Kirk Gallaway Posted May 19, 2017 Author Share Posted May 19, 2017 (edited) Wow, I see in the papers, today is Rapper, Special Ed's birthday! Pretty cool name! And fitting since Rappers within themselves are so special. I think we may have missed our chance for a Special President Education, but now I think I can live with it. heh heh Michael, if you come out with a theory, your theory is fair game for scrutiny. Just as mine is. I'll pay you a complement for what I think is a good topic you've brought up with Paul.I love political speculation Michael says: Regarding Pence being re-elected: That completely depends on who the Democrats send into the election. The Democrats have to go with a moderate to win-over moderate Trump supporters. You can get another 1 million democratic voters out in NY, and it won't make a difference in the Electoral College. You have to bring-in and send-out Democratic voters in swing-states; a Bernie Sanders is not going to do that. . Michael, it seems very seldom that I find you on the sensible, conservative side of the argument. But I think you generally have a point with Paul, even though I agree more with Paul's vision. But I think the truth is, it could go either way. It all depends on the showing the Democrats make in 2018. If there is just more steady drip and slow Trump death, and the Democrats can take both houses, they'll be in a place in 2020 where they could do their big agenda and sweep. The 3/8 of the population that are Trump supporters are still firm, but are they expecting any economic bang for their buck of support? I don't really see Trump providing that to them, though other areas of the country could do very well..Have they fallen in love with the idea of Trump, and can just be fleeced like children.? I hope not. Remember those swing states were once Democratic. But issue wise favors the Democrats. A candidate with some of Bernie's agenda, single payer health care for all, making education affordable for the middle class(including some forgiveness for student debt). Higher taxation for the top 2%, decrease in defense spending all pretty much get good marks in public polls. But you can't have an avowed socialist as a candidate, as much as I like Bernie. I say after we've seen this white backlash against the multi cultural Democrats, they should get a preferably younger, tall, good looking white dude. In some cases it doesn't matter to the American public what their politicians are saying as many Americans are apt to vote against their interests.There are a lot of Trump supporters who joined the chant about eliminating Obamacare who didn't realize they were or about to be recipients of Obamacare.In America, elections are more about candidate image, and personality than issues. Edited May 19, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 10 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Wow, I see in the papers, today is Rapper, Special Ed's birthday! Pretty cool name! And fitting since Rappers within themselves are so special. I think we may have missed our chance for a Special President Education, but now I think I can live with it. heh heh Michael, if you come out with a theory, your theory is fair game for scrutiny. Just as mine is. I'll pay you a complement for what I think is a good topic you've brought up with Paul.I love political speculation Michael says: Regarding Pence being re-elected: That completely depends on who the Democrats send into the election. The Democrats have to go with a moderate to win-over moderate Trump supporters. You can get another 1 million democratic voters out in NY, and it won't make a difference in the Electoral College. You have to bring-in and send-out Democratic voters in swing-states; a Bernie Sanders is not going to do that. . Michael, it seems very seldom that I find you on the sensible, conservative side of the argument. But I think you generally have a point with Paul, even though I agree more with Paul's vision. But I think the truth is, it could go either way. It all depends on the showing the Democrats make in 2018. If there is just more steady drip and slow Trump death, and the Democrats can take both houses, they'll be in a place in 2020 where they could do their big agenda and sweep. The 3/8 of the population that are Trump supporters are still firm, but are they expecting any economic bang for their buck of support? I don't really see Trump providing that to them, though other areas of the country could do very well..Have they fallen in love with the idea of Trump, and can just be fleeced like children.? I hope not. Remember those swing states were once Democratic. But issue wise favors the Democrats. A candidate with some of Bernie's agenda, single payer health care for all, making education affordable for the middle class(including some forgiveness for student debt). Higher taxation for the top 2%, decrease in defense spending all pretty much get good marks in public polls. But you can't have an avowed socialist as a candidate, as much as I like Bernie. I say after we've seen this white backlash against the multi cultural Democrats, they should get a preferably younger, tall, good looking white dude. In some cases it doesn't matter to the American public what their politicians are saying as many Americans are apt to vote against their interests.There are a lot of Trump supporters who joined the chant about eliminating Obamacare who didn't realize they were or about to be recipients of Obamacare.In America, elections are more about candidate image, and personality than issues. There is a lot in there that I can't speak to, due to lack of political Savvy. I agree with most of the rest. One thing that I am a big believer in is divided government. The full control of both houses and the executive is the worst case scenario, no matter which party it is. I'd like to see the Dems take one house, then I have a choice for who I support for President. If the Dems take both houses, I will likely vote republican for the next POTUS; unless of course they field a tool like Trump. Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Rymer Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 Hello all, Not been on this site for some 11 years, but thought I would dip in and take a look. Can't really believe what I am seeing. Specifically: Politics is a dog-and-pony PR exercise designed to distract the population and provide the illusion of choice. It is usually manipulated by the dominant state/local powers using a combination of propaganda, voting procedures, Gerry-mandering, systemic procedural tricks and fraud to return a 'business-as-usual' candidate. Candidates are usually pre-vetted/pre-compromised or pre-purchased - or a combination thereof. Plausible sociopaths are highly desirable. They can lie and invade other countries without remorse. Many appear to believe Clinton would have been preferable to or better than Trump. The level of infantile thinking required to buy into this is quite stunning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 20 minutes ago, Steve Rymer said: Hello all, Not been on this site for some 11 years, but thought I would dip in and take a look. Can't really believe what I am seeing. Specifically: Politics is a dog-and-pony PR exercise designed to distract the population and provide the illusion of choice. It is usually manipulated by the dominant state/local powers using a combination of propaganda, voting procedures, Gerry-mandering, systemic procedural tricks and fraud to return a 'business-as-usual' candidate. Candidates are usually pre-vetted/pre-compromised or pre-purchased - or a combination thereof. Plausible sociopaths are highly desirable. They can lie and invade other countries without remorse. Many appear to believe Clinton would have been preferable to or better than Trump. The level of infantile thinking required to buy into this is quite stunning. Wow, that was succinct. I blurted out a few yup!s while reading that. Thanks, and welcome back! Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 On 5/17/2017 at 8:30 AM, Paul Brancato said: I figured out months ago, to my satisfaction at least, that Comey was not a villain, and that he had no choice about the second Clinton email revelation 11 days before the election. My problem with Comey was that he forgot to mention during the campaign that Trump was under investigation by the FBI, too. If he had, I seriously doubt that Trump would be president today. -- Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 (edited) Pence could be the President without ever having to go through the intense and sometimes brutal scrutiny and background checking all the other candidates in the 2016 campaign had to go through. At least we knew much about each of the major candidates who put themselves out there campaigning and we were able to make and have a more informed opinion and feeling for each. If Pence had thrown himself into the 2016 Presidential campaign at the beginning, I guarantee you he would have been one of the first candidates rejected once the media and researchers got through exposing his extreme ( more extreme than any candidate in the whole process ) political and social view background for all to see. Yet here he is, one step away from the Presidency with a President who may be forced to resign before his first year in office is complete. God help us. Edited May 19, 2017 by Joe Bauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted May 19, 2017 Author Share Posted May 19, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said: Pence could be the President without ever having to go through the intense and sometimes brutal scrutiny and background checking all the other candidates in the 2016 campaign had to go through. At least we knew much about each of the major candidates who put themselves out there campaigning and we were able to make and have a more informed opinion and feeling for each. If Pence had thrown himself into the 2016 Presidential campaign at the beginning, I guarantee you he would have been one of the first candidates rejected once the media and researchers got through exposing his extreme ( more extreme than any candidate in the whole process ) political and social view background for all to see. Yet here he is, one step away from the Presidency with a President who may be forced to resign before his first year in office is complete. God help us. I'm not sure I agree with you there, Joe.I don't think there was any serious vetting of Trump.He 's the first President since Nixon who got by without releasing his taxes, and we're going to be finding out drip by drip over time about his Russian connections. He was ignored largely by the MSM because he was a ratings bonanza. No serious fact checking went on until he had secured his party's nomination, and Trump was by far the biggest lair (sp) of any Presidential candidate in modern history. He wasn't even good at it. By the time they started to fact check, his followers saw it as the MSM's desperate last ditch effort to discredit the true "people's candidate". They weren't consistent and applied a completely different standard than they did on any other candidate in the 2016 race and really a different standard to any Presidential candidate of our time. As I said earlier, I don't think Pence would enter in that strong a position, being the VP of a President run from office and would be largely forced to follow the