Guest Scott Posted January 17, 2019 Report Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 27 minutes ago, anatess2 said: WHO WILL? Hopefully everyone. It won't happen, so let's just say as many people as possible, regardless of their political affiliation. Since there was a bill proposed and passed, that others across the political spectrum want transparency. PS, do you know who was against the information bills? I am trying to find that information. As far as Romney goes, my impression of Romney is that he just says whatever the polls think he should say or whatever Romney thinks his base or audience wants to hear. That's why Romney is such a flip flopper. The reason he is against Trump is because he wants people to think that he is morally superior to Trump. That's also why I didn't like Hillary. I got the impression that she was just saying what she thought the polls wanted her to say, rather than what she was going to really do. That's a different topic though and that was just my impression (well, maybe it is more than my impression). Anatess, we disagree on a lot of things, but as far as government being transparent goes, it sounds like we agree 100%. There is no reason to find any disagreement here (and I'm not saying that you are looking for it) because we are on the same page. Also, if Trump really can and wants to make the government transparent, I will support him on this, or anyone else on the matter. It doesn't matter what political party they belong to; I will support it. PS, I still think you could have got your point across better by using a different thread title and words in your post. I'm willing to bet that there is a lot of common ground here between Trump voters and those who didn't vote for him. Edited January 17, 2019 by Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 17, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2019 26 minutes ago, Scott said: I don't know if the website above is accurate or not, but these kind of things have happened and much worse. The above could very well be true. Here are some things that people should study up on (though to most people familiar to history, these are already known). None of these are denied anymore and the classified documents have already been released. In 1946 to 1948 doctors from the United States Public Health Service intentionally infecting Guatemalans, including children with syphilis. The 1950 test of chemical weapons on the citizens of San Francisco under the Truman Administration. The 1953 Iranian Coup d'etat where the CIA under the Eisenhower Administration overthrew the democratically elected Iranian Government solely for the purpose of giving the predecessor of BP (British Petroleum) control over Iranian oil. Operation Cyclone which was started under the Carter Administration, but really took off during the Reagan Administration where the CIA trained and supported Islamic terrorist groups to fight the USSR. These terrorist groups were the predecessors to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The Reagan Administration arming both Iran and Iraq during the Iran Iraq War. US support of Saddam Hussein. Also, there's plenty to say about the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but that would require a whole new topic. Etc., etc. What are you talking about as "website is accurate or not"? I'm in that reddit sub. I read that post that same day it was posted. It's still there until today... maybe it has been taken down, not sure. But, that page was archived on that day by some folks (as is always the case with that reddit sub) who are interested in seeing if the conspiracy proves out. Like I have said... you can say... "Oh no big deal, it's just our government doing same-ol same-ol"... or you can see what Trump is doing to defeat these people and how these people are trying to undermine government today. Well, first of all, who are these people??? Sure, you can say Trump is corrupt too. That's fine. But you're going to have to take that conclusion with the information set before you. Why is he unclassifying documents? Why is he withdrawing from Syria even against the direction of Mattis? Why does he say Turkey can protect the Kurds? Why does he leave the Saudi Prince well enough alone? Why is he removing barriers to domestic energy production? Why did he choose Bill Barr to replace Sessions? Etc. etc. and some more etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 18, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott said: Hopefully everyone. It won't happen, so let's just say as many people as possible, regardless of their political affiliation. Since there was a bill proposed and passed, that others across the political spectrum want transparency. PS, do you know who was against the information bills? I am trying to find that information. Unanimous vote in the Senate, 12 Nays in the House - All Republican. But just because this bill passed doesn't mean the government want transparency. Rather, they want the "Appearance" of Transparency. The efforts the players in Spygate went to do what they want to do under the thick cover of Intelligence and the DOJ is proof of that. Quote As far as Romney goes, my impression of Romney is that he just says whatever the polls think he should say or whatever Romney thinks his base or audience wants to hear. That's why Romney is such a flip flopper. The reason he is against Trump is because he wants people to think that he is morally superior to Trump. If this is just about the polls, he wouldn't be as rabid was he was in 2016, especially as he wasn't running for President. He sure wasn't even HALF this rabid when he WAS running for President - both times. Quote That's also why I didn't like Hillary. I got the impression that she was just saying what she thought the polls wanted her to say, rather than what she was going to really do. This is like being ravaged by a pitbull then describing the experience as being licked by a cute chihuahua. Quote Anatess, we disagree on a lot of things, but as far as government being transparent goes, it sounds like we agree 100%. There is no reason to find any disagreement here (and I'm not saying that you are looking for it) because we are on the same page. Not sure if we agree 100%. You give the impression that the despicable things happening in government is no big deal because... it's always been that way. Quote Also, if Trump really can and wants to make the government transparent, I will support him on this, or anyone else on the matter. It doesn't matter what political party they belong to; I will support it. He's the one trying to unclassify documents. DOJ/Congress blocks him. He's the one running negotiations with Congress without kicking the Press out of the room. He's the one who stops at any random moment anywhere, even when having to shout over helicopter blades, and gives the press an unplanned, unscripted free-for-all for 30 minutes or more. Think of your past Presidents and see if there's anybody that is even close to being randomly accessible like this - unscripted. Quote PS, I still think you could have got your point across better by using a different thread title and words in your post. I'm willing to bet that there is a lot of common ground here between Trump voters and those who didn't vote for him. Oh no... this is not about common ground. This is about Spygate and how you have Trump Supporters to thank that this is even talked about today. Believe me, if Trump did not get elected President, you would still have Brennan, McCabe, Comey, Strozk, etc. etc. etc. sitting on their chairs in government running spy games, fueling wars, and who knows what else. Heck, they're still running spy games over there with that Mueller investigation and who knows what else! But they're slowly being exposed even as another impeachment bill gets submitted. Edited January 18, 2019 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 39 minutes ago, anatess2 said: What are you talking about as "website is accurate or not"? I said that because I don't know. I don't know anything about that website at this time, other than what you posted, but would be willing to look into it and learn more. Certainly this is better than accepting things blindly, no? I just meant that I don't know much about that website at this time. I do know that that kind of thing (mentioned in your screenshot) really does happen though. Quote Why is he unclassifying documents? Why is he withdrawing from Syria even against the direction of Mattis? Why does he say Turkey can protect the Kurds? Why does he leave the Saudi Prince well enough alone? Why is he removing barriers to domestic energy production? Why did he choose Bill Barr to replace Sessions? Etc. etc. and some more etc. Quote Unclassifying documents? Is Trump unclassifying documents more that previous presidents? (This is a question, not an argument). Quote Why is he withdrawing from Syria even against the direction of Mattis? Because he feels that the mission there is accomplished. I don't really disagree with Trump in this regard. The Syrian War was a spillover from the Iraq War. We shouldn't have been there in the first place. Also, I'm not saying that Assad is the good guy, but he really hasn't done anything to the US and the alternative is worse. A lot of the rebels who we have been supporting aren't saints either. Russia and the US have just been prolonging the war by arming and supporting opposite sides, but in this case neither side is really "the good guys" if that makes sense. One thing I do disagree with Trump on (and Obama too) is that we shouldn't publically announce our withdrawal dates. That just means that ISIS or whoever can lie low until we withdrawal. I'm all for government transparency, but with military withdrawals, is it really a good idea to let the world know of the date in advance that we are withdrawing? Military intelligence that is depended on our safety is the only thing concerning government that I think might not have to be transparent. In recent decades we have been giving away all of our moves to the enemy in advance via the media. What happened to "Loose Lips Sink Ships"?. It is as applicable now than it was during WWII, at least in my opinion. Quote Why does he say Turkey can protect the Kurds? That's a good question. Turkey views many of the Kurds and being prone to joining extremist and terrorists groups. If Turkey could get away with it, they would probably expel the Kurds from the country. So, what's your answer to the question; Why does he say Turkey can protect the Kurds? This doesn't have anything to do with Trump, but is noteworthy from a historical standpoint. For years, the US armed extremist groups and factions to fight the communists. Now things have come full circle. The US has been arming and supporting communists groups (of which are many of the Kurdish leaders are) to fight the extremists. Quote Why does he leave the Saudi Prince well enough alone? Because he doesn't want to get into a war over it (and I agree with him). That said though, I don't think the Saudi leaders are trustworthy. We give way to much support to the Saudis (and I'm not speaking of Trump here, but dating back decades). The truth is that the Saudis are only our allies when they have something to gain from it. They really don't share most of our values. Although some things have improved, they are really bad with things like personal freedom. I think we should help protect those that share our values, and with Saudi Arabia we view them as a stable country in the region, but the Saudis really should make more concessions if they want our protection. Feel free to disagree or agree. Quote Why is he removing barriers to domestic energy production? We already discussed this at length, but he is doing it for money and economic gain. Here is where we disagree, but we already hashed this out at length on another thread. I agree that we should become more energy independent, but not in the same way that Trump or you do. We already discussed that though. Quote Why did he choose Bill Barr to replace Sessions? The short answer is that Trump expects loyalty and Trump will fire anyone who he thinks is disloyal to him. Edited January 18, 2019 by Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 18 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Unanimous vote in the Senate, 12 Nays in the House - All Republican. Any idea why they voted against it? 18 minutes ago, anatess2 said: If this is just about the polls, he wouldn't be as rabid was he was in 2016, especially as he wasn't running for President. He sure wasn't even HALF this rabid when he WAS running for President - both times. Maybe he is considering another shot at president; I don't know. It's more than the polls when it comes to Romney. He still needs to feel morally superior and wants his base to know that. At least that's my take. I actually liked a lot of things Romney did, but to me he came off as a fake, if that makes sense. I thought the same about Hillary. 18 minutes ago, anatess2 said: This is like being ravaged by a pitbull then describing the experience as being licked by a cute chihuahua. ? 18 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Not sure if we agree 100%. You give the impression that the despicable things happening in government is no big deal because... it's always been that way. It seems to me that we do agree on government transparency. As far as I can tell it is 100% as far as that goes. I don't think it is no big deal; I just don't view Trump as a type of savior (to the country) that you seem to think he is. I also don't consider him to be trustworthy. My own viewpoint is that I will support Trump in things like government transparency, but I still think a lot of the things he does is harming this country. As far as the transparency goes, it is a big deal. As I said, if Trump really can make the government transparent, I will support him on this. And you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 18, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott said: I said that because I don't know. I don't know anything about that website at this time, other than what you posted, but would be willing to look into it and learn more. Certainly this is better than accepting things blindly, no? I just meant that I don't know much about that website at this time. I do know that that kind of thing (mentioned in your screenshot) really does happen though. This surprises me. I thought most everybody knows Reddit. It's kinda like assuming most everybody knows Facebook ya know? Quote Is Trump unclassifying documents more that previous presidents? (This is a question, not an argument). It's not a matter of whether he unclassifies documents more than previous Presidents. It's that he unclassified a boatload of Russia Probe documents, even in the middle of accusations that he "colluded with Russia". Quote Because he feels that the mission there is accomplished. Right. So, is that an action of a corrupt President? Quote One thing I do disagree with Trump on (and Obama too) is that we shouldn't publically announce our withdrawal dates. That just means that ISIS or whoever can lie low until we withdrawal. I'm all for government transparency, but with military withdrawals, is it really a good idea to let the world know of the date in advance that we are withdrawing? Military intelligence that is depended on our safety is the only thing concerning government that I think might not have to be transparent. In recent decades we have been giving away all of our moves to the enemy in advance via the media. What happened to "Loose Lips Sink Ships"?. It is as applicable now than it was during WWII, at least in my opinion. He did not publicly announce withdrawal dates. He publicly announced the US is in the process of withdrawing. Right now. This very moment. And he listed what he's going to do if X happens... like if Turkey compromises the Kurds he's going to make Turkey bleed by destroying their economy. And how the military presence in the Pacific would be in Syria in seconds if ISIS tries it, etc. etc. If you're wondering why Trump has not done anything visible about the soldiers that got killed 2 days ago as he is wont to do (the MOAB dropped in Syria over a year ago should prove that to be true), that interesting tidbit on Reddit is a strong indication of how this spy game is being played that requires chess type response and not blunt force. Still ALL OF THIS negates the position that Trump is corrupted. Quote That's a good question. Turkey views many of the Kurds and being prone to joining extremist and terrorists groups. If Turkey could get away with it, they would probably expel the Kurds from the country. So, what's your answer to the question; Why does he say Turkey can protect the Kurds? Because Trump has Edrogan's nuts in a vice. Now we know why Trump did not pile on Edrogan when a lot of the Republicans, and of course the Democrats and the Press (because they're really just nothing but hashtag Resist right now - Trump could say the Earth is round and they'd attack him for it) strongly criticized him for it. He was piling ace cards waiting for the best chance to play it. Another thing that negates the position that Trump is corrupted. Quote This doesn't have anything to do with Trump, but is noteworthy from a historical standpoint. For years, the US armed extremist groups and factions to fight the communists. Now things have come full circle. The US has been arming and supporting communists groups (of which are many of the Kurdish leaders are) to fight the extremists. This is why I expressed my support for Trump immediately after his first Foreign Policy Speech of his campaign. The US has been playing this opportunistic games with their foreign policy wrecking havoc on their wake for most of the past century. Trump's position was a breath of fresh air. So okay, Ron Paul had a similar take but for some reason, Ron Paul's sounded more to me like an isolationist (which I don't favor either). And the past 2 years have shown that he is willing to back his speech with concrete actions. Quote Because he doesn't want to get into a war over it (and I agree with him). That said though, I don't think the Saudi leaders are trustworthy. We give way to much support to the Saudis (and I'm not speaking of Trump here, but dating back decades). The truth is that the Saudis are only our allies when they have something to gain from it. They really don't share most of our values. Although some things have improved, they are really bad with things like personal freedom. I think we should help protect those that share our values, and with Saudi Arabia we view them as a stable country in the region, but the Saudis really should make more concessions if they want our protection. Feel free to disagree or agree. Another negation of the position that Trump is corrupt. The US should leave sovereign countries alone to run their countries as they see fit regardless of whether they share values or not. Let the Saudis deal with their Saudi freedoms. No leader is trustworthy enough. Nobody. Reagan is right about soft words, big stick. Trustworthy or not, there are things you want to develop your way with regards to Saudi - it's a balancing act between Yemen and Iran. You use your words and your stick to shape that development. Quote We already discussed this at length, but he is doing it for money and economic gain. Here is where we disagree, but we already hashed this out at length on another thread. I agree that we should become more energy independent, but not in the same way that Trump or you do. We already discussed that though. This is not only about economic gain. If Trump can make China buy rice from the US (talk about selling ice to an eskimo), he can get oil for cheap. As he has stated many times during his campaign, energy independence is National Security. Quote The short answer is that Trump expects loyalty and Trump will fire anyone who he thinks is disloyal to him. A President deserves an Attorney General that shares his vision of law and order. That said, Barr is hardly a Trump supporter. He is loyal to the rule of law though. "Disloyal to him" is an interesting choice of words. If that were true, he would have only hired Trumpers in his cabinet and wouldn't have hired people like Preibus, Tillerson, etc. etc. Still, hiring people loyal to you is a good thing. Can you imagine a CEO of a company trying to accomplish something and his subordinates trying to accomplish something different? Unless you're a corrupt politician, then that would mean hiring people to cover up your corrupt bum. Edited January 18, 2019 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 18, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 44 minutes ago, Scott said: Any idea why they voted against it? All about the budget. They don't think it is worth spending the millions of dollars to set up their technology to comply with the law. 44 minutes ago, Scott said: Maybe he is considering another shot at president; I don't know. It's more than the polls when it comes to Romney. He still needs to feel morally superior and wants his base to know that. At least that's my take. I actually liked a lot of things Romney did, but to me he came off as a fake, if that makes sense. I thought the same about Hillary. This would make sense if it was just about posturing like what Jeff Flake does. Romney's actions were beyond posturing. He actively tried to disrupt the conventions and when that didn't work actively tried to convince the primary electors to vote against their state results and when that didn't work tried to get McMullin to win Utah to prevent Trump from getting to 270. 44 minutes ago, Scott said: ? You said Hillary just says things for polling. She's more sinister than that. 44 minutes ago, Scott said: I don't think it is no big deal; I just don't view Trump as a type of savior (to the country) that you seem to think he is. I also don't consider him to be trustworthy. Uhm, Trump is not the savior of the country. He's just one President. He only has 4 years, 8 if he's lucky. But what he is doing is exposing the bad elements for who they are. It's up to the people to bypass the activism of the Press and their partisanship to actually see it. I don't trust any President. I don't trust any Government. I believe in Small Government for that reason. 44 minutes ago, Scott said: My own viewpoint is that I will support Trump in things like government transparency, but I still think a lot of the things he does is harming this country. This is where we disagree. He is doing more good than harm to the country so far. He is doing very good in the world so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, anatess2 said: This surprises me. I thought most everybody knows Reddit. It's kinda like assuming most everybody knows Facebook ya know? I am aware of Reddit, but I don't use it much, so didn't recognize it. l assume it's no big deal to you. Quote He did not publicly announce withdrawal dates. He publicly announced the US is in the process of withdrawing. Right now. This very moment. I still don't think it's a good idea to make the public announcement and I'm not speaking of just Trump specifically. All presidents in recent decades have done the same thing. If it were me (feel free to comment), I'd leave quietly first, but not announce it to the media. I'd leave a small force to see if anyone tries anything because they think we are gone. If not after a period of time, I would leave and announce later. The media is giving away all our moves and it doesn't help that they are publically announced right away. At least that's my take. Quote This is why I expressed my support for Trump immediately after his first Foreign Policy Speech of his campaign. I agree with a lot of Trumps foreign policies, but not all of them. For example, I don't agree with him insulting our true allies for no reason (which he has done). This has caused a lot of bad blood. I also don't think we should have pulled out of the Iran treaty unless we knew that Iran was in violation of the treaty. Doing so sends a bad message about how the US honors treaties. Quote The US should leave sovereign countries alone to run their countries as they see fit regardless of whether they share values or not. Let the Saudis deal with their Saudi freedoms. Yes, but I'm talking of protecting those countries. I have no problem with the US protecting another country that shares our values from those hostile to it. I don't think we should do it for free for countries that don't share our values. And by free I'm not talking about them writing a check (see next paragraph). Also, I'm against (Trump hasn't been doing this as far as I know) groups who we know are hostile to our values even if they are the enemy of our enemy if that makes sense. That is why I was against arming the Syrian rebels during the Obama Administration. Quote Trustworthy or not, there are things you want to develop your way with regards to Saudi - it's a balancing act between Yemen and Iran. I agree, but Saudi is only our ally as long as there is something in it for them. Also, if we're going to suck up to the Saudis and support them as much as they have been, they need to make more concessions. For example, Saudi hasn't been doing enough to curb terrorism. They definitely didn't cooperate enough with the investigation after 9/11. We may disagree here, but if Saudi wants our help so much, I see no reason why they shouldn't be better with human rights. They aren't doing enough to curb things like human trafficking either. I see no problem with asking them (forcefully) about addressing some of those issues if they want our protection. Quote As he has stated many times during his campaign, energy independence is National Security. Just about everyone says that, they just have different viewpoints on the best way to accomplish this. Quote He is doing very good in the world so far. I'm not so sure about that. He has done some good, but a lot of bad too. We have already discussed several environmental issues on the other thread and we will never agree there. That's a really big one for me and my #1 criticism of Trump. Obviously we don't seem to agree on this, so let's just leave it there. Trump has a lot of potential to do a lot more good in the world. Trump has done some good things. He also has more guts than a lot of previous presidents. He has also done a lot of things that I would consider damaging to our country and to the world. He has insulted a lot of our allies publically for no good reason. The general population in many of the countries that do share our values has become less trusting of the USA and doesn't look up to us anymore. To me, this is a big thing, especially since I can see it in person. In most of the world, the perception of the US has become much more negative since Trump took office. This is especially in countries that mostly share our values. This isn't a matter of "I wish they would like us" or "I wish we were more popular", but I think it is important that people look at us and a beacon of hope and freedom and trust us to be a world leader. Obama was actually good at this (even if you hate him-or his policies). Although a lot of the Republicans didn't admit this and tried to make it look like the US wasn't respected under Obama, they were. In most other countries, there was a lot more respect towards the US when Obama was in office. I would see murals of our president painted on buildings and one country even changed the name of their highest mountain to Mount Obama. I would hear a lot of positive comments towards our country and president. Thus far while travelling, I have heard almost all negative comments (in countries that are our allies and who share our values) towards our country) and instead of painting and murals, I see a bunch of "Stop Trump" bumper stickers. Perhaps you can try to explain this away by saying they are just jealous or that they just want to take advantage of the US, but this isn't the case. There are countries that have a higher perception of the US under Trump, but they are in the minority and most don't share our values and are not our allies. If Trump was doing so much good in the world, why do the majority of our allies have such a negative perception of him? This may not seem like a big deal to you, but I think it is. The US and the world needs allies that support freedom. Trump has a lot of potential and has the guts to do a lot of good. He seems more interested in insulting others and swinging his ego around though. Also, as mentioned it isn't a good idea to pull out of treaties that were just negotiated unless the other side is known to break a treaty. I think this was a big mistake unless we could show that Iran was in violation of the treaty. I wonder if those who were so against the treaty actually read it? PS, although I may disagree with some of Trumps foreign policies, I do not think he is corrupt because of them. I consider Trump corrupt for other reasons, such as appointing lobbyists to his cabinets that obviously have a conflict of interest. It has nothing to do with foreign policy. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Anyway, one thing I don't like about Trump or any of the presidents in recent decades is that they all seem to forget that they aren't just the president of the party that they belong to. Trump and Obama both were or are president to all Americans, including the roughly half of those who didn't vote for them. Obama and even more so, Trump seems to forget this. Obama and even more, Trump don't seem to care at all about the ~1/2 of Americans that didn't vote for them. To me this isn't right and is why I dislike political parties so much. It seems like the party only cares about keeping itself in power. You are right that a lot of Democrats will complain about everything Trump does, even if it is a good idea, but the reverse is true too. It is my opinion that the biggest threat to this country isn't Trump (or Obama), or any individual, it is partisanship. Partisan ship is what is preventing this country from getting on the right track. It won't happen, but I'd be happy if both parties would be done away with altogether. It is my opinion that sometime in the upcoming future that one of the two major parties is going to fracture in a big way. Both parties are pushing out independents and moderates. The Democrats may even be doing this more than the Republicans so they might be the first party to fracture. More and more the Democrats are moving far enough left that they are really isolating the moderates. The moderates are having more of a problem in supporting a Democratic candidate because they are becoming too far left. The same is true of the Republicans too (but on the opposite end), but perhaps not quite as much at this point in time than the Democrats. Time will tell, but that's my own prediction. Edited January 18, 2019 by Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 On 1/17/2019 at 1:30 AM, anatess2 said: In honor of Trump signing the Government Open Data Act into law, I challenge you to spend the 28 minutes to absorb this. And I challenge you to debunk everything with every single ounce of research skill you possess. Never Trumpers owe Trump voters. Big time. I'm not sure what this means. 1. I have not been able to debunk anything in his speech. Much of what I researched seems to back up what he said. 2. His conclusion is that none of the bad guys (with the possible exception of Comey) will ever see justice. So, what exactly are we thanking Trump or his voters for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 12 hours ago, Scott said: I don't agree with him insulting our true allies for no reason (which he has done). This has caused a lot of bad blood. When? And which ones? In my opinion France is NOT a "true ally". Neither is Egypt. Note that both the bold and the red above are largely matters of opinion. And let's not forget that Obama insulted both the UK and Israel. Are you at least going to be consistent and say that Obama shouldn't have done that either? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 1 minute ago, Carborendum said: And let's not forget that Obama insulted both the UK and Israel. Are you at least going to be consistent and say that Obama shouldn't have done that either? There are people out there who dislike both Trump and Obama. The Trump fans wrongly dismiss any critic of him as a liberal or "establishment", but that just shows how they think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, MormonGator said: There are people out there who dislike both Trump and Obama. The Trump fans wrongly dismiss any critic of him as a liberal or "establishment", but that just shows how they think. I did not. I was just wanting verification of consistency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Carborendum said: I did not. I was just wanting verification of consistency. I understand. I don't consider you just a Trumper my friend. Not by any stretch of the imagination. You don't go into sniveling rage when your God/Master is critiqued, you can understand why people may not like or agree with him-basically you can function in society. Sort of. 😉 Edited January 18, 2019 by MormonGator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 1 minute ago, MormonGator said: basically you can function in society. Sort of. 😉 You realize this is largely a matter of opinion, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unixknight Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, MormonGator said: There are people out there who dislike both Trump and Obama. The Trump fans wrongly dismiss any critic of him as a liberal or "establishment", but that just shows how they think. I'm getting to the point where I tune out the sycophants. Every President has them but these last two seem to be more than usual. I think it's partly to do with changes in culture and campaigning where the rockstar approach is more effective than the traditional approaches. Elect someone to be a rockstar, people will react to them like a rockstar. With the Obama fans it was a "scandal free presidency" start to finish and were calling for a Constitutional amendment to remove term limits the day after he was elected. With the Trumplings it's everything Trump does is part of the 4D underwater chess master plan. Both Presidents made mistakes. Both Presidents did good things. Anyone who is willfully blind to any of that is someone whose political acumen is unreliable at best. Midwest LDS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 Just now, unixknight said: I'm getting to the point where I tune out the sycophants. Every President has them but these last two seem to be more than usual. I think it's partly to do with changes in culture and campaigning where the rockstar approach is more effective than the traditional approaches. Elect someone to be a rockstar, people will react to them like a rockstar. With the Obama fans it was a "scandal free presidency" start to finish and were calling for a Constitutional amendment to remove term limits the day after he was elected. With the Trumplings it's everything Trump does is part of the 4D underwater chess master plan. Both Presidents made mistakes. Both Presidents did good things. Anyone who is willfully blind to any of that is someone whose political acumen is unreliable at best. Agree my friend. The Trumpers made fun of Obamabots for their blind adoration and worship. The Obamabots make fun of Trump for their blind adoration and worship. The rest of us just laugh at both of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 18, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Carborendum said: I'm not sure what this means. 1. I have not been able to debunk anything in his speech. Much of what I researched seems to back up what he said. 2. His conclusion is that none of the bad guys (with the possible exception of Comey) will ever see justice. So, what exactly are we thanking Trump or his voters for? Dunno where you got #2. A lot of these people got removed from government - Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Baker, etc. etc. - and are now under FBI investigation or grand juried. We don't know who else are under investigation - we only found out about Baker a few days ago when his lawyer told Congress that he can't be interviewed about Trump colluding with Russia because Baker is under criminal investigation. DOJ doesn't normally tell anybody when they're investigating someone for criminal offenses. If Trump did not become President... Spygate would have gotten buried in the annals of the DOJ never to see light... ever. And all those people would still be running around in government doing the same thing. With Clinton as President? It would have gotten waaaaaaay worse so much so that it is completely possible that they would have the process down pat to put them in full control of any and all future elections. Edited January 18, 2019 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 28 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Dunno where you got #2. Because that speaker in the video specifically said so in response to the question asked of him at about 24:40. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 18, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 36 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Because that speaker in the video specifically said so in response to the question asked of him at about 24:40. Ugh! That's a cut scene. That's not the full context of that answer. Let me see if I can find you a video of the full answer to that question. Edited January 18, 2019 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Ugh! That's a cut scene. That's not the full context of that answer. Let me see if I can find you a video of the full answer to that question. ???? Are you serious? The only part that was cut was the courtesy "thank you for that question.blah blah.." His full answer was not cut. I don't see how you can be trying to make "I'm going to give you the bad news... The bad news is...NOTHING. I am not convinced anything's going to happen to any of these people at all. Justice isn't blind in the United States. It's only blind to Democrats... There's no will to prosecute Democrats. . . I'm just being candid with you. I'm not convinced anything's going to happen at all." How can that possibly be taken out of context? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 18, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Carborendum said: ???? Are you serious? The only part that was cut was the courtesy "thank you for that question.blah blah.." His full answer was not cut. I don't see how you can be trying to make "I'm going to give you the bad news... The bad news is...NOTHING. I am not convinced anything's going to happen to any of these people at all. Justice isn't blind in the United States. It's only blind to Democrats... There's no will to prosecute Democrats. . . I'm just being candid with you. I'm not convinced anything's going to happen at all." How can that possibly be taken out of context? Here's the full context of the answer to that question on 30:36: Now, it's a long answer but the meat is in the end - Hillary may not go to jail, but when kids in the future read about Hillary Clinton in their history books, she won't be seen as a hero but a cautionary tale. The fact still remains - a lot of these people are now removed from government. They may not go to jail (that's not really my concern, Clinton is not in jail but she holds no significant power. That's all that matters to me.) but with the criminal investigations going on... spygate has no wings to fly and keep going on and I posit it will get eradicated after this Mueller investigation is put to bed. Edited January 18, 2019 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 1 minute ago, anatess2 said: Here's the full context of the answer to that question on 30:36: Now, it's a long answer but the meat is in the end - Hillary may not go to jail, but when kids in the future read about Hillary Clinton in their history books, she won't be seen as a hero but a cautionary tale. The fact still remains - a lot of these people are now removed from government and with the criminal investigations going on... spygate has no wings to fly and keep going on. Yes, he said that in the first (cut) video. That doesn't change the fact that NO one (with the possible exception of Comey) will go to jail or be fined or receive any kind of criminal penalty. And I believe that the country will fall apart and go into civil war before history books are altered to paint Hillary as a "cautionary tale" . . . unless that cautionary tale is "If you're a woman in a man's world, be prepared to be pounced upon with all the testosterone filled bile and venom these neanderthal men can muster." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 18, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Yes, he said that in the first (cut) video. That doesn't change the fact that NO one (with the possible exception of Comey) will go to jail or be fined or receive any kind of criminal penalty. Well then you and I have different objectives. I don't care about who goes to jail. Clinton is not in jail but she holds no significant power. That's the only thing that matters to me. The main players of spygate has lost or is losing power. Marcos never went to jail. Their justice is God's. Quote And I believe that the country will fall apart and go into civil war before history books are altered to paint Hillary as a "cautionary tale" . . . unless that cautionary tale is "If you're a woman in a man's world, be prepared to be pounced upon with all the testosterone filled bile and venom these neanderthal men can muster." You don't alter history books. You write new ones. When this era is written about, Hillary will be a cautionary tale. She already is with the new MeToo era. Edited January 18, 2019 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyme Posted January 18, 2019 Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 Two options: 1. It's all fake 2. Trump is playing to his conspiracy theory base that helped him win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted January 18, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2019 9 minutes ago, Tyme said: Two options: 1. It's all fake Uh, what??? ALL fake? No dossier... no fisa warrant.. no surveillance... no Russia collusion investigation... it's all fake? Like some MCU movie? 9 minutes ago, Tyme said: 2. Trump is playing to his conspiracy theory base that helped him win Uhm, that would be funny. Because all this did not become public until AFTER Trump won the Presidency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.