RochesterRob Posted November 27, 2019 Posted November 27, 2019 On 11/27/2019 at 8:59 PM, Chef Jim said: Wait...the Democrats invented 401k’s/IRA’s/mutual funds/ETF’s etc? Gee I had no idea. Please explain what Democrat policies make all these elderly people so rich. Expand 100 years ago a Democrat Woodrow Wilson was President. What was the matter with them back then that there was so much poverty amongst the elderly? Retirements couldn't have something to do with post WWII prosperity with labor markets tight enough to force companies to offer pensions as enticements for people to work for them? Why do the elderly need to work today if the Democrats did such a fantastic job? The wife and I were just talking about this last night as a matter of fact. The Democrats did not do such a great job that pensions were not raided by management of quite a number of US companies forcing many employees to work in their golden years.
DC Tom Posted November 27, 2019 Posted November 27, 2019 On 11/27/2019 at 9:09 PM, Hedge said: Expand I just want to take a moment to proactively call Democrats hypocrites for not believing these women. 1
Warren Zevon Posted November 27, 2019 Posted November 27, 2019 (edited) On 11/27/2019 at 8:47 PM, transplantbillsfan said: Since the title of this thread mentions how the Dems are trying to (I guess...?) distract from what will be extremely incriminating evidence coming out in the OIG regarding the 2016 election, I guess this belongs here: Expand The determination by the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is expected to be a key finding in his highly anticipated report due out on Dec. 9 examining aspects of the Russia investigation. The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped. The startling accusation generated headlines but Mr. Trump never backed it up. The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives’ claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — eavesdropping that Mr. Trump’s allies have long decried as politically motivated. Edited November 27, 2019 by Gary Busey
DC Tom Posted November 27, 2019 Posted November 27, 2019 On 11/27/2019 at 9:12 PM, Gary Busey said: The determination by the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is expected to be a key finding in his highly anticipated report due out on Dec. 9 examining aspects of the Russia investigation. The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped. The startling accusation generated headlines but Mr. Trump never backed it up. The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives’ claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — eavesdropping that Mr. Trump’s allies have long decried as politically motivated. Expand It all comes down to what supports your preconceived notions. DR's going to call this disinformation by the deep state. You accept it as an inviolable truth.
row_33 Posted November 27, 2019 Posted November 27, 2019 exposure is taking it a step more than being rude
Nanker Posted November 27, 2019 Posted November 27, 2019 On 11/27/2019 at 6:23 PM, jrober38 said: The Thompson was around in 1913? Expand 1918.
Albwan Posted November 27, 2019 Posted November 27, 2019 On 11/27/2019 at 9:12 PM, Gary Busey said: The determination by the inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is expected to be a key finding in his highly anticipated report due out on Dec. 9 examining aspects of the Russia investigation. The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped. The startling accusation generated headlines but Mr. Trump never backed it up. The finding is one of several by Mr. Horowitz that undercuts conservatives’ claims that the F.B.I. acted improperly in investigating several Trump associates starting in 2016. He also found that F.B.I. leaders did not take politically motivated actions in pursuing a secret wiretap on a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page — eavesdropping that Mr. Trump’s allies have long decried as politically motivated. Expand Because typing giant letters really makes it more "believable". You're really one annoying individual. Bye now.
