Trump Is Just A Terrible President, Totally Unfit For The Job

[SectionC3]

update: still no data or article to support your tax and spend theories.  But plenty of time to invent ways to try to blame Nancy Pelosi for the president's irresponsible financial policies.  

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Cool picture.  Got a response on the merits?

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

Cool picture.  Got a response on the merits?

 

Yeah. 

 

Your view of history is warped by the fact you're ignoring about 30 years of overspending, stretching across multiple administrations. You're acting like this is new, or unique to Trump. It's not. 

[SectionC3]

18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Yeah. 

 

Your view of history is warped by the fact you're ignoring about 30 years of overspending, stretching across multiple administrations. You're acting like this is new, or unique to Trump. It's not. 

 

So you admit Trump is a "tax and spend" president.  Good.  

 

I assume you'll also acknowledge that he pursued his policies while, as he was the titular head of the organization, the Republican Party controlled the House and the Senate. 

 

I further assume that you'll admit that Trump signed the largest single economic relief bill in United States history in response to the pandemic, only weeks after saying that the virus would simply "disappear," and was nothing more than the Democrats' "new hoax."  

 

And somehow, in spite of all of those points, as well as the fiscal irresponsibility I previously detailed with respect to the imposition of the Trump tariff taxes on the middle class and the Trump tax giveaway to the rich, you'll maintain that Trump is a fiscal conservative. 

 

That. Makes. Perfect. Sense. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

So you admit Trump is a "tax and spend" president.  Good.  

 

Following in the footsteps of every modern president in our history, despite the partisan rhetoric during campaign seasons.

 

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I assume you'll also acknowledge that he pursued his policies while, as he was the titular head of the organization, the Republican Party controlled the House and the Senate. 

 

Rebuilding the military is an expensive proposition when the prior two administrations waged 20 years of war while simultaneously gutting our troops of basic necessities to win said wars. It was a necessary spending spree if you care about national defense. 

 

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I further assume that you'll admit that Trump signed the largest single economic relief bill in United States history in response to the pandemic, only weeks after saying that the virus would simply "disappear," and was nothing more than the Democrats' "new hoax."  

 

Nope. You're pushing fake news as fact. Trump never referred to the virus as a hoax, but rather the way the democrats would use it (and look, here you are doing precisely that). You aren't separating Trump's words from his actions -- which is necessary with any politician, but doubly so with Trump due to the biased coverage of the administration. He took action sooner than anyone in DC was asking, and took heat for doing so -- despite what he was saying about the virus to the public. 

 

5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

And somehow, in spite of all of those points, as well as the fiscal irresponsibility I previously detailed with respect to the imposition of the Trump tariff taxes on the middle class and the Trump tax giveaway to the rich, you'll maintain that Trump is a fiscal conservative. 

 

Nope. That's nothing I've ever said about the man. 

 

You can make assumptions about me, and then try to discuss those assumptions as if they're true -- or you can have a real, honest, conversation with me about my views. Trump was a centrist democrat for 99% of his life. He's not a fiscal conservative, he didn't run as one and certainly has not governed as one. 

[Albwan]

 

Like omg, totally terrible!

Edited April 16, 2020 by Albwan

[SectionC3]

10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Following in the footsteps of every modern president in our history, despite the partisan rhetoric during campaign seasons.

 

 

Rebuilding the military is an expensive proposition when the prior two administrations waged 20 years of war while simultaneously gutting our troops of basic necessities to win said wars. It was a necessary spending spree if you care about national defense. 

 

 

Nope. You're pushing fake news as fact. Trump never referred to the virus as a hoax, but rather the way the democrats would use it (and look, here you are doing precisely that). You aren't separating Trump's words from his actions -- which is necessary with any politician, but doubly so with Trump due to the biased coverage of the administration. He took action sooner than anyone in DC was asking, and took heat for doing so -- despite what he was saying about the virus to the public. 

 

 

Nope. That's nothing I've ever said about the man. 

 

You can make assumptions about me, and then try to discuss those assumptions as if they're true -- or you can have a real, honest, conversation with me about my views. Trump was a centrist democrat for 99% of his life. He's not a fiscal conservative, he didn't run as one and certainly has not governed as one. 

 

I agree with you on the last point.  I'll add on the fake news point that I view the "hoax" comments vastly differently from you.  Sadly, the numbers Trump referenced in the context of characterizing the virus as a hoax now are nearly true - we're probably going to reach 30,000 deaths nationwide over the next few days.  Those interested can judge for themselves: https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-speech-kag-rally-north-charleston-south-carolina-february-28-2020. 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

13 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Following in the footsteps of every modern president in our history, despite the partisan rhetoric during campaign seasons.

 

 

Rebuilding the military is an expensive proposition when the prior two administrations waged 20 years of war while simultaneously gutting our troops of basic necessities to win said wars. It was a necessary spending spree if you care about national defense. 

 

 

Nope. You're pushing fake news as fact. Trump never referred to the virus as a hoax, but rather the way the democrats would use it (and look, here you are doing precisely that). You aren't separating Trump's words from his actions -- which is necessary with any politician, but doubly so with Trump due to the biased coverage of the administration. He took action sooner than anyone in DC was asking, and took heat for doing so -- despite what he was saying about the virus to the public. 

 

 

Nope. That's nothing I've ever said about the man. 

 

You can make assumptions about me, and then try to discuss those assumptions as if they're true -- or you can have a real, honest, conversation with me about my views. Trump was a centrist democrat for 99% of his life. He's not a fiscal conservative, he didn't run as one and certainly has not governed as one. 

This why up thread I only asked him one question. I knew he couldn't be honest and as suspected he went on to answer with a lie to my question and a repeat of all of the other lies that he originally posted. He has TDS and is a shitposter, not worthy of wasting your time on.

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I'll add on the fake news point that I view the "hoax" comments vastly differently from you.

 

Why? One is backed by actual evidence, the other is pure conjecture based on misleading clips. 

 

The facts are on my side with that debate. Because it's not about Trump or partisanship. It's about reality. And the media has been lying to you about our reality for decades, but never more overtly or obviously than they have over the past four years. 

 

You can learn from that... or not. One path leads to becoming better informed, and thus more empowered and safe. The other path leads to continued ignorance and hysteria, both of which can put you in greater danger. 

[SectionC3]

8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Why? One is backed by actual evidence, the other is pure conjecture based on misleading clips. 

 

The facts are on my side with that debate. Because it's not about Trump or partisanship. It's about reality. And the media has been lying to you about our reality for decades, but never more overtly or obviously than they have over the past four years. 

 

You can learn from that... or not. One path leads to becoming better informed, and thus more empowered and safe. The other path leads to continued ignorance and hysteria, both of which can put you in greater danger. 

 

I don't know.  I find it hard to believe that the media is lying when I look at clips of TRUMP'S OWN WORDS.  Perhaps we can politely disagree on the context of those words.  But viewing the "hoax" comment in context, I stand on my position.  

[SectionC3]

16 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

This why up thread I only asked him one question. I knew he couldn't be honest and as suspected he went on to answer with a lie to my question and a repeat of all of the other lies that he originally posted. He has TDS and is a shitposter, not worthy of wasting your time on.

 

I answered.  Even posted a link, which described the warning issued by the WHO on January 7 and the publication of relevant genetic sequencing information on January 12.  Then I pointed out that, in the weeks that followed, Trump attempted to wish the virus away (it will just "disappear," he said) and characterized it as a "hoax."   

 

Rather than respond on the merits, you resorted to a falsity (indicating that I had somehow "lie[d]," without specifying how I had misspoken or attempted to mislead) and a pejorative (characterizing me as "a shitposter" not "worthy of [even the] wasting of time").  

 

Demonizing the opponent when defeated on the merits is a common Trump tactic.  You tried hard to apply it here.  Unfortunately you have failed. 

 

If you have time to try to take apart my other "lies," I'll be around later.  If not, have a nice day and stay healthy. 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I answered.  Even posted a link, which described the warning issued by the WHO on January 7 and the publication of relevant genetic sequencing information on January 12.  Then I pointed out that, in the weeks that followed, Trump attempted to wish the virus away (it will just "disappear," he said) and characterized it as a "hoax."   

 

Rather than respond on the merits, you resorted to a falsity (indicating that I had somehow "lie[d]," without specifying how I had misspoken or attempted to mislead) and a pejorative (characterizing me as "a shitposter" not "worthy of [even the] wasting of time").  

 

Demonizing the opponent when defeated on the merits is a common Trump tactic.  You tried hard to apply it here.  Unfortunately you have failed. 

 

If you have time to try to take apart my other "lies," I'll be around later.  If not, have a nice day and stay healthy. 

What was the date that the WHO quit saying that the virus could not be transferred from human to human? That date is critical since I don't think anyone would disagree that we shouldn't be worried about an epidemic in the U.S. based on eating bats.

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I don't know.  I find it hard to believe that the media is lying when I look at clips of TRUMP'S OWN WORDS.  Perhaps we can politely disagree on the context of those words.  But viewing the "hoax" comment in context, I stand on my position.  

I have nothing against polite disagreement — and am always up for conversations on tough topics even with (especially with) people like yourself who hold opposing views. It’s the only way to learn from each other and to test the mettle of our own opinions. So no dear there.  

 

The only thing I’d add, with the above intended politeness in mind, look at the media’s recent track record. It’s unimpressive at best, disastrous at worst. 
 

* The media got WMD in Iraq all the way wrong — and cost million(s) of lives, and trillions in treasure because of it. Because they relied on anonymous intelligence officials leaking / steering them from the shadows. 
 

* The media got mass surveillance ALL the way wrong between 2001-2013. It wasn’t until Snowden presented the world, not the media, with proof that they were lying about mass surveillance that the media suddenly changed its tune. 
 

* The media (intentionally) got Trump/Russia all the way wrong, and aided a back door coup attempt during the course of misinforming the public about what really happened in the 2016 election. 
 

Add to that list every time they played an out of context clip about Trump which ends up being false when held up to scrutiny:

 

* Trump mocking a disabled reporter (didn’t happen)

* Trump “good people on both sides” comments in Charlottesville. (completely distorted) 
* And now this whole “hoax” virus comment, which also didn’t happen. 
 

Don’t trust clips from the same media outlets who ran video of a Kentucky Gun range and said it was Syria, or who ran footage from inside Italian hospitals while saying it was in the US. 
 

They’ve proven to be dishonest actors. 

 

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

What was the date that the WHO quit saying that the virus could not be transferred from human to human? That date is critical since I don't think anyone would disagree that we shouldn't be worried about an epidemic in the U.S. based on eating bats.

 

January 21, 2020.  Long before the "disappear" and "hoax" comments.  

 

 

Any time you're ready to respond to my other points on the merits let me know.  

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

I have nothing against polite disagreement — and am always up for conversations on tough topics even with (especially with) people like yourself who hold opposing views. It’s the only way to learn from each other and to test the mettle of our own opinions. So no dear there.  

 

The only thing I’d add, with the above intended politeness in mind, look at the media’s recent track record. It’s unimpressive at best, disastrous at worst. 
 

* The media got WMD in Iraq all the way wrong — and cost million(s) of lives, and trillions in treasure because of it. Because they relied on anonymous intelligence officials leaking / steering them from the shadows. 
 

* The media got mass surveillance ALL the way wrong between 2001-2013. It wasn’t until Snowden presented the world, not the media, with proof that they were lying about mass surveillance that the media suddenly changed its tune. 
 

* The media (intentionally) got Trump/Russia all the way wrong, and aided a back door coup attempt during the course of misinforming the public about what really happened in the 2016 election. 
 

Add to that list every time they played an out of context clip about Trump which ends up being false when held up to scrutiny:

 

* Trump mocking a disabled reporter (didn’t happen)

* Trump “good people on both sides” comments in Charlottesville. (completely distorted) