I don’t think this is true, Bolt. At least not for many of us. I care. I’ve traditionally voted Rep, although I’m a bit of a Republitarian considering Independence these days so… But no. I’m not OK with Bannon in that position, or with MANY things going on right now.
2 Likes
Looks like I was wrong about Trump and his choice of Supreme Court nominee.
Anyways, now that the actual conservatives (if that phrase has any meaning anymore?) got pretty much the only reason why they supported a Pres. Trump, will they be willing to speak out against Trump if he does something that that disagree with?
3 Likes
Other than the fact that as President, Trump has the Power and the Right to do it…I just don’t get it…but I’m sure Spicer and Conway have some convoluted answer that somehow ties it all to something President Obama did.
3 Likes
3 Likes
Kind of an aside, but was anyone else amused that Trump took special time out of his official statement on Black History Month to take a shot at CNN and compliment Fox?
“I’m proud to honor this heritage and will be honoring it more and more. The folks at the table in almost all cases have been great friends and supporters. Darrell—I met Darrell when he was defending me on television. And the people that were on the other side of the argument didn’t have a chance, right? And Paris has done an amazing job in a very hostile CNN community. He’s all by himself. You’ll have seven people, and Paris. And I’ll take Paris over the seven. But I don’t watch CNN, so I don’t get to see you as much as I used to. I don’t like watching fake news. But Fox has treated me very nice. Wherever Fox is, thank you.”
Should this be a big deal? Not really. In the context of this administration, which has rattled their sabers about giving preferential access for favorable coverage and revoking credentials of news outlets that cover them unfavorably, kind of troubling for the future of the “free press” that he keeps complimenting networks that “treat him nice” (hint: it’s not their job to treat you nicely).
1 Like
[quote]
The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA’s conclusions about Russia’s motives. “While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia’s motives, according to The Post,” [/quote]
[quote]
‘I am not saying that I don’t think Russia did this,’ Nada Bakos, a top former CIA counterterrorism officer tells Newsweek, in a typical comment. ‘My main concern is that we will rush to judgment. The analysis needs to be cohesive and done the right way.'” Thus far there is not even a clear idea what the CIA’s conclusions are. [/quote]
If the Democreeps benefit from Liberal media and thats ok why is it any different morally to switch around access of the media favourable to Republicans?
I certainly believe that to be true for you, PP. And I was speaking generally, of course, but how else to interpret the silence of “conservatives”?
[quote=“therajraj, post:2897, topic:223365, full:true”]
[quote]
The FBI also disagrees with some of the CIA’s conclusions about Russia’s motives. “While lawmakers were seemingly united on the need to present a strong bipartisan response, the FBI and CIA gave lawmakers differing accounts on Russia’s motives, according to The Post,” [/quote]
Christ. A caveat paragraph from early December, sourced to second- and third-hand accounts of briefings based on what is now utterly outdated information – you believe that this helps your case? You came across this and said to yourself, “now I’ve got him”? Pathetic.
Allow me to help: five days after those “legislators” used a “fuzzy” briefing to question (in the pages of WaPo) FBI’s commitment to the conclusion that Russia wanted to help elect Trump, this was published:
Uh oh! Conflicting claims in the same newspaper! A real conundrum…if this were December 16. But it isn’t, you ridiculous idiot, and as of Jan. 6 we have known first-hand – without having to rely on what’s been passed to us via “officials” or “lawmakers” – whether or not FBI agrees with CIA’s conclusions re: the intent of Russian intervention in the election:
Here a pause to reflect on the fact that you produced in support of your fantasy this quotation…
“…thus far there is not even a clear idea what the CIA’s conclusions are…”
…despite the fact that CIA since has made explicitly clear what its conclusions are, and both FBI & NSA have concurred.
Which is to say that you were telling the truth the other day: you don’t even fucking understand this topic of discussion in a basic, what-happened-when kind of way. So why are you wasting your time? You can’t do this. You aren’t capable. You don’t even have the basic facts you’d need to begin thinking about doing it. This has got to be clear to you by now. Do you think you’re somehow fooling anyone? You aren’t.
2 Likes
If I had one political wish to make it would be that Hillary run for President once again. Almost nothing would be more entertaining than watching yet one more Hillary Clinton run for the White House. Please don’t get my hopes up.
As I said many times during the 2016 campaign she will never be President not now not ever.
I hope this isn’t true:
"U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.
As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists."
2 Likes
Agreed, and I think Zeb’s approach is a good proxy for this. I think about how during the election season - and before Zeb melted down when his fraud was exposed by a moderator and he stopped posting - every criticism of Trump was met with an instant attempt to redirect toward Hillary’s awfulness. Whatever is necessary to change the subject. But changing the subject isn’t an answer to the criticism, never has been.
Now Trump has won, and Hillary is history, so what to do? Well, use the same redirect technique - every time there’s a reason to criticize Trump, change the subject to how awful Obama was.
Trump misusing executive orders? The answer is, you know who also misused executive orders? Obama!
That isn’t an answer in defense of Trump, especially when the criticism comes from the conservative camp.
But, it’s so automatic it’s pathological.
3 Likes
[quote=“smh_23, post:2900, topic:223365, full:true”]
[quote=“therajraj, post:2897, topic:223365, full:true”]
A statement by Brennan, a guy who has a history of empowering Jihadists?
Unsurprisingly he’s blasting the President who has taken a strong stance against Muslims entering the country.
Aside from that
How about the simple fact that a basic “phishing attack” is hardly hacking. Not to mention what makes a hacker worth his salt is not leaving a digital footprint behind.
Lol, exactly.
Question: “Why those seven countries in the travel ban, zeb?”
zeb: “Well, ask Obama, it was his list.”
Response: “Obama isn’t the President any more, Trump is. He can change the list. And if Obama was so terrible, why would Trump just copy what Obama was planning?”
zeb: “I don’t know. But Obama…”
1 Like
@Sloth buddy I’m guessing you probably aren’t going to see this but you are a man of your word for honoring your bet, very admirable
1 Like
If we have to call out every idiotic thing Trump says or does, who has that much time?
However these NSC changes do deserve our scorn, right after we reconcile our bewilderment at ‘Why dismiss the 2 that seemingly would form the nucleus?’
3 Likes
[quote=“therajraj, post:2904, topic:223365, full:true”]
A statement by Brennan, a guy who has a history of empowering Jihadists? [/quote]
No, a statement by the CIA…
…and the NSA…
…and the ODNI…
…and the FBI (this despite the fact that you stupidly tried to use outdated rumors to suggest FBI did not join CIA’s assessment of Russia’s intention to help elect Trump…apparently because you were unaware that FBI has since then explicitly concurred with CIA’s assessment of Russia’s intention to help elect Trump).
You lose.
NARRATOR: Here we observe the monkey in his full shit-flinging panic. Having used his avowed ignorance of the basic facts/timeline under discussion to vigorously faceplant on the subject of the FBI’s view of Russia’s intention to help elect Donald Trump, the monkey springs to his feet and reaches deep into his own body cavity, hoping to find something – anything – that might cause enough of a mess to move the debate away from his latest spectacular failure.
In other words: spearphishing is hacking, and not a single word of what I’ve said in making this case has relied on the notion that the Russians had to work really really hard yous guyz in order to do what they did. The material fact is that they did it, and then, unprecedentedly, they used the stolen documents to sabotage an American election in order to put weight on the scale for a maundering buffoon who was, coincidentally, lying in order to cover for Putin’s trangressions & loudly registering his skepticism of everything from NATO collective defense to the sanctions helping to keep the Russian economy in the red.
Oh, and the DNC breach, unlike the Podesta emails theft, wasn’t a spearphishing attack, so your incoherent “hardly hacking” attempt doesn’t apply to it anyway.
2 Likes
Seems like a good move to anger our allies.
You know what sounds like a great idea we should invade another country.
http://time.com/4657474/donald-trump-enrique-pena-nieto-mexico-bad-hombres/
2 Likes
Hey buddy I actually don’t know why Trump did not include them. Would you like me to fabricate something? Well, I’m not going to do that. And you obviously have no answers other than to be snarky.
Want to give it another shot and tell me why Obama had such a list, or do you just want to play Internet wise guy?
I don’t really care one way or the other.
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
From: Washington’s Farewell Address 1796
6 Likes