Deranged Rhino Posted November 27, 2019 Author Posted November 27, 2019 On 11/27/2019 at 9:06 PM, Foxx said: trans, please do not be a sheep. understand exactly what is being claimed that the FBI did, not what the spin wants to twist things into. also understand that you are attempting to be conditioned here so they can play you when it actually does come out. Expand They know the majority of people will not read the report, let alone the executive summary of it, so this is all to frame the issue before it drops. Then they can double down on their position here by cherry picking what the report says. Information warfare 101. This is the second article now from the Times which has been a muddled mess, shifted the entire story (Misfud is now a "Russian intermediary", Clinesmith is now back to a Sr level attorney after being demoted in the first story to a low level FBI 'employee'), and spouted absolute bunk as fact (Halper wasn't "inside" the campaign, thus he wasn't sent in to spy). All this, and none of them reporting on it have read the report yet. Not one person. On 11/27/2019 at 9:14 PM, DC Tom said: It all comes down to what supports your preconceived notions. DR's going to call this disinformation by the deep state. You accept it as an inviolable truth. Expand No. There's fact and there's spin. This isn't even good spin. The charge was never that he had his phones tapped. But that he was wiretapped -- which has a very specific meaning in Intel/Counterintel speak. We know he was. That's what the Page warrant was all about. 4
John Adams Posted November 27, 2019 Posted November 27, 2019 On 11/27/2019 at 9:57 PM, Deranged Rhino said: No. There's fact and there's spin. This isn't even good spin. Expand From the spinmaster of spinmasters,
Foxx Posted November 27, 2019 Posted November 27, 2019 On 11/27/2019 at 9:57 PM, Deranged Rhino said: They know the majority of people will not read the report, let alone the executive summary of it, so this is all to frame the issue before it drops. Then they can double down on their position here by cherry picking what the report says. Information warfare 101. This is the second article now from the Times which has been a muddled mess, shifted the entire story (Misfud is now a "Russian intermediary", Clinesmith is now back to a Sr level attorney after being demoted in the first story to a low level FBI 'employee'), and spouted absolute bunk as fact (Halper wasn't "inside" the campaign, thus he wasn't sent in to spy). All this, and none of them reporting on it have read the report yet. Not one person. ... Expand i had concerns about the mentions in the report being allowed to read it for rebuttals. my concern was that, were they being compartmentalized with only the portions that mention them directly or if they had access to the complete report whereby they had complete knowledge of it. i can't remember now where i read it today but, i read something to the effect that stated they were only allowed access to portions that directly implicated them in some way. so, if indeed this is true, anything we are reading today is subjective at best and probably more likely just downright dubious. 2 1
Deranged Rhino Posted November 27, 2019 Author Posted November 27, 2019 On 11/27/2019 at 10:09 PM, Foxx said: i had concerns about the mentions in the report being allowed to read it for rebuttals. my concern was that, were they being compartmentalized with only the portions that mention them directly or if they had access to the complete report whereby they had complete knowledge of it. i can't remember now where i read it today but, i read something to the effect that stated they were only allowed access to portions that directly implicated them in some way. so, if indeed this is true, anything we are reading today is subjective at best and probably more likely just downright dubious. Expand Correct. Only portions, and they had to sign an NDA saying they wouldn't discuss it. So do that math. 2
keepthefaith Posted November 27, 2019 Posted November 27, 2019 (edited) On 11/27/2019 at 9:57 PM, Deranged Rhino said: They know the majority of people will not read the report, let alone the executive summary of it, so this is all to frame the issue before it drops. Then they can double down on their position here by cherry picking what the report says. Information warfare 101. This is the second article now from the Times which has been a muddled mess, shifted the entire story (Misfud is now a "Russian intermediary", Clinesmith is now back to a Sr level attorney after being demoted in the first story to a low level FBI 'employee'), and spouted absolute bunk as fact (Halper wasn't "inside" the campaign, thus he wasn't sent in to spy). All this, and none of them reporting on it have read the report yet. Not one person. No. There's fact and there's spin. This isn't even good spin. The charge was never that he had his phones tapped. But that he was wiretapped -- which has a very specific meaning in Intel/Counterintel speak. We know he was. That's what the Page warrant was all about. Expand What this really says is that Obama and the IC and the DNC truly lacked confidence in H's victory. If it were as in-the-bag as most of the media and pollsters pushed and the public thought, there would have been no reason to take any risk in spying on Trump. If Obama and his very top people initiated all this, they have to be given credit for having a good read on how competitive this election was. Or it was a hedge against Hillary imploding due to her health or email problems or the dislike for her or all three. She imploded. I was shocked on election night 2016. A night I will never forget. The worst of it though has come since the election IMO. Edited November 27, 2019 by keepthefaith 1
Deranged Rhino Posted November 27, 2019 Author Posted November 27, 2019 On 11/27/2019 at 10:40 PM, keepthefaith said: What this really says is that Obama and the IC and the DNC truly lacked confidence in H's victory. If it were as in-the-bag as most of the media and pollsters pushed and the public thought, there would have been no reason to take any risk in spying on Trump. If Obama and his very top people initiated all this, they have to be given credit for having a good read on how competitive this election was. Or it was a hedge against Hillary imploding due to her health or email problems or the dislike for her or all three. She imploded. The worst of it though has come since the election IMO. Expand On the surface I'd agree fully -- but there's one problem: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf The above was forced them to make their formerly covert (and highly illegal) political spying more "official". What that doc lays out was exposed by the NSA head in the spring of 2016, and their pipeline to 702 data was cut off. Worse, they had to come up with legal explanations for their previous abuses of the query system (which they've still yet to do for over 75% of them btw). The reality is, they were spying on Trump (and everyone) illegally for most of 2015, and likely through the 2012/2014 cycles. Admiral Rogers caught them with their hands in the cookie jar and a justification was needed. Enter: "RUSSIA!" Which, did not exist as a news story, or a grave geopolitical concern until after this was exposed. The spin "they had to cut corners because RUSSIA" will work, and has worked, on the low information people and the partisans. But it doesn't change the fact that what was exposed in that document predated Trump's dive into politics by years. 3 1
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 27, 2019 Posted November 27, 2019 On 11/27/2019 at 8:58 PM, dubs said: 2/3 house and senate, 3/4 the states to amend obviously no, but it it doesn’t mean the document is defective, just the people who came after who are responsible for following it. Expand Your first sentence doesn’t address the questions I asked you. The second is wrong. The document is quite defective. The first step to solving any problem is to first identify all causal factors.
Koko78 Posted November 28, 2019 Posted November 28, 2019 On 11/25/2019 at 6:53 PM, B-Man said: POT COMMITTED: Schiff says Democrats will press forward despite lack of testimony from key impeachment witnesses. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday that his panel will press ahead with its impeachment report even though key witnesses have not testified, in the latest signal that Democrats are moving swiftly in their probe of President Trump’s alleged efforts to pressure Ukraine. In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Schiff said the evidence against Trump is “already overwhelming,” although he stopped short of saying whether he would support impeachment himself. Translation: The evidence is not overwhelming, and polls are trending against impeachment. Expand Interesting. I wonder if Nadler is retiring and is willing to be the fall guy for killing impeachment in the Judiciary Committee. I hope not. The Senate trial is going to be an entertaining trainwreck for the Democrats.
Deranged Rhino Posted November 28, 2019 Author Posted November 28, 2019 On 11/28/2019 at 4:10 AM, Koko78 said: Interesting. I wonder if Nadler is retiring and is willing to be the fall guy for killing impeachment in the Judiciary Committee. I hope not. The Senate trial is going to be an entertaining trainwreck for the Democrats. Expand The hearings on the 11th will be a gauge the DNC leadership will follow closely, I imagine. It'll be the first time we've (the masses) seen the Senate in awhile, they'll have a juicy biscuit to tear into in Horowitz. And it doesn't hurt that one of the major subjects of said hearing will involve the inappropriate use of federal assets to spy on the political opposition... (Why, one would almost think it was set up this way, and Schiff/Pelosi walked right into a bear trap. But I digress) If those go as well for Trump's administration as they should, based purely on what's in OS alone (and the hay the GOP Senators can make with it with 5 min of questioning/camera time) -- I have to think that would scare the pants off even a man as large as Mr. Nadler. 5
Rob's House Posted November 28, 2019 Posted November 28, 2019 On 11/27/2019 at 8:55 AM, Doc Brown said: Like poor people, single mothers, uninsured, the VA, and the disabled. Just horrible people. Clinton never had the support for impeachment that Trump has right now. Plus, I believe the PPP acronym involves polls. Expand That's a pretty broad spectrum of people, many of whom have the ability to change that situation on their own, so yeah, I do think someone who wants to steal from us at gunpoint to buy their support/subsidize their sloth, is a horrible person.
Recommended Posts