Republican Congressional party line, which could still be scary, but maybe not as much after the 2018 midterm elections. Edited May 19, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Rymer Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Michael Clark said: Wow, that was succinct. I blurted out a few yup!s while reading that. Thanks, and welcome back! Cheers, Michael Thanks Michael. Yeah, it was a little late - and it's a big topic. Steve Edited May 19, 2017 by Steve Rymer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Rymer Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said: My problem with Comey was that he forgot to mention during the campaign that Trump was under investigation by the FBI, too. If he had, I seriously doubt that Trump would be president today. -- Tommy I've not seen any evidence that he was under FBI investigation. There is a suggestion he was being surveilled - probably as part of a general partisan muck-raking exercise to help Hillary. Comey has a history of letting the Clintons off - just when they need it. Wikipedia: "In 1996, Comey acted as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee" Steve Edited May 19, 2017 by Steve Rymer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Steve Rymer said: I've not seen any evidence that he was under FBI investigation. There is a suggestion he was being surveilled - probably as part of a general partisan muck-raking exercise to help Hillary. Comey has a history of letting the Clintons off - just when they need it. See.Pic. Steve [...] Steve, Gimme about 5 minutes. I'll see what I can "dig up" for you. But I gotta warn you -- it may come from a "MSM" news source or maybe even a news source you like that happens to be rated as having "High" factual reporting by https://mediabiasfactcheck.com . So you may or may not like it. (lol) -- Tommy Edit: Gosh, IDK. Maybe something (like a link or something) in this Wikipedia article? I didn't have time to read the whole thing and get something back to you within the promised 5 minutes. Let me know what, if anything, you find. The text directly above footnot [10] in the text itself looked kinda interesting when I scanned it. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier And from one of the "links" in that Wikipedia article: "By late July and early August [2016] MI6 was also receiving information about Mr Trump. By September, information to the FBI began to grow in volume: Mr Steele compiled a set of his memos into one document and passed it to his contacts at the FBI. But there seemed to be little progress in a proper inquiry into Mr Trump. The Bureau, instead, seemed to be devoting their resources in the pursuit of Hillary Clinton’s email transgressions. The New York [FBI] office, in particular, appeared to be on a crusade against Ms Clinton. Some of its agents had a long working relationship with Rudy Giuliani, by then a member of the Trump campaign, since his days as public prosecutor and then Mayor of the city. As the election approached, FBI director James Comey made public his bombshell letter saying that Ms Clinton would face another email investigation. Two days before that Mr Giuliani, then a part of the Trump team, talked about 'a surprise or two you’re going to hear about in the next few days. We’ve got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn things around'”. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russia-dossier-file-investigation-hacking-christopher-steele-mi6-a7526901.html Edited May 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 19 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: Steve, Gimme about 5 minutes. I'll see what I can "dig up" for you. But I gotta warn you -- it may come from a "MSM" news source or maybe even a news source you like that happens to be rated as having "High" factual reporting by https://mediabiasfactcheck.com . So you may or may not like it. (lol) -- Tommy Edit: Gosh, IDK. Maybe something (like a link or something) in this Wikipedia article? I didn't have time to read the whole thing and get something back to you within the promised 5 minutes. Let me know what, if anything, you find. The text directly above footnot [10] in the text itself looked kinda interesting when I scanned it. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier bumped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: Steve, Gimme about 5 minutes. I'll see what I can "dig up" for you. But I gotta warn you -- it may come from a "MSM" news source or maybe even a news source you like that happens to be rated as having "High" factual reporting by https://mediabiasfactcheck.com . So you may or may not like it. (lol) -- Tommy Edit: Gosh, IDK. Maybe something (like a link or something) in this Wikipedia article? I didn't have time to read the whole thing and get something back to you within the promised 5 minutes. Let me know what, if anything, you find. The text directly above footnot [10] in the text itself looked kinda interesting when I scanned it. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump–Russia_dossier And from one of the "links" in that Wikipedia article: "By late July and early August [2016] MI6 was also receiving information about Mr Trump. By September, information to the FBI began to grow in volume: Mr Steele compiled a set of his memos into one document and passed it to his contacts at the FBI. But there seemed to be little progress in a proper inquiry into Mr Trump. The Bureau, instead, seemed to be devoting their resources in the pursuit of Hillary Clinton’s email transgressions. The New York [FBI] office, in particular, appeared to be on a crusade against Ms Clinton. Some of its agents had a long working relationship with Rudy Giuliani, by then a member of the Trump campaign, since his days as public prosecutor and then Mayor of the city. As the election approached, FBI director James Comey made public his bombshell letter saying that Ms Clinton would face another email investigation. Two days before that Mr Giuliani, then a part of the Trump team, talked about 'a surprise or two you’re going to hear about in the next few days. We’ve got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn things around'”. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russia-dossier-file-investigation-hacking-christopher-steele-mi6-a7526901.html Yep. "High" factual reporting. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-independent/ I'm really having technical and "brain lock" problems tonight, so I'm bumping this post again after having augmented it. -- Tommy Edited May 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Rymer Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 A Wikipedia page referencing a 'dossier' containing "unverified allegations" first published unchecked by Buzzfeed and not even believed by the Trump-hating MSM. MSNBC called it "a collection of rumors". Hmmm. I think the era of being able to verify anything has long passed. Reuters: "People using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia..." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816 The Comey connection to Whitewater is a simple non-controversial statement about his career path. The newspaper scan was published in 1996 which pre-dates the current controversy. To anyone that does not hate Trump (on a personal level) and is prepared to take a reasoned look at the situation (not the events). You may come to the conclusion that something unique is happening here. There appears to be considerable opposition to Trump which started even before his campaign. It comes from every corner of the MSM, from his own Republican party, the Democrats, Independents(Jill Stein), the EU, it's leaders, the European MSM and the US "Deep State". If you are happy that this coalition may indeed succeed in ousting Trump in what should really be described as a "soft coup" - then fine. But Trump was elected. Clinton in her arrogance miscalculated and lost. The above players were confident that they could do what they had always done - denigrate, misinform, twist and fabricate a false image of one of the most venal candidates in US election history all the way to the White House. The US voters saw through her. They also saw in Trump their last chance to elect someone who was not bought and paid for by industry - accurate or not. The US public had/has almost no faith in either their corrupt politicians or lying media. The Trump vote was a "middle finger" to all of them. Now the establishment is trying to correct that. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Steve Rymer said: A Wikipedia page referencing a 'dossier' containing "unverified allegations" first published unchecked by Buzzfeed and not even believed by the Trump-hating MSM. MSNBC called it "a collection of rumors". Hmmm. I think the era of being able to verify anything has long passed. Reuters: "People using CIA and FBI computers have edited entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia..." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816 The Comey connection to Whitewater is a simple non-controversial statement about his career path. The newspaper scan was published in 1996 which pre-dates the current controversy. To anyone that does not hate Trump (on a personal level) and is prepared to take a reasoned look at the situation (not the events). You may come to the conclusion that something unique is happening here. There appears to be considerable opposition to Trump which started even before his campaign. It comes from every corner of the MSM, from his own Republican party, the Democrats, Independents(Jill Stein), the EU, it's leaders, the European MSM and the US "Deep State". If you are happy that this coalition may indeed succeed in ousting Trump in what should really be described as a "soft coup" - then fine. But Trump was elected. Clinton in her arrogance miscalculated and lost. The above players were confident that they could do what they had always done - denigrate, misinform, twist and fabricate a false image of one of the most venal candidates in US election history all the way to the White House. The US voters saw through her. They also saw in Trump their last chance to elect someone who was not bought and paid for by industry - accurate or not. The US public had/has almost no faith in either their corrupt politicians or lying media. The Trump vote was a "middle finger" to all of them. Now the establishment is trying to correct that. Steve Dear Steve, At first glance you appear to be very critical of Main Stream Media. So let me ask -- What specific "news sources" do you like, Steve? Do you believe that Putin's FSB or SVR "Cozy Bear" and GRU "Fancy Bear" hacked the DNC's and Podesta's emails, and that those e-mails were then passed on to WIKILEAKS and DCLEAKS by Putin's Guccifer 2.0 so that said e-mails would be released incrementally by plausibly "Western" "news" sources during the last weeks of the campaign, you know, in order to get Putin's "useful idiot" Trump elected? Or do you believe Trump's getting "elected" was more of a "Deep State" or a "MIIC" operation? -- Tommy Edited May 19, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Rymer Posted May 19, 2017 Share Posted May 19, 2017 2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said: What specific "news sources" do you like, Steve? Address my post before we go off reservation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now