What's new

Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking

LOL now we cannot even question the integrity of the investigating party? OK. Tell me more who has no understanding. You are letting Trump cloud yer vision.




Daily Beast, nuff said.

First paragraph says 16 lawyers. We ALL know lawyers are out for one think to have a big case an make a name for thereselves. Erin Brockovich says hi.

First profile reads as a reckless madman hellbent on whatever it is he wants.



Yeah, note exactly a level headed person.

Than your DailyBeast goes on to esplain how MUelker has essentially created some ultra-government

No, "Daily Beast, nuff said" is not good enough. That doesn't cut it at all. You have been basically saying Mueller and his team plan on railroading Donald Trump. I presume, then, that you are now in possession of all the evidence that Mueller has gathered. Further, you have analyzed that evidence and now have proven, to your own satisfaction, that it amounts to trumped up charges and, again, it is going to be used to railroad Trump. So, to be fair to all the rest of us who are not privy to all the evidence amassed by Mueller and his team, please provide the information that you possess that has allowed you to conclude that the entire investigation is biased. Again, "Daily Beast, nuff said" does not cut it in the least. It ain't enough said at all. Put up or shut up....

If you want to shorten your task a bit, since the Daily Beast article simply provided brief bios of each member of Mueller's team, please provide your own analysis of each and every member of that team, pointing out where the Daily Beast was inaccurate in its description of each team member. That will be slightly less labor intensive then presenting all of Mueller's evidence to us. So, I'm making it easier for you. Again, bear in mind that "Daily Beast, nuff said" basically says nothing at all. Saying nothing at all is much too easy. I can't very well let you off the hook that easy. So, if you don't want to tell us how you managed to come into possession of all the evidence amassed by Mueller, at least refute the depiction given of Mueller's team members. In other words, just once, how bout you at least actually put up something besides nothing at all?
 
"His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

Exactly. And the parallels have been there from the start, for anyone with the eyes to see. It was these very parallels that made what Trump represented so damn easy to see. People do not like to point to the specific parallels between the two men, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

It's been classic demagoguery right from the get-go. So many people are willing and able to sleepwalk right through the history that is their's to live. Learn from the past, or be doomed to repeat it. It can, and it has, happened in America, and it has been one amazing thing to witness. Trump has created a cult. He spoke to that cult in Phoenix last week. It happened here, in the United States, and how it will all end is anybody's guess. I know I never saw it coming. But I will forever be grateful that I was awake when it made its appearance. I don't sleepwalk through history....
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...connection-do-we-need/?utm_term=.e154b7a3a941

"Evidence that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump was pursuing a lucrative business deal with Russia and that his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, emailed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s personal spokesman to intervene raises the stakes in Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation substantially. The Post reports:

Cohen’s email to [Dmitry] Peskov provides an example of a Trump business official directly seeking Kremlin assistance in advancing Trump’s business interests. … Cohen said he discussed the deal three times with Trump and that Trump signed a letter of intent with the company on Oct. 28, 2015. He said the Trump company began to solicit designs from architects and discuss financing.

Ethics expert Norman Eisen warns: “Now we have a second group of emails from those in Trump’s orbit suggesting high-level outreach to Russia in and around the election season. Like the now-famous email exchange with Don Jr. about Russia’s ‘support for Mr. Trump,’ these new documents promising that ‘Putin’s team’ will ‘buy in’ on Trump raise the question of what the president knew of all this and when he knew it.” He tells me, “The emails add important additional evidence to the special counsel’s investigation, both as to possible collusion and as to obstruction of justice, inasmuch as they deepen the suspicion of a possible malign Trump motive for attempting to block the Russia investigation.”
 
Even worse news for Donald...

Expect a twitter rampage tomorrow morning!

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/30/manafort-mueller-probe-attorney-general-242191

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team is working with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman on its investigation into Paul Manafort and his financial transactions, according to several people familiar with the matter.

The cooperation is the latest indication that the federal probe into President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman is intensifying. It also could potentially provide Mueller with additional leverage to get Manafort to cooperate in the larger investigation into Trump’s campaign, as Trump does not have pardon power over state crimes.
 
hitler is a socialist! boris is not a socialist

BS. Nothing is as simplistic as [MENTION=146]DutchJazzer[/MENTION] would have people believe....



National Socialism, colloquially termed "Nazism"[1] is generally viewed as being as far right on the political spectrum as you can get. Far right politics are generally characterized as having the following characteristics:

Authoritarian system of government
Nazism is very clearly authoritarian in nature: you exist for the good of the state, and if the state deems that you are not holding up your end, the state murders you. If you're lucky, they may just hold off at sterilization, imprisonment or exile, but murder's a viable option for the government in Nazism. So yes, Nazism is clearly an authoritarian ideology.

Nativism and xenophobia
Nativism is the idea that people who are "from" here are better than people who are not "from" here. The reason I've put "from" in quotation marks is because this is almost invariably an arbitrary classification - nativist movements in the US, for example, have not been pro-Native American, but rather, have just been anti-immigration. The racial politics of Nazism are more than a little similar to the racist rantings of nativists, so we've got another box checked.

And as for that whole "low unemployment rate" thing, it actually fits in here. The NSDAP kept the unemployment rate low by conscription - defend the Fatherland against the demonic hordes of untermenschen! (And while I'm at it, the useful infrastructure projects had been inaugurated under Weimar rule, whereas the projects most akin to South Africa's World Cup stadiums - which is to say, useless bits of propaganda that were guaranteed to not pay for themselves - were Nazi projects.)

Extreme revulsion towards communists and socialists
Now, you can point to many states throughout the years that have banned communist parties despite not being far right. However, you really cannot point to any states that have banned social democratic parties without being far right. The Nazis fall into that latter category - anything that remotely sounded left-leaning got banned.

A general lack of belief in the concept of equality
This goes hand in hand with the racism/xenophobia side of things, but in the end, the far right does not believe that people are equal, is not interested in redressing the imbalance and view the lesser people as being fit for exile, at best. This characterizes pretty much every party that gets labelled as far right, and it sure as shooting characterizes Nazism.

However, some of this stuff also applies to far left politics. Stalinism and Mao Zedong Thought are both authoritarian ideologies, and one can't go further left on the spectrum than that. There's this theory in political science called "horseshoe theory" that pretty much stipulates that the far left and the far right have much more in common than do the regular left and the regular right.

[1] The name of the German National Socialist party was the "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei." [Edit starts here] Even in German, this is a lot to say, so NSDAP was commonly used by the party’s supporters and “Nazi” — a term which, in Bavaria, meant something akin to “idiot” — by its detractors.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Nazism-considered-far-right-in-political-terms

"Let me add to Mr. Kingsberg's very good answer that Nazis are considered far right in part because they defined themselves that way, and neo Nazis continue to consider themselves far right today. There are some propaganda claims out there now by some libertarians and conservatives that try to ludicrously claim Nazis were socialists, though the Nazis despised and killed millions of socialists. As a general rule of thumb, ideologies and their followers are both what they define themselves as, and as their opponents define them.

Nazis say they are far right. So do communists, socialists, liberals, moderates, and many conservatives. A small number of programs, put in place before they were in power, don't contradict that."
 
hitler is a socialist! boris is not a socialist

See also:

https://www.quora.com/Nazism-is-the...Europe-considered-far-right-political-parties

"Nazism" is the abbreviation of "National Socialism," and socialism is a left-wing ideology, so why are Nazi and neo-Nazi political parties, particularly in Europe, considered far-right political parties?

Nazi party claimed to be many things in order to get votes. Claiming is not necessarily being something. NSDAP abbreviation, the real abbreviation of Nazi party holds below claims:

If the Nazis hated communism and socialism why did they name their party National Socialist German Workers' Party?

'National' because of the massive Prussian nationalism and militarism which existed in right wing segments of the population and was seen positively by most of the population.

'Socialist' because there was massive discontent in population due to effects of capitalism and the havoc great depression was wreaking in Germany, and they wanted social securities and programs.

'German' because you gotta get the votes of non Prussian nationalist and non militarist nationalists.

"Worker's" because you gotta get the votes of them 'damn communists' and hamper the rising Unions and prevent them workers from disturbing industrialist backers of the Nazi party.

Nothing to do with what they did, of course. The first thing they did was to destroy communists, workers' unions and repress all demands from workers regarding their wages or better working conditions.

But there were a sufficient amount of Germans who were suckered in to vote for them believing they were socialist.

The moment they won the elections they dropped any pretense of democracy too anyway - right after Reichstag fire - shut down the parliament and whatnot.
 
Hitler also engaged in extensive socialist programs at the beginning that pulled Germany out of their depression, put people to work, and put food on the table. He used socialism as a tool to get what he wanted. Hence he is seen by many that are not well-versed on the subject as the ultimate socialist.
 
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. Or, the more you repeat that lie, the more people will start to accept it as truth. In Trump's case, he tweets repeatedly that the liberal media is "fake news", and that that is "the dishonest media". He does the same at every one of his rallies. To any objective observer, its long been obvious that Trump's definition of "fake news" is any news that does not cast him in a good light. If it's critical of him, if it relates information that may be damaging or may represent stuff he would rather not see related, it's "fake news". That is far from an objective standard. Indeed, that is propaganda.

Two of the best known examples of fake news were in fact promolgated by the Alt Right and conservative outlets like Fox News. Recently, Trump retweeted something tweeted by an alt right activist who in fact pushed those two discredited fake stories: Pizzagate on the one hand, and the murder of Democratic activist Seth Rich on the other hand:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-retweets-alt-activist-pushed-pizzagate-conspiracy/story?id=49221083

Trump just does not have high standards where truth is concerned. Pizzagate is well known enough. If one needs a refresher course on the Seth Rich bs conspiracy theory, here you go:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...-conspiracy-theory-explained-fox-news-hannity

Fox eventually stopped promulgating this fake news story. I'm not sure if Sean Hannity continues to promote it on his radio show or not.

In any event, it's remarkable, at least I think so, that Trump utilizes the fake news meme to condemn any media outlet that publishers the truth! It's kinda diabolical, in that respect. And it has worked. An alternative universe has been created, not simply by Trump alone, he has had plenty of help from the Alt Right and conservative media outlets, but he has continually reenforced this narrative whenever he speaks to his base. And he pretty much only speaks to his base.

I have a close friend who supports Trump. He told me the other day that Trump was correct in saying there were "fine people" in the Friday night torch led march of people chanting "Jews will not replace us.", the night before the Charlottesville rally. I told him if he watched footage of that march, which I had saved, and would be happy to show my friend, and saw everyone chanting that, as well as chanting "Blood and Soil", and if he would still tell me some of them were "fine people", (my argument being what kind of "fine people" join such a march and chant those things in the first place), he refused to watch the footage, telling me "it's all fake news. I don't have to see it. It's fake".

And that, I submit, is what it has come to. Trump has repeated the "dishonest media" lie so often, to his base, that they no longer find it necessary to even so much as glance at the facts. Facts and Truth are beside the point. His base is comfortable and completely at ease living in their fake universe.

I haven't heard of Sean Hannity backing off on the Seth Rich or any other scandal he has attributed to the Dems or Hillary.

I have lived being plugged in to political news since the 1960s, the early sixties. I had "weekly readers" in grade school with UN propaganda that I didn't like then. Everybody "liked Ike". In retrospect, I don't anymore. I liked Kennedy, hated Johnson, liked Goldwater and Reagan, from the time he was CA gov, hated Johnson and Nixon. And Ford, and Carter. I had a good streak voting for whatever third party there was on the ballot. I didn't vote for Perot, GHWBush, or Clinton. Newt did some good stuff. I would never vote for a Bush, Obama, or Clinton.

Clearly, Red's comments against Trump, and Colton's fascination with never giving Trump a chance, reflect believing a lot of indemonstrable or unproven theories. Trump is nobody's pocket toy, nobody's little puppet. But he has found that there are a lot of folks who have been very very dissatisfied with America's leaders in the past few decades, who sincerely hope for some basic change, a basic return to more traditional American values.

I don't think a politicians who serves that political reality really measures up as a totalitarian or a Hitler, as the Press and the Dems are always insinuating.

Anyone who goes along with that line is the chump who is believing the Big Lie.
 
I haven't heard of Sean Hannity backing off on the Seth Rich or any other scandal he has attributed to the Dems or Hillary.

I have lived being plugged in to political news since the 1960s, the early sixties. I had "weekly readers" in grade school with UN propaganda that I didn't like then. Everybody "liked Ike". In retrospect, I don't anymore. I liked Kennedy, hated Johnson, liked Goldwater and Reagan, from the time he was CA gov, hated Johnson and Nixon. And Ford, and Carter. I had a good streak voting for whatever third party there was on the ballot. I didn't vote for Perot, GHWBush, or Clinton. Newt did some good stuff. I would never vote for a Bush, Obama, or Clinton.

Clearly, Red's comments against Trump, and Colton's fascination with never giving Trump a chance, reflect believing a lot of indemonstrable or unproven theories. Trump is nobody's pocket toy, nobody's little puppet. But he has found that there are a lot of folks who have been very very dissatisfied with America's leaders in the past few decades, who sincerely hope for some basic change, a basic return to more traditional American values.

I don't think a politicians who serves that political reality really measures up as a totalitarian or a Hitler, as the Press and the Dems are always insinuating.

Anyone who goes along with that line is the chump who is believing the Big Lie.

Trump's policies with regard to global warming, and the appointment to, and actions by, Scott Pruitt to and in the EPA, are way more then enough for me to oppose the administration of Donald Trump. I firmly believe those actions will one day be seen as crimes against humanity on the part of Donald Trump. I have absolutely no problem in stating the meaning and effects of his policies in terms that strong.
 
Normal American Values? What the hell does that mean?

Restore the federal income tax rates to the levels seen in the 1950s? Say stupid non-PC stuff? Get rid of any safety net? Restore slavery? What are you saying babe?
 
Last edited:
I haven't heard of Sean Hannity backing off on the Seth Rich or any other scandal he has attributed to the Dems or Hillary.

I have lived being plugged in to political news since the 1960s, the early sixties. I had "weekly readers" in grade school with UN propaganda that I didn't like then. Everybody "liked Ike". In retrospect, I don't anymore. I liked Kennedy, hated Johnson, liked Goldwater and Reagan, from the time he was CA gov, hated Johnson and Nixon. And Ford, and Carter. I had a good streak voting for whatever third party there was on the ballot. I didn't vote for Perot, GHWBush, or Clinton. Newt did some good stuff. I would never vote for a Bush, Obama, or Clinton.

Clearly, Red's comments against Trump, and Colton's fascination with never giving Trump a chance, reflect believing a lot of indemonstrable or unproven theories. Trump is nobody's pocket toy, nobody's little puppet. But he has found that there are a lot of folks who have been very very dissatisfied with America's leaders in the past few decades, who sincerely hope for some basic change, a basic return to more traditional American values.

I don't think a politicians who serves that political reality really measures up as a totalitarian or a Hitler, as the Press and the Dems are always insinuating.

Anyone who goes along with that line is the chump who is believing the Big Lie.

babe, I have, throughout my life, encountered people I really despised. Mostly in person. These are people who basically are just being themselves and I find their personality very very repulsive. I'm not saying they have all been bad people. I don't really know, honestly.

I'm a mostly introverted person. I'm shy to an almost debilitating degree. Now, as a 40 year old, I have gotten a lot better. It has been 40 years of trying to get better. I have done things that take me WAY out of my comfort zone, like hosting poker games with random people from a sports message board. But people still know me as "the quiet one" in real life.

The people I dislike automatically are the bombastic, pompous, arrogant types. It's just a personality thing, much like my shyness. I know that people are often put off by shyness. Well, I'm put off by bravado.

You've told me many times, and you indicate in this post that people don't like Trump because we've fallen for what we've been told about Trump. That we simply haven't given him a chance. Please imagine that I don't care what anyone says about Trump. When he speaks I am repulsed. He is everything I don't like. It is him. I don't care about his policies. I don't care about his ***** grabbing. If everything he was for I supported I would die inside wanting someone else to take up my cause, because I absolutely cannot stand him, his style, his personality. He is exactly the type of person I don't like.

So please. Do me one favor. Don't ever tell me I don't like Trump because I've been fooled. I don't like Trump because of Trump's personality. It's really as simple as that. I'm sure, if he met me, he'd have nothing but contempt for my passiveness. He wouldn't be the first one. And he won't be the last person with his personality that I don't like, either.
 
constitutions liberty small government

Only crazy anarchists and libertarians, like you, claim to want that. And even then, I highly doubt that's what you truly want.

Trump supporters are the most likely demographic to claim "a return to constitutional principles and demand smaller government." Yet, one of their strongest sticking points has been their insistence that social security and Medicare be strengthened, not slashed. So in reality, they don't want "smaller government" or "original constitutional principles."

Trump even campaigned that entitlements wouldn't be touched.

The evidence is pretty clear, trump supporters don't truly support "a return of small government" in the sense of actually cutting their primary entitlement programs. They do however, support cuts to education, foreign aid, and food stamps. But most republicans campaigned on that. And that's a drop in the bucket in our federal budget. Foreign aid alone contributes less than 1 percent of spending.

So what is the difference between trump and the other 200 GOP candidates he campaigned against? I'll give you a hint, it starts with xeno and ends in phobia.
 
Small government vs large government is an oversimplification. What we need is right-sized government. It needs to take care of our basic needs, in which I include healthcare, for all citizens, without overreach on pet projects that cause an undo tax burden on either business or individuals of all income levels. In the best of cases it is a very difficult balance to achieve, but unfortunately in our polarized political arena we just cannot get the compromise solutions that would really fix things, we get extremists pushing the opposite ends of the spectrum and special interests on both sides that just cause a huge suck on the whole system.
 
Small government vs large government is an oversimplification. What we need is right-sized government. It needs to take care of our basic needs, in which I include healthcare, for all citizens, without overreach on pet projects that cause an undo tax burden on either business or individuals of all income levels. In the best of cases it is a very difficult balance to achieve, but unfortunately in our polarized political arena we just cannot get the compromise solutions that would really fix things, we get extremists pushing the opposite ends of the spectrum and special interests on both sides that just cause a huge suck on the whole system.

It's not just opposite ends of the spectrum that cannot agree on the definition of "right size government" but the party in power. Most establishment republicans don't want significant changes (mccain, McConnell). Then there's a handful of Koch brother funded think tanks and lobbyists who want an Ayn Rand libertarian fantasy government (Lee, Cruz, Ryan). And another strong and wealthy faction powered by am radio, tv evangelists, and religious schools that want theocratic government (Santorum, Pence, and dozens from Oklahoma and Texas).

Most of the time these 3 factions work together to elect each other. But as we've seen so far, they almost never can come to a consensus in governing. Just look at how the GOP has accomplished zero in legislation in 9 months despite controlling all 3 branches of government. The democrats literally have had zero power or influence and the GOP hasn't been able to pass anything due to their own rifts.

Btw, most GOP voters might claim to want change and smaller government but actually don't want it. Remember, "keep your damn government hands off my Medicare."
 
Btw, next freak show is gonna be fun to watch. In the next few weeks the GOP is gonna try and push through tax reform.

The house will probably pass gigantic cuts for corporations and rich people. The cbo will score it. People will see that this is yet another attempt to give handouts to rich people and weaken the long term health of their safety nets. And it'll stall in the senate. The senate will debate and debate it but won't be able to pass the house's vigorous cuts. And it'll die a long drawn out death around Halloween or thanksgiving. Don't will insult senators and continue to attack Flake and McConnell but ultimately won't accomplish anything.

I can't wait until either Mueller or the 2018 midterms end Donald's presidency. He's just so toxic. Completely clueless in building bridges and passing legislation.
 
Back
Top