us/politics/trump-organization-subpoena-mueller-russia.html

"The order is the first known time that the special counsel demanded documents directly related to President Trump’s businesses"

IMHO This is the most threatening line of inquiry for Trump. If he's going to pull the plug on Mueller this should do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, GOPClownCar said:

Move along folks, nothing to see here.......

 

Mueller Subpoenas Trump Organization, Demanding Documents About Russia

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/us/politics/trump-organization-subpoena-mueller-russia.html

"Mr Trump", "Former President Clinton"?    The office of the presidency, no matter your opinion of its current occupant, warrants the respect of being properly addressed. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dog said:

"The order is the first known time that the special counsel demanded documents directly related to President Trump’s businesses"

IMHO This is the most threatening line of inquiry for Trump. If he's going to pull the plug on Mueller this should do it.

Why should he pull the plug?  Innocent people want to have the investigation done and be cleared.  Look how well it worked for OJ.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

"Mr Trump", "Former President Clinton"?    The office of the presidency, no matter your opinion of its current occupant, warrants the respect of being properly addressed. 

 

Tell that to the Boy, Obama

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I hate that shit too - 

not many folks on the right were rushing to condemn the old racist. Since he voted R...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
29 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Tell that to the Boy, Obama

I hate that shit too - 

Yep.  I do my level best to refer to him as President Trump.  Pretty sure that is what you'll find is you search my posts.  At least, I think so.

I do find it odd when folks who referred to President Obama as "halfrican", "boy", "the Kenyan", etc. say you need to respect the office, even if you don't respect the man.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Yep.  I do my level best to refer to him as President Trump.  Pretty sure that is what you'll find is you search my posts.  At least, I think so.

I do find it odd when folks who referred to President Obama as "halfrican", "boy", "the Kenyan", etc. say you need to respect the office, even if you don't respect the man.

I certainly hope you're not suggesting that I ever did that.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I certainly hope you're not suggesting that I ever did that.  

Not at all.

The more toxic posters have either left entirely, or are currently using a sock and trying to keep from exposing themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I certainly hope you're not suggesting that I ever did that.  

Guy, the only time that "right wing idiots" type posts reflect on you at all is some of the time on the gun nut threads. ;)

The rest of the time you are the resident sane conservative voice here and can assume those types of comments don't include you.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Guy, the only time that "right wing idiots" type posts reflect on you at all is some of the time on the gun nut threads. ;)

The rest of the time you are the resident sane conservative voice here and can assume those types of comments don't include you.

Thanks Sloop - I didn't think I'd acted in a way to draw BD's ire - but, I say stupid stuff sometimes too, and the timing of his reply made me feel the need to ask.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Guy, the only time that "right wing idiots" type posts reflect on you at all is some of the time on the gun nut threads. ;)

The rest of the time you are the resident sane conservative voice here and can assume those types of comments don't include you.

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Yep.  I do my level best to refer to him as President Trump. 

fok that , the fool has degraded the office way past any worth of respect .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump Organization Is Subpoenaed for Russia Documents in Mueller Inquiry

Quote

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, has subpoenaed the Trump Organization to turn over documents, including some related to Russia, according to two people briefed on the matter. The order is the first known instance of the special counsel demanding records directly related to President Trump’s businesses, bringing the investigation closer to the president.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/us/politics/trump-organization-subpoena-mueller-russia.html?smid=tw-share

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Guy, the only time that "right wing idiots" type posts reflect on you at all is some of the time on the gun nut threads. ;)

The rest of the time you are the resident sane conservative voice here and can assume those types of comments don't include you.

Guy is disappointing only when he goes to the gun subject IMO. Which is interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

"The order is the first known time that the special counsel demanded documents directly related to President Trump’s businesses"

IMHO This is the most threatening line of inquiry for Trump. If he's going to pull the plug on Mueller this should do it.

But Mueller should stick a fork in Russia right? It's done. Nothing there to see. Mueller clearly isn't targeting the Russian angle with Trump anymore.

Time for the Doggy-style two-step shuffle away from that position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Guy, the only time that "right wing idiots" type posts reflect on you at all is some of the time on the gun nut threads. ;)

The rest of the time you are the resident sane conservative voice here and can assume those types of comments don't include you.

This. The fact you're considered one of the resident sane ones is what makes your positions, and how you express them, in the gun threads stand out like a sore thumb. Otherwise, you're pretty reasonable and I've most definitely not seen any of the racist jibes against Obama come from you. Quite the opposite - recall you taking assholes to task on it occasionally. 

That said, Dabs kind of got everyone offside who wasn't spoiling for a shit fight...

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

But Mueller should stick a fork in Russia right? It's done. Nothing there to see. Mueller clearly isn't targeting the Russian angle with Trump anymore.

Time for the Doggy-style two-step shuffle away from that position.

He is not allowed to go looking for evidence.  That wouldn't just be unfair.  It would be SO Unfair.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Why should he pull the plug?  Innocent people want to have the investigation done and be cleared.  Look how well it worked for OJ.  

Pretty sure what Doggy meant is that IF 45 was going to fire Mueller, or find a way to end the investigation, this will be the time he will do it. I think he (Dog) is right. But I also don't think 45 will actually pull the plug. He's painted so far into the corner that all he can do at this point is try to extend his presidency as long as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Pretty sure what Doggy meant is that IF 45 was going to fire Mueller, or find a way to end the investigation, this will be the time he will do it. I think he (Dog) is right. But I also don't think 45 will actually pull the plug. He's painted so far into the corner that all he can do at this point is try to extend his presidency as long as possible.

I don't think Trump ever wanted the office he holds and is stuck trying to find a way out without being a "loser". The election campaign was a stunt to raise his personal brand and ended up exposing him to the kinds of scrutiny NO New York real estate developer wants to be under, let alone one that's been making shady deals internationally. Even if Trump's campaign is completely innocent of colluding with Russia (ha!); Trump is trapped between his past actions and his own pride. It's actually quite amusing, in a dark way, to see how far the USA can fall in the space of one presidential election.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bent Sailor said:

I don't think Trump ever wanted the office he holds and is stuck trying to find a way out without being a "loser". The election campaign was a stunt to raise his personal brand and ended up exposing him to the kinds of scrutiny NO New York real estate developer wants to be under, let alone one that's been making shady deals internationally. Even if Trump's campaign is completely innocent of colluding with Russia (ha!); Trump is trapped between his past actions and his own pride. It's actually quite amusing, in a dark way, to see how far the USA can fall in the space of one presidential election.

It was amazing to see how far Dubya could take the country down after being gifted an economy so strong it looked like the Amazing Hulk..... Then the 9/11 incident, which gave the USA not only the world's sympathy, but a massive amount of leniency in what we could do to retaliate..... Dubya fucked that up so completely that it took Obama 5 years to undo the damage. 3 years later, Trump is handed the strongest US economy since 9/11 (or before) and a world that looks to us with pride again, for having elected an intellectual, caring man..... And in 3 months he takes us back to the bad old days of Dubya, where the rest of the world is not only afraid of us, but is laughing at us as well.....

 The rest of the world has good reason to laugh at us for electing morons like Dubya and Trump. They also have a good reason to be afraid of us. The NRA tells us it's not guns that kill people, it's mentally deranged people with guns that kill people.

 Be very afraid of mentally deranged people with nuclear bombs.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks Sloop - I didn't think I'd acted in a way to draw BD's ire - but, I say stupid stuff sometimes too, and the timing of his reply made me feel the need to ask.   

I apologize if you took my comment as directed at you.  It most certainly wasn't.

I quoted the exchange between you and Raz'r, and figured I would add my 2 cents.

The morans who used the derisive labels are too chickenshit to post anything, these days.

Good riddance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

It was amazing to see how far Dubya could take the country down after being gifted an economy so strong it looked like the Amazing Hulk..... Then the 9/11 incident, which gave the USA not only the world's sympathy, but a massive amount of leniency in what we could do to retaliate..... Dubya fucked that up so completely that it took Obama 5 years to undo the damage. 3 years later, Trump is handed the strongest US economy since 9/11 (or before) and a world that looks to us with pride again, for having elected an intellectual, caring man..... And in 3 months he takes us back to the bad old days of Dubya, where the rest of the world is not only afraid of us, but is laughing at us as well.....

 The rest of the world has good reason to laugh at us for electing morons like Dubya and Trump. They also have a good reason to be afraid of us. The NRA tells us it's not guns that kill people, it's mentally deranged people with guns that kill people.

 Be very afraid of mentally deranged people with nuclear bombs.

George the Lesser is not on my list of "presidents to praise", but he was still head and shoulders above what you have at the moment. Obama wasn't the best president either, but he was easily in the top quintile. You've gone from one of the best presidents to, literally in my mind, the worst one in your history in the space of one election. That's both hilarious and monumentally sad at the same time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

You're one of the good guys, although we disagree on many points, you're able to effectively articulate your position.  You're a breath of fresh air.  I enjoy reading what you have to say.  Please keep saying it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

"Mr Trump", "Former President Clinton"?    The office of the presidency, no matter your opinion of its current occupant, warrants the respect of being properly addressed. 

 

Don't read too much into it.  The NYT's house style is to call a President "President _______" the first time he's mentioned in a story, then "Mr. _____" in subsequent mentions. 

(I'm not sure whether I learned this during the Bush Presidency or Obama's, but it was before the current Buffoon.)

 

(edit: It was during the Bush Presidency.

https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/no-disrespect-intended/ )

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for digging that up, @frenchie. Reading the article, that is indeed the way they handled it with this and a scattering of pre-2016 NYT articles I checked where they refer to him as "Mr. Obama" after the first "President Obama". I see no disrespect, though will confess to finding it amusing that it's only been noticed (& complained about) with Trump.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

But Mueller should stick a fork in Russia right? It's done. Nothing there to see. Mueller clearly isn't targeting the Russian angle with Trump anymore.

Time for the Doggy-style two-step shuffle away from that position.

Correct...There is no future in the Russia angle. It was only ever pretext, an insurance policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Correct...There is no future in the Russia angle. It was only ever pretext, an insurance policy.

Mueller doesn't seem to think so having subpoena'd Trump for documents about his businesses Russian connections & investments. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Mueller doesn't seem to think so having subpoena'd Trump for documents about his businesses Russian connections & investments. 

Muller subpoenaed Trump organization documents some of which "relate to Russia". If there is anything incriminating in them it will have to do with business activities not campaign activities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Muller subpoenaed Trump organization documents some of which "relate to Russia". If there is anything incriminating in them it will have to do with business activities not campaign activities.

Imagine if it were impossible to reward collusion through favourable business arrangements. Just imagine how great you rebuttal would be then.... unfortunately in the real world, that's not the case and those documents can still be useful in proving the Russian angle. 

The thing is, I know you're not that stupid, which just makes you dishonest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

You know this how?

Call it an educated guess based on the total absence of real evidence of campaign collusion and the accumulating evidence that it was all just pretext. It's not inconceivable that I'm wrong but it is unlikely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dog said:

Call it an educated guess based on the total absence of real evidence of campaign collusion and the accumulating evidence that it was all just pretext. It's not inconceivable that I'm wrong but it is unlikely.

Repeating that won’t make it true no matter how many times you try to Doggy Style it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sol Rosenberg said:

Repeating that won’t make it true no matter how many times you try to Doggy Style it. 

I know, repeating the collusion fiction won't make it true either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dog said:

Call it an educated guess based on the total absence of real evidence of campaign collusion and the accumulating evidence that it was all just pretext.

And you get the idea there is a total absence of real evidence from... what exactly? Muller's investigation isn't over. Mueller hasn't reported on what he has. We don't even know what's in the sealed indictments, let alone what is waiting for Mueller to flip potential witnesses, back up with evidence from subpoena'd documents, and yet to reveal to those leaking information to the press after interviews that have yet to occur.

That Mueller hasn't told you there is no evidence doesn't mean it is lacking. It simply means he hasn't told you of the evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. That you want to believe it was simply a pretext neither makes it so nor means that, pretext or not, there was fire behind all that smoke. You are running on pure faith & hope. Much like Happy Jack did before his post-Romney cruise. I feel you have just as little integrity as he does and will be most amused at how you handle eating crow.

 

11 minutes ago, Dog said:

It's not inconceivable that I'm wrong but it is unlikely.

Dog, you've been wrong so fucking often that there are even odds you'd be incorrect about the sun coming up tomorrow. It's good you have a healthy self-esteem and think you know so much more than the FBI... but a little realism wouldn't go astray either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:

I know, repeating the collusion fiction won't make it true either.

Indeed it won't. It's truth is completely independent of what people here have to say about the matter. Kind of like your repeated assertions have no effect on the Mueller investigation. As evident by how quickly after your declaration it was time to stick a fork in Russia, the media reported on the subpoena of documents about it from Trump's businesses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

And you get the idea there is a total absence of real evidence from... what exactly? Muller's investigation isn't over. Mueller hasn't reported on what he has. We don't even know what's in the sealed indictments, let alone what is waiting for Mueller to flip potential witnesses, back up with evidence from subpoena'd documents, and yet to reveal to those leaking information to the press after interviews that have yet to occur.

That Mueller hasn't told you there is no evidence doesn't mean it is lacking. It simply means he hasn't told you of the evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. That you want to believe it was simply a pretext neither makes it so nor means that, pretext or not, there was fire behind all that smoke. You are running on pure faith & hope. Much like Happy Jack did before his post-Romney cruise. I feel you have just as little integrity as he does and will be most amused at how you handle eating crow.

 

When Mueller shows us evidence of collusion I will consider it. I'm not going to take it on faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

When Mueller shows us evidence of collusion I will consider it. I'm not going to take it on faith.

You are taking it on faith that there is none. You've stated that is the case and, lacking an over the shoulder view into what evidence he has currently, that is merely based on hope. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

You are taking it on faith that there is none. You've stated that is the case and, lacking an over the shoulder view into what evidence he has currently, that is merely based on hope. 

Having never seen one I don't believe in unicorns either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dog said:

Having never seen one I don't believe in unicorns either.

Indeed, but there is no cause to suspect their existence, no-one indicted for lying about unicorns, nor an FBI investigation into their existence. Apples, oranges, and a predictable non sequitur from Dog.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Dog said:

I know, repeating the collusion fiction won't make it true either.

I'm not sure we have heard a definitive declaration from Mueller that no collusion occurred. 

Absence of a statement regarding the final determination, while the investigation proceeds, does not make it fiction.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Thanks for digging that up, @frenchie. Reading the article, that is indeed the way they handled it with this and a scattering of pre-2016 NYT articles I checked where they refer to him as "Mr. Obama" after the first "President Obama". I see no disrespect, though will confess to finding it amusing that it's only been noticed (& complained about) with Trump.

Thanks Frenchie - and Bent - I can't speak for anyone else, but, I've been consistent in this, and have had the same complaint when Pres Obama was in office, when Mme Clinton was Sec State, etc.  So - it's not a "Trump Thing" - it's a respect for the office thing.   Mebbe it's because I grew up in the military, mebbe it's because I'm old, mebbe it's because I honestly like Chivalry, mebbe I'm just weird, - but, I do think that rank/office warrants respect, even when the individual wearing the rank/holding the office isn't behaving in a manner worthy of it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks Frenchie - and Bent - I can't speak for anyone else, but, I've been consistent in this, and have had the same complaint when Pres Obama was in office, when Mme Clinton was Sec State, etc.  So - it's not a "Trump Thing" - it's a respect for the office thing.   Mebbe it's because I grew up in the military, mebbe it's because I'm old, mebbe it's because I honestly like Chivalry, mebbe I'm just weird, - but, I do think that rank/office warrants respect, even when the individual wearing the rank/holding the office isn't behaving in a manner worthy of it. 

I’d wager that 99.9% of us here have more respect for that office than the guy holding it at present. He strikes me as the only President ever who consistently treats his interests as superior to those of the office he holds. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

I don't think Trump ever wanted the office he holds and is stuck trying to find a way out without being a "loser". The election campaign was a stunt to raise his personal brand and ended up exposing him to the kinds of scrutiny NO New York real estate developer wants to be under, let alone one that's been making shady deals internationally. Even if Trump's campaign is completely innocent of colluding with Russia (ha!); Trump is trapped between his past actions and his own pride. It's actually quite amusing, in a dark way, to see how far the USA can fall in the space of one presidential election.

Damn if that doesn't sum it up nicely, aside from "the US can fall" - I don't think we HAVE fallen, regardless of the fact that we've got a buffoon in the WH.  I think that his election demonstrates the sanctity (Russian meddling aside) of the election process, in that with as much angst and dismay as there was with the 2 candidates, that the process was honored, no coups, no attempts by Pres Obama to nullify the election results, etc.   I do hope that we as a people can recognize the travesty that comes from division, and work collectively and individually to do a MUCH better job in deciding who we want on Capital Hill - and that stances on issues are much more important than the cult of personality or the letter behind the name.    Where's Ross Perot when ya need him? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks Frenchie - and Bent - I can't speak for anyone else, but, I've been consistent in this, and have had the same complaint when Pres Obama was in office, when Mme Clinton was Sec State, etc.  So - it's not a "Trump Thing" - it's a respect for the office thing.   Mebbe it's because I grew up in the military, mebbe it's because I'm old, mebbe it's because I honestly like Chivalry, mebbe I'm just weird, - but, I do think that rank/office warrants respect, even when the individual wearing the rank/holding the office isn't behaving in a manner worthy of it. 

I guess I don't see how respecting an office requires constant reference to it when talking about the person holding it. We haven't used "President Trump" or "President Obama" constantly in the forum when referring to those individuals, so I don't see why a media publication needs to do so either. They are, like us, merely citizens talking about a person who happens to currently (or previously) hold an office. They ensure that the office is recognised the first time the person is referenced and then speak about them as we do - by name alone.

It's not a chivalry thing (I like that too); but you indeed have a military background and some decades on me, so it indeed could be rooted somewhere in that ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I guess I don't see how respecting an office requires constant reference to it when talking about the person holding it. We haven't used "President Trump" or "President Obama" constantly in the forum when referring to those individuals, so I don't see why a media publication needs to do so either. They are, like us, merely citizens talking about a person who happens to currently (or previously) hold an office. They ensure that the office is recognised the first time the person is referenced and then speak about them as we do - by name alone.

It's not a chivalry thing (I like that too); but you indeed have a military background and some decades on me, so it indeed could be rooted somewhere in that ;) 

Maybe so - Stay the hell offa my lawn! 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Damn if that doesn't sum it up nicely, aside from "the US can fall" - I don't think we HAVE fallen, regardless of the fact that we've got a buffoon in the WH.  I think that his election demonstrates the sanctity (Russian meddling aside) of the election process, in that with as much angst and dismay as there was with the 2 candidates, that the process was honored, no coups, no attempts by Pres Obama to nullify the election results, etc.   I do hope that we as a people can recognize the travesty that comes from division, and work collectively and individually to do a MUCH better job in deciding who we want on Capital Hill - and that stances on issues are much more important than the cult of personality or the letter behind the name.    Where's Ross Perot when ya need him? 

The status of USA is not rooted purely it's electoral system. It is indeed a good thing that there was no attempts at a coup, executive nullification, or otherwise domestic government source attempt to undermine your democracy... but if that is the only bar you set, than the USA is no better than the vast majority of the first world. Sorry, but the USA has fallen. It hasn't reached rock bottom by any stretch, but it's not as high as it used to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

The status of USA is not rooted purely it's electoral system. It is indeed a good thing that there was no attempts at a coup, executive nullification, or otherwise domestic government source attempt to undermine your democracy... but if that is the only bar you set, than the USA is no better than the vast majority of the first world. Sorry, but the USA has fallen. It hasn't reached rock bottom by any stretch, but it's not as high as it used to be.

Valid points - but, I'd suggest that the respect for the electoral results is a symptom of the country's resilience and respect for law.   Disliking the behavior of the current occupants of the WH doesn't preclude the hope and expectation of positive change in the future, and *that*, IMHO wold be the point at which I'd agree about the US having fallen.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Valid points - but, I'd suggest that the respect for the electoral results is a symptom of the country's resilience and respect for law.

I don't disagree... but as I said, that is no better than the vast majority of democracies across the planet. There is nothing about that which puts the USA as a "light on the hill" for the world at large. 

 

Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Disliking the behavior of the current occupants of the WH doesn't preclude the hope and expectation of positive change in the future, and *that*, IMHO wold be the point at which I'd agree about the US having fallen.  

I think you and I are perhaps talking at cross purposes here. I am not saying the USA has fallen as in ruined beyond redemption as in "Rome has fallen". I am saying that, despite many disagreements, the world once looked at the country as inspirational. When Obama was at the helm, this was still the case, with the world being inspired both by the man himself and by the nation that elected him. With Trump at the helm, this is far from the case. The USA has lost respect, has lost trust, and frankly lost influence with him taking the office and from what he has since done whilst in office. Your country may get it back after he is ousted, true, but it will take work. The fact it will take work means your country is not held in as high esteem as it once was, is not the leader it once was, and not the "shining light on the hill" anymore. It has fallen from those heights. 

Make sense?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Correct...There is no future in the Russia angle. It was only ever pretext, an insurance policy.

For who? Careful now....

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I don't disagree... but as I said, that is no better than the vast majority of democracies across the planet. There is nothing about that which puts the USA as a "light on the hill" for the world at large. 

 

I think you and I are perhaps talking at cross purposes here. I am not saying the USA has fallen as in ruined beyond redemption as in "Rome has fallen". I am saying that, despite many disagreements, the world once looked at the country as inspirational. When Obama was at the helm, this was still the case, with the world being inspired both by the man himself and by the nation that elected him. With Trump at the helm, this is far from the case. The USA has lost respect, has lost trust, and frankly lost influence with him taking the office and from what he has since done whilst in office. Your country may get it back after he is ousted, true, but it will take work. The fact it will take work means your country is not held in as high esteem as it once was, is not the leader it once was, and not the "shining light on the hill" anymore. It has fallen from those heights. 

Make sense?

yes it does - no argument whatsoever. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dog said:

When Mueller shows us evidence of collusion I will consider it. I'm not going to take it on faith.

What was Eric fucking Prince doing with Nader and a Russian financier in the Seychelles Islands? Mr. Prince lives in the UAE, I hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

What was Eric fucking Prince doing with Nader and a Russian financier in the Seychelles Islands? Mr. Prince lives in the UAE, I hear.

Perhaps they all own time-shares at the same resort?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Perhaps they all own time-shares at the same resort?

The shenanigans are multi-layered. Consider Flynn, Manafort, The Kush, and Stone as well. Someone else was working Carter Page. PhD, and Papa D. Ivanka worked money laundering in Panama...

The behavior was rampant. As a group, they look a lot smarter as conspirators than as individuals, each screwing up. 

I was expecting a disaster from this presidency, but didn't anticipate the entertainment factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

What was Eric fucking Prince doing with Nader and a Russian financier in the Seychelles Islands? Mr. Prince lives in the UAE, I hear.

 

Any ideas??

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

Any ideas? 

He was sent there on a mission. But no business cards were exchanged?

Quote

 "BACK CHANNEL" TIMELINE

Dec. 1 2016 Location: Trump Tower

Flynn meets Kislyak and proposes a back-channel communication. Ambassador Kislyak is surprised at the request

Dec. 13 Location: Trump Tower

Present: Kushner (who claimed a diplomatic discussion) meets Sergei Gorkov, of the Russianstate-owned VEB Bank (which said they discussed business. Gorkov is a graduate of the FSB Russian spy school.)

Dec. 15 Location: Trump Tower

Present: Flynn, Kushner, Bannon, and Nader. Flynn asks for back channel Kremlin communication of UAE Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed who was present without diplomatic notification. Zayed suggests a meeting in the Seychelles Islands

Jan 11, 2017. George Nader sets up the meeting, and attends. Location: Seychelles Islands.

Eric Prince approaches UAE Prince Bin Zayid to arrrange a Putin meeting. Zayid brings  Kirol Demetriov, who controls a $10B Kremlin Russian Direct Investment Fund, a Kremlin fund source

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dog said:

I know, repeating the collusion fiction won't make it true either.

How about if Donald Trump repeated it himself

"Russia, if you're listening, maybe you can find Hillary's missing emails"

You really do need to keep your head wedged deeply into the partisan-blinder sand in order to maintain the fiction that there is "no evidence of collusion."

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

What was Eric fucking Prince doing with Nader and a Russian financier in the Seychelles Islands? Mr. Prince lives in the UAE, I hear.

If it was to establish back channel communications between Trump and the Kremlin it undermines the collusion theory. Collusion with the Kremlin during the campaign would require that back channel communications already be in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

How about if Donald Trump repeated it himself

"Russia, if you're listening, maybe you can find Hillary's missing emails"

You really do need to keep your head wedged deeply into the partisan-blinder sand in order to maintain the fiction that there is "no evidence of collusion."

-DSK

Context....The comment was a dig at Hillary for being unable to come up with her own emails.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dog said:

If it was to establish back channel communications between Trump and the Kremlin it undermines the collusion theory. Collusion with the Kremlin during the campaign would require that back channel communications already be in place.

How does this prove that there wasn't a back channel in place during the campaign?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dog said:
26 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

How about if Donald Trump repeated it himself

"Russia, if you're listening, maybe you can find Hillary's missing emails"

You really do need to keep your head wedged deeply into the partisan-blinder sand in order to maintain the fiction that there is "no evidence of collusion."

-DSK

Context....The comment was a dig at Hillary for being unable to come up with her own emails.

Right after meeting with Russians at Trump Tower? Right after insisting that he has "no business" with/in Russia?

Yeah right.

He insulted HIllary on plenty of other occasions without referring to Russia at all. Very odd set of coincidences, but NO EVIDENCE.....

-DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites