What did Trump know, and When did he know it?

[Red]

The may be the most likely reason Trump must assail the mainstream media as "fake news" and the "enemy of the American people":

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/donald-trump-cant-come-clean-on-russia-michael-flynn

 

[babe]

Red, you do need to get off the hook you're on politically. Anyone reading Mother Jones needs to do that to contact reality.

Look, the international ideals of globalism essentially erase the meanings of borders, and Obama can ask world leaders to support him financially both for political ends and personal needs all through his Presidency, and that is not treason, it's just "good relations". Secretary Clinton can rake in millions from foreign sources one way or another promising favors through the State Dept., and that's not reason either, because they're all globalists, you see.

It is insanity for you or anyone else to politically play the treason card when you are in fact devoted globalists who do not even believe in Americian exceptionalism, the US Constitution, or national sovereignty.

Look, you deny you're a communist, but you believe a lot of the old formal ideals of Marxism generally. Being a "progressive" fits well with thinking the US Constitution is a "living" document open to enlightened re-definition by your own political fellow travelers. But why deny it? I have had a friend, whom I believe is simply an idealistic dreamer, who is a member of the CPUSA. I haven't been able to persuade him that private property is a natural human right essential like the right to life, liberty and the vain pursuit of happiness, whatever. He put his job on the line to protest training replacement workers while the steelworkers union was preparing for wage/benefit negotiations..... works as a janitor now. . . .

It is pretty predictable that you're the first kid on the block with any new leftwing talking points. Did you know Obama is devoting his time now to "community organizing" a Resistance movement against Trump?

I don't know how wanting to protect early man sites, indian sites, whatever, in SE Utah has to do with being a progressive. I've been in the area camping myself. A govt that somehow just doesn't fund actual study of the sites under the BLM isn't going to fund study under any other designation. The object of Obama's designation is to protect Rockefeller Oil from competition, to create a stronger set of resources cartels. While not even objecting to the Russian purchase of uranium resources in the same area, with the same or similar antiquities values, across Northern Arizona, which will be developed and sold by that enemy of the US, Putin. On a deal that gave Hillary Clinton a cool $100M.

So what has Trump done to Trump that?

 

[Siro]

^^ This treason stuff really cracks me up. The left are nationalists now. ROFL.

Trump is still full of **** tho. I wish he would stop his ridiculous insistence that his absurd lies are a valid alternative to facts. He's also a bit of a fascist. Don't care for him at all.

 

[babe]

^^ This treason stuff really cracks me up. The left are nationalists now. ROFL.

Trump is still full of **** tho. I wish he would stop his ridiculous insistence that his absurd lies are a valid alternative to facts. He's also a bit of a fascist. Don't care for him at all.

Trump is going to have to learn not to play this card. He calls out media for "fake" or "very fake" but doesn't check his own facts.

He's the high school kid who learned to win by braggadocio rather than merit.

I just want a Supreme Court that has less power, less unanimity, for pushing social agendas and legislating from the bench, less "Administrative Justice", more of limiting the other branches of government from grabbing power. President included.

I just want an executive branch that has to follow the laws. I wish we had a Congress that would claim the right to make the laws. You know, people we can vote out pretty quick. And I want Term Limits.

 

[Red]

Red, you do need to get off the hook you're on politically. Anyone reading Mother Jones needs to do that to contact reality.

Look, the international ideals of globalism essentially erase the meanings of borders, and Obama can ask world leaders to support him financially both for political ends and personal needs all through his Presidency, and that is not treason, it's just "good relations". Secretary Clinton can rake in millions from foreign sources one way or another promising favors through the State Dept., and that's not reason either, because they're all globalists, you see.

It is insanity for you or anyone else to politically play the treason card when you are in fact devoted globalists who do not even believe in Americian exceptionalism, the US Constitution, or national sovereignty.

Look, you deny you're a communist, but you believe a lot of the old formal ideals of Marxism generally. Being a "progressive" fits well with thinking the US Constitution is a "living" document open to enlightened re-definition by your own political fellow travelers. But why deny it? I have had a friend, whom I believe is simply an idealistic dreamer, who is a member of the CPUSA. I haven't been able to persuade him that private property is a natural human right essential like the right to life, liberty and the vain pursuit of happiness, whatever. He put his job on the line to protest training replacement workers while the steelworkers union was preparing for wage/benefit negotiations..... works as a janitor now. . . .

It is pretty predictable that you're the first kid on the block with any new leftwing talking points. Did you know Obama is devoting his time now to "community organizing" a Resistance movement against Trump?

I don't know how wanting to protect early man sites, indian sites, whatever, in SE Utah has to do with being a progressive. I've been in the area camping myself. A govt that somehow just doesn't fund actual study of the sites under the BLM isn't going to fund study under any other designation. The object of Obama's designation is to protect Rockefeller Oil from competition, to create a stronger set of resources cartels. While not even objecting to the Russian purchase of uranium resources in the same area, with the same or similar antiquities values, across Northern Arizona, which will be developed and sold by that enemy of the US, Putin. On a deal that gave Hillary Clinton a cool $100M.

So what has Trump done to Trump that?

babe, not sure you should be lecturing anyone on how to "contact reality".

We know, all our intelligence services agreed, that Russia acted to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election in a manner that would assist Trump.

And now we know that Trump associates, including Paul Manafort and Mike Flynn were in "frequent" contact with "senior Russian intelligence", throughout a campaign in which Russia acted to help Trump. And that is not calculated to raise my curiosity?
To which we can add Trump's frequent praise of Putin?

We will see where this all leads, babe. But, I'm betting the reason Trump held that presser was to push the narrative that the act of leaking was of more pressing concern then the content of the leaks. And to push the fake news narrative as the Big Lie for his base.

And I'm also be betting that, when all is said and done, the 45th President of the United States is going to crash and burn as a result of all this.

I really don't care if I'm the first to show up on your block or not. I made two calls so far that were spot on. I said the Russian story would be the most important aspect to this election. It rose and fell in the news cycle several times, but now, here we are, exactly where I said we would be. And, I said if Trump was elected, he would continue to hold campaign style rallies as part of his governing style. And now, today, here we are, with a 2020 campaign rally in Florida. I'm no slouch, I have confidence that I've been on the right track all along, and I'm not paying much attention to your talking points because, frankly, I think you are the one who is divorced a bit from reality.

And, for heaven's sake, I'm not a communist. I don't pay any attention to political philosophy at all, to be honest. I'm me, that's all. Stop telling me how to think. Do I tell you how to think, babe?

We will see, will we not?

Oh yeah, one more thing. How 'bout he releases his tax returns now?

 

[DutchJazzer]

I'm glad the media has been talking about this horrible scandal for 2 days nonstop. Talking to the Russians about sanctions is a breach of bureaucracy etiquette and must not be tolerated. It's not something trivial that can be glossed over, like setting up a global assassinations campaign with fake court providing fake oversight. This is serious!!

hope u where glad when they talked about obamas scandal for 2 days straight?


ooh wait they sweep those under the rug

 

[babe]

Not a lecture at all. And nobody is a communist anymore, not even Putin or the Chinese oligarchs. The name is outta fashion, except for a few ideological believers who seem to hang on to the idea of a people's utopia where the govt. really did die out for lack of interest in power.

I have long been aware of Putin's changing beliefs. Clearly, he is a fascist still, but has no interest at all in communist doctrine. Yes, he still uses it politically, but he sees the UN and globalism for what it is, a British-run charade. I've posted a video in here of his speech about it, in other threads, where he called out the NWO as "no law" not "new law", clearly stating that the western powers and interests will not abide by anything except what's best for their cash interests. He also correctly labeled ISIS an American asset under Obama and Hillary for leveraging the campaign against Assad. He correctly identified their cash support from US oil interests, who were buying the ISIS controlled oil.

Russia is a more natural ally for the United States than Great Britain, in terms of everything except for the language and cultural origins. Britain represents class and privilege for the elites. Russia has no elite class anymore, but we are forming one for ourselves.

Marxism is Obama's ideological root, and he believes the United States should be broken up and made dependent upon the British mascot, the United Nations. The Brits invented Marxism and unleashed their little ideological puppet on the world as a counter-revolution against the principles of the American Revolution which led to the idea of a limited government subject to the people whom the govt. should serve.

Marxism has always been a farce because it can't break through the problem of elitist leadership. Dictatorships are like that, even if they profess to be a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat".

But still, if you run with people like Obama and Hillary, you surely should be indicted for their ideological principles, which rely quite largely on communist ideals set out by Marx. Should I compile a list of these principles, and line them up next to things you've said? I could do it, but hey, you are who you imagine you are, in your own mind.

We had an election. We elected a pretend Republican who really is nothing but a big mover and shaker who has always succeeded by his shoot from the hip talk and decision/deal making. He has no ideology, and no plan to take over the country. He just doesn't like the United States being torn apart by its own leadership. This country has the people, the talent, and the resources to stand independent and prosper, and induce other countries to play ball on American principles of industry, ingenuity, and sportsmanship. There is in fact no country in this world that needs to live poor, if people had opportunity allowed by their overlords. Trump may not really understand the Constitution, but he is a believer in the ability of everyone to prosper under good leadership.

I've never told you what to think, I tell people what I think. I observe your comments and I classify your positions as those common to the class of political agenda hacks who don't really tell the truth, it's always political talking points for your little revolution or whatever the hell change of the day you think everyone should buy.

It's not likely I'll change your position or your mind, or anyone else's for that matter, really. If you don't pay attention to political philosophy you seem to read only the stuff produced in accord with the big push for global fascism, from the left puppets the big money folks support to push the peons into accepting more government and less human rights. You sure like to push human beings off the sacred land inhabited by folks thousands of years ago, so we won't break any pots or leave tracks on ruins. If you cared about people, you'd want those sites carefully studied and preserved, and people educated about looking for signs of possible sites, and hopefully willing to help preserve them in their state, but that it not incompatible with planned development. People today are just as important as anyone who's ever been here.

 

[Red]

I don't know how wanting to protect early man sites, indian sites, whatever, in SE Utah has to do with being a progressive. I've been in the area camping myself. A govt that somehow just doesn't fund actual study of the sites under the BLM isn't going to fund study under any other designation. The object of Obama's designation is to protect Rockefeller Oil from competition, to create a stronger set of resources cartels. While not even objecting to the Russian purchase of uranium resources in the same area, with the same or similar antiquities values, across Northern Arizona, which will be developed and sold by that enemy of the US, Putin. On a deal that gave Hillary Clinton a cool $100M

Is that what I am, babe, a progressive? Because I don't label myself. It's OK. You can call me any name in the book, within reason, but I would appreciate it if you would not take it upon yourself to label me. Progressive. Communist. Socialist. Reptilian from Zeta Reticuli. I don't label myself, though, and if we were friends, and you insisted on telling me what I was, we'd have a problem. I just have a problem with that. You want to know my core beliefs, babe? I believe we are spiritual beings on a human journey. And that's it, if it helps you. Otherwise, I stay away from labels. But, again, be my guest if it helps you. But, as far as I am concerned, I'm me. I don't consult political tracts before I render opinions. I just live, and let it go at that....

Anyway, I tried to explain this to you once before. Most archaeological digs are salvage digs. When construction, or other activity that will destroy sites, is planned. Otherwise, archaeology has adopted the philosophy that future generations will have as yet unknown, and more sophisticated testing that can extract information from a site. So, with that in mind, sites are usually left untouched, undisturbed. Except for salvage excavation. Leaving sites alone is the rule, in the hope, and anticipation, that future testing will allow for more info to be extracted. Once a site is disturbed through excavation, you cannot undo it.

Oh, yeah, one more thing. I don't know what archaeology has to do with someone being progressive, either. I don't know why you even bring it up.

 

[Jonah]

All this Red-baiting is persuasive stuff, Babe’s got me close to convinced I should run around the block with Obama and become a Marxist myself. Maybe I already am one and just don’t know it? I need to compile a list of principles and line them all up to be sure. Pretty giddy with excitement, actually.

 

[fishonjazz]

All this Red-baiting is persuasive stuff, Babe’s got me close to convinced I should run around the block with Obama and become a Marxist myself. Maybe I already am one and just don’t know it? I need to compile a list of principles and line them all up to be sure. Pretty giddy with excitement, actually.

Lol

 

[Red]

[MENTION=970]babe[/MENTION], maybe I'm being too harsh sounding, or even downright ridiculous. What I'm trying to say is I think as soon as one attaches a label on someone, in order to define them, you put limits on them. You confine them. You encase them. I don't think anyone can, or ever has, known me well enough to safely label me in that particular fashion. And that's why I resent being labeled. Of course, if I'm doing that very thing to someone else, then who am I to complain? The truth is we all do it. But I do recognize that it's fundamentally limiting, and from that perspective I don't think any of us really like to be labeled, to be boxed in. I recognize, though, that over the course of a lifetime, I do lean in the direction we know as left. But not always.

 

[babe]

All this Red-baiting is persuasive stuff, Babe’s got me close to convinced I should run around the block with Obama and become a Marxist myself. Maybe I already am one and just don’t know it? I need to compile a list of principles and line them all up to be sure. Pretty giddy with excitement, actually.

lol. Obama writes books fantasizing and building up his credentials as a core Marxist ideologue, then he gets the gig as POTUS and golfs at Martha's Vineyard. Looks like a bootlicker. Folks with real money know they own him.

You wouldn't make a real Marxist either.

 

[babe]

[MENTION=970]babe[/MENTION], maybe I'm being too harsh sounding, or even downright ridiculous. What I'm trying to say is I think as soon as one attaches a label on someone, in order to define them, you put limits on them. You confine them. You encase them. I don't think anyone can, or ever has, known me well enough to safely label me in that particular fashion. And that's why I resent being labeled. Of course, if I'm doing that very thing to someone else, then who am I to complain? The truth is we all do it. But I do recognize that it's fundamentally limiting, and from that perspective I don't think any of us really like to be labeled, to be boxed in. I recognize, though, that over the course of a lifetime, I do lean in the direction we know as left. But not always.

Well, few of us really will like the way critics label us. Or like the way others see us.

I'm using you, in a way, to try to develop a line of thought, for my own purposes. If I want to develop a line of thought involving the basic tenets of things you embrace, I really don't want to just make you mad. But earnestly believed politics might be pretty hard on some people's feelings if someone wants to showcase the belief set and try to reason it away somehow.

I would welcome an objective critique, done by yourself, of some news sources like Mother Jones, with pros aside cons. That's the kind of thing that would impress me. If someone can maintain a level head while discussing an upside-down world.....

well if you can't do it, maybe I will.

 

[babe]

Or your car!

I've just been listening to a report about all the smart technology that's installed in automobiles these days and all the data that is reported back to that great Data Collector in the sky.

Pretty soon traffic tickets won't require hiring policemen to sit all night outside town where the speed limits drop from 70 to 25, sleeping or listening to Coast to Coast, waiting for their little radar alarm to go off. You'll be billed monthly by the Federal Bureau of Traffic Revenues.

 

[Red]

Well, maybe I've given you good reason to pigeon hole me. I don't really talk about what I really believe, here, on a forum. But, when I'm operating on all cylinders, this is what I believe, and , when all is said and done, I can't separate my politics from what I believe. If someone wants to find a label for this, OK.

My politics starts with understanding we are spiritual beings on a human journey. I can't prove it. I can only live as if it were the case. The old existential leap. The existence of good and evil in the heart of man complicates the issue. Any issue that requires being filtered through the heart, that's what I do. Listen to the heart and make a decision based on its imput. That's the best I can do. Do what the heart says I should do, based on my core belief, based on what it says in the final analysis. I'm just passing through, but I recognize I'm here for a reason, and that's my growth as a human being in circumstances that requires making moral choices. We are all actors, and the world is a stage. Whatever role one plays, live and die with honor.

I see that many people do not understand what I do, or believe what I do. I can't help that. That does not absolve me from making decisions based on what I believe aligns with good, with the light in the heart of man. It's my responsibility to understand that and live it to the best of my ability. Since I'm light years from perfect, I will fall short, and the record of my life will make note of that. Every day I fall short. But that's how I see this world, this realm, that's my mythology. There may be a label that fits that. If I look at the mystical tradition of any of the world's major faiths, my mythology won't misfit. But I have not practiced an organized faith since childhood.

But, the point is, I can't really separate my politics from any of the above. So any label has to encompass this. So, I wonder how Trumpism appears to my heart? What does it say? Can you guess? I don't see light. I don't see enlightenment. I see darkness. I see ignorance. I don't see good in tribalism of the national variety. I don't see good in the anti-global movement. I see that cannot end well.

But these are my latter years, and it's actually very easy for the heart to recognize good,most of the time, and that's something to be very grateful for, and it's really only a dream anyway. But you have to try to align with good while you're dreaming. That's the rule, whether you know it or not. So, lucky is the man who knows it.

 

[Red]

Well, maybe I've given you good reason to pigeon hole me. I don't really talk about what I really believe, here, on a forum. But, when I'm operating on all cylinders, this is what I believe, and , when all is said and done, I can't separate my politics from what I believe. If someone wants to find a label for this, OK.

My politics starts with understanding we are spiritual beings on a human journey. I can't prove it. I can only live as if it were the case. The old existential leap. The existence of good and evil in the heart of man complicates the issue. Any issue that requires being filtered through the heart, that's what I do. Listen to the heart and make a decision based on its imput. That's the best I can do. Do what the heart says I should do, based on my core belief, based on what it says in the final analysis. I'm just passing through, but I recognize I'm here for a reason, and that's my growth as a human being in circumstances that requires making moral choices. We are all actors, and the world is a stage. Whatever role one plays, live and die with honor.

I see that many people do not understand what I do, or believe what I do. I can't help that. That does not absolve me from making decisions based on what I believe aligns with good, with the light in the heart of man. It's my responsibility to understand that and live it to the best of my ability. Since I'm light years from perfect, I will fall short, and the record of my life will make note of that. Every day I fall short. But that's how I see this world, this realm, that's my mythology. There may be a label that fits that. If I look at the mystical tradition of any of the world's major faiths, my mythology won't misfit. But I have not practiced an organized faith since childhood.

But, the point is, I can't really separate my politics from any of the above. So any label has to encompass this. So, I wonder how Trumpism appears to my heart? What does it say? Can you guess? I don't see light. I don't see enlightenment. I see darkness. I see ignorance. I don't see good in tribalism of the national variety. I don't see good in the anti-global movement. I see that cannot end well.

But these are my latter years, and it's actually very easy for the heart to recognize good,most of the time, and that's something to be very grateful for, and it's really only a dream anyway. But you have to try to align with good while you're dreaming. That's the rule, whether you know it or not. So, lucky is the man who knows it.

[MENTION=970]babe[/MENTION], I use talking points we are all familiar with, because those are the political talking points of our culture. It is liberal vs conservative, Democrat vs Republicans, big government vs small government, etc, etc. And you can pigeon hole me, and believe you understand where I am coming from, based on that. But, this exchange between Carl Jung and a Native American illustrates my ideal. This is where I try to come from, when I said, I am operating on all cylinders, when, in other words I am trying to think with my heart, rather then my head. My head gets in the way all the time. I overthink most everything. But, what this Native American told Jung is something I know to be the truth. And this is the truth to which I try to align. I do try to think and speak from the heart. And every decision I make regarding our body politic goes through this process before I make a decision. I don't always like to talk about these things, because it makes me feel vulnerable. And I'm woefully imperfect, and very flawed. And I do live in the real world and get caught up in more usual political arguments like anyone else.
But, thinking with the heart is the best thing I ever learned. I wish our political leaders learned the lesson this native imparted to Jung....

https://jhaines6.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/jung-in-conversation-with-a-native-american-chief/

 

[Rubashov]

Serious? It's Hillary's child sex slave emporium / delicious authentic Italian pizza joint.

Yeah normally when i order something from 2011 at a restaurant its off the wine menu.

 

[Red]

Well, just returning one last time to the subject at hand, I do find calling the press "the enemy of the American people" a fundamentally irresponsible thing to say. There are nuts out there in the real world, after all. And if you completely delegitimize a free press, you just make it easier for someone to consolidate even more power. And you make it very difficult for a free press to act as the watchdog it has been for much of our history:

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-pr...ssing-press-how-dictators-get-started-n722906

"Can be Americans be confident that a Republican-controlled Congress can investigate this president thoroughly if necessary?" Todd asked.

McCain replied: "I hope so. And I have to believe so." McCain then added, "More hope than belief."

Well, that does not inspire much confidence that Congress will do so. But, I really can't expect it would. Maybe after the midterms. Maybe not.

 

[Dr. Jones]

 

[Boris]

Well, just returning one last time to the subject at

Thank God