The Frankish Reich
-
Posts
13,457 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by The Frankish Reich
-
-
I'm definitely in the "wear masks in public areas indoors and in crowded areas outdoors" camp. But even I think this is a little silly. I'm on a little Labor Day socially distancing mountain weekend. The town has its main street blocked off, turned into a pedestrian mall with restaurants setting up tables outside. Because there's tons of room to walk, it isn't at all crowded. I am required to wear a mask walking down the middle of the street, right alongside tables of maskless diners ....
-
3 hours ago, Chef Jim said:
You may go back a long way but your memory must be failing because that "Losers Memorial Stadium" is the only stadium in WNY to be the home of Champions. I never heard it referred to as Losers Memorial.
Wait...did I just post about football. I think I may have the 'Vid.......
No, I made that up ... just a little joke about calling servicemen who lost their lives "losers"
-
2 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
....the quote is incorrectly attributed to me....I believe it was a DR post..............
Correct. Never meant to imply otherwise.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
...good show DR...sad to see names of Bills' greats besmirched here as in Kemp or Frank......easy troll tag..................
Old Time AFL Guy, you’ve got company. I go back all the way to the old Rockpile days, you know, the stadium formerly known as Losers Memorial Stadium. 😊
-
6 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
McCain was a loser, a traitor, and a bad person. He's rotting in hell right now which is where he belongs along with his legacy.
What? He lost an election. Why was he a traitor? A bad person? The guy lived his life suffering from the torture inflicted upon him by his North Vietnamese captors and came back to try his best to serve his country in a different way. I honestly don't understand this venom thrown his way. The only thing that explains it: he didn't curtsy to Trump.
I'm a lawyer. I've spent way too many hours of my life trying to figure out who's lying and how to prove it. If I'm Biden, Trump has just thrown me a hanging curve right down the middle by idiotically denying that he called McCain a loser. It's right there on Twitter! I get someone to flat-out demonstrably lie about a little thing, his credibility is destroyed about a big thing. And Trump walked right into it. Stable Genius? Yeah, right.
-
5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:
You're VERY obsessed with Q. You would think that if you're so obsessed or threatened by Q, you would have taken the time to investigate it for yourself to either confirm or deny your fears.
One would think I started the 147 PAGE THREAD that include 2,000 word dissertations analyzing the Wisdom of Q.
I have taken the time -- at first with some very open inquiries -- to try to understand all of this. I have concluded that there is no there there.
-
1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:
It is true. More anonymous sources confirming anonymous sources does not magically make it true. Again, these are lessons you should have learned from three years of "RUSSIA!" and "HERE COMES MUELLER!". Remember the whole Cohen went to Prague story? That was "confirmed" by several anonymous sources and yet the SCO said they did not exist. Goldberg was also the same guy who in the early 2000s said AQ was linked to Saddam.
He's a highly paid asset of the MiC, his job is to lie to your face. Gotta be smarter, Frank.
Name them then.
Oh, you can't. Because they're not real.
Yet over 10 officials who were there in France went on the record to deny the story. Why do you prioritize anonymous sources over those who give their names? Could it be because you want it to be true?
Gotta be smarter, Frank.You haven't figured it out because you still haven't taken the time to understand Q. Q doesn't post something and say, "trust me this is true". If they did, then yes that would be relying on an anonymous source. Instead, what Q does is post information/evidence which can be vetted and verified (or debunked) on its own. That's not being an anonymous source -- the source is the information shared openly.
That you can't discern that difference shows you have much work left to do on your own. You're still sound asleep.
And that's what I've learned. All of this Q worship is a different form of wokeness. I don't like either flavor. I prefer to live in a reality based world.
In the end, we won't know (unless there's audio/video) what Trump said and what he didn't say on that particular European trip. He would help himself immensely with popular opinion if he didn't deny the things he clearly has said, like calling McCain a loser. (Honestly, do your Q people know why he feels compelled to lie about such things?) Personally, I believe it's likely he's made such comments about Vietnam vets. Why? Because that fits with other things he's said over the years! He even joked that surviving Studio 54 without getting an STD was his personal Vietnam. It is in character.
I kind of doubt that he called those Americans killed in WW1 "losers." That would be out of character. The people who say they heard it may not have heard it correctly, or in the proper context.
But again: it's NEWS. 4 senior officials reported it. Anonymous sources can be good sources. Corroboration counts; here it was corroborated. This is not the word of one disgruntled former official. It wouldn't stand up in a court of law, nor should it.
The same standards apply to all the Q business, except there's a bigger problem there: because these supposed inside messages are so cryptic, so subject to interpretation, the entire project is basically unfalsifiable. Q's "crumbs" or whatever you call it are thought to have meant X will happen; X doesn't happen; the conclusion you draw isn't "oh, so maybe this Q isn't so well connected after all," it's "oh, we thought it meant X, but it really meant Y; just you wait and see." That brings it into the category of Nostradamus readers, or apocalyptic Book of Revelation interpreters, or (bringing it down to earth) Marxist theorists.
The Trump Disparaging Vets story can be proven or disproved. I assume if you'd asked him "have you ever said you can just go up and grab women by the [nether regions] in 2015?" he'd have replied "no." Likewise if the sources behind this story don't check out, this will be disproved (or as I suspect, disproved in part). The Q crap can never be. Trump wins, it's a glorious restoration. He indicts all kinds of prominent people on child sex trafficking charges, ditto. He wins and no indictment comes? The time isn't right yet. (Why hasn't it happened yet? He's the President and the Attorney General has proven his intense loyalty.) Or maybe he wasn't Messiah Q identified, he was only the John the Baptist in this story, paving the way for the real Messiah (Don Jr.?) He loses? The conspiracy worked and ended his mission. You get it. Unfalsifiable. That's why it's garbage. I said it before, DR: you seem like an intelligent person, but you gotta be smarter than to fall for this.
EDIT: what is the MiC? Military-Industrial Complex? Or some other QRubbish?
-
9 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:
He was there when he DIDN'T say it, yes. In fact, he specifically calls out that moment in his book because of the weather diversion, and confirmed yesterday that if anything like that was said at the time, he'd have written an entire chapter on it.
Thanks. That is relevant as to whether he said it.
I don't know whether the Senior Officials claim that there were other conversations Bolton wasn't privy to. I suspect we'll find out. I just saw that Fox reporter Jennifer Griffin says that she's confirmed (again) with her sources, but there's no mention about whether Bolton was in this particular Room (Car?) Where it Happened.
-
30 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
...Bolton of all people, the epitome of anti-Trump even refuted it.......
Was Bolton supposed to have been there when he said it? Not as far as I know. So that one amounts to Bolton saying, "He never said these things in my presence."
Look, it's clearly secondhand (or third hand) information. What we know:
- The reporters (Goldberg and others) didn't just make it up. Multiple reporters have confirmed that so-called "senior officials" (or a senior official) told them Trump said these things.
- That doesn't mean he really said them, or all of them, or that the Senior Official didn't misinterpret what he said
But is it "fake news?" No, it's news. And maybe not reliable news. Trump is now suggesting that maybe these things were made up by disgruntled former employees (presumably a fired Senior Official or Officials). But that is ... REAL news. News that may be rebutted by Trump and others, but not made up/fake news.
-
9 hours ago, Taro T said:
They managed to get 2 anonymous sources (both of whom are allegedly former members of 45's administration, just like people such as Sally Yates & Colonel Vindman were members of the administration) to confirm 4 anonymous sources? (And there's absolutely no chance whatsoever that the 2 were among the original 4 because there's no way an anonymous source with an axe to grind would talk to 2 different reporters. Right?)
Well, that seals it.
The point was this: Deranged Rhino said that when he referred to "anonymous sources," he really meant "no source at all; Jeffrey Goldberg (the Atlantic) just made it up."
And obviously that's not true.
Read the article, not the headline. It appears that several reporters confirm that "senior officials" confirmed most everything; the only question is whether Trump called WW1 vets "suckers" as opposed to other vets.
And somehow his beloved "Q" doesn't count as "anonymous" because, well, I can't figure that one out.
I have tried, here and in another thread, to understand this reasoning; I can't because it simply defies all logic.
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fox-news-backs-part-of-atlantic-report-that-trump-disparaged-fallen-soldiers%3F_amp%3Dtrue
oops. Looks like multiple sources confirm that this came from an honest to Godreal life staffer. He/she could be lying, sure. But a real source. Now as for your mysterious
Q ....
-
I gotta admit philosopher Rachel Tuvel had a point -- if transgenderism, why not transracialism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_transracialism_controversy
This is kind of a perfect storm brewing against modern academia. It appears she's a tenured professor. Her research and her book were praised by the academy. I don't know how her classroom teaching was rated. But what does GW do? Try to fire her? She ain't quitting as far as I can tell, even though she's falling all over herself apologizing. If her research is good, it's good whether or not she's been lying about her background.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Again, Q isn't about anonymous sources, it's in fact the opposite of that. Q shares information which can be vetted and confirmed on its own merits regardless of Q. The NYT has shown one thing for certain over the past four years of its operation: anonymous sources = BS. You might want to consider why you keep believing them when they keep on proving to be wrong.
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "anonymous"
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Those links don't make the case you are suggesting.
First, the Times article was an anonymous source (so, likely BS). Second, that article didn't say Trump didn't want to debate.
Look who doesn’t trust “anonymous sources” now — a (former, apparently) Q-Anon fan! You’re right: all that Q-ey anonymous stuff is likely BS.
I’m glad you’ve finally come to your senses.
-
4 hours ago, Brueggs said:
If the debates don't matter, why is Biden camp trying so hard to make them not happen? I know it hurts, but even you have to know why...
Because that's what the guy who's winning does.
Trump felt like he was riding high (his polls were better; whether he was actually "leading" is uncertain) he was all about finding reasons not to debate:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/24/us/politics/trump-presidential-debate.html
A few months of coronavirus and he was singing a different tune:
So much for that theory. I love how Trumpies conveniently forget his LOL flubs. Maybe we could try injecting a little common sense inside the body?
-
35 minutes ago, Greybeard said:
You did not offend me but your record on picking winners in pretty thin but you do have 3 more winners than the Bills in the big show. I should have provided a statement so you knew what I was referring to.
OK. Got it. If I was all about picking winners I would be on a Pats board right now!
-
3 minutes ago, Greybeard said:
Would you please stop being a Bills fan!!!
Oh my, somehow I seem to have offended you. My apologies for posting stuff about Politics, Polls, and Pundits in a forum named ...
-
13 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Perhaps — but in terms of political instincts, no one in DC is close to his level. He’s proven time and time again to have a seemingly preternatural instincts when it comes to politics. He keeps on being right/on the more popular side, sooner or later you can’t write it off as mere luck.I agree with that. Up until he kind of jumped the shark, Scott Adams of Dilbert fame was right on point regarding Trump's ability to "read the crowd" -- one of the reasons the rallies are so effective for him. He tests his messaging and then finds the weak point to exploit. I sense we're already seeing that as he moves away from Sleepy Joe to "Hidin' Biden". His "low energy" takedown of Jeb was perfectly executed because it just seemed to fit the bill.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Fox News is still Legacy Media.What is that supposed to mean? Legacy what? It is not NBC/ABC/CBS or even Dumont. It features -- in the prime evening slot -- Trump lapdog Hannity every night. And they're part of some kind of weird polling conspiracy aimed at suppressing the Trump vote?
-
Et tu, Fox News?
The fix is really in now.
-
1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:
You might be interested in this thread for those answers.Thanks. I'll poke around there a bit.
1 hour ago, Azalin said:1992 - Perot
1996 - Dole (not much of a choice - voted against Clinton after he admitted to smoking weed but claimed he didn't inhale it.)
2000 - Bush
2004 - Bush
2008 - McCain (not much of a choice - voted against Obama)
1012 - Romney (again, same as above)
2016 - Trump (completely fed up with 'traditional candidates' and rabidly anti-Hillary)
2020 - unless something truly outrageous happens, will vote for Trump again.
Hmm, Trump, outrageous? Nah. Not gonna happen.
-
Very interesting. I'm glad I asked the question.
Those who've flipped affiliations pretty quickly (example: Obama 2008 or 2012, Trump 2016): would you mind explaining?
-
6 minutes ago, Doc said:
I don't want to use a racist canard/dog whistle...
Good choice. I have no issue with "Wuhan Virus" since that is its origin, and there's no other virus of public health significance that originated there. China Virus is so nonspecific that its racist undertones clearly exceed any gain in clarity/simplicity (which China virus?)
-
1
-
-
OK, so I'm curious about this. There's a lot of very strident people, left and (mostly) right on the PPP forum. I'm new to this, my involvement previously being limited to, well, football.
Are these life-long beliefs? Do people change?
What's your voting history in Presidential elections?
I'll start it off, with a very limited explanation:
1980: John Anderson (the Carter-Reagan year). I didn't like Jimmy, I lived in NY which was guaranteed to go Democratic, so it was kind of a protest vote/encourage the parties to find a more sensible set of policies. Anderson was a conservative Democrat of the type that no longer exists.
1984: Mondale. I was young, and I guess liberal, though less so than most of my college friends. In retrospect, a poor decision. Maybe the only one I really regret, although it wouldn't have made any difference in that landslide election.
1988: Dukakis. Not quite as young, not quite as liberal. More of a "time for a change" vote for me.
1992: Ross Perot (the Bush 41-Clinton year). Same as 1980. I was in California, so my vote didn't really matter. Ross was crazy, but I didn't like the sleaze of Clinton and 12 years in power for either party is enough.
1996: Clinton. I was doing o.k., didn't want to rock the boat. Plus: Bob Dole. Really?
2000: Bush 43. I see that this was my first Republican vote. Again, the Clinton-Gore sleaze. Enough.
2004: Kerry. Two words: Iraq War.
2008: Obama. I liked McCain, but I thought his time had passed. Time for a new generation. Little did I know the old generation wasn't done yet (Trump/Biden)
2012: Romney. I thought Obama overreached in extending Presidential power. I hate, hate, hated "I have a pen and I have a phone." By this time Romney best fit my policy preferences too.
2016: Gary Johnson. Here I go again. By now the "I won't be trapped by the two party system" had taken on more of a libertarian air (small "l'). Plus I was in a solidly blue state so again, a free vote my conscience election.
Joe Biden’s 9/2 Speech
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Too soon. I’m sorry. 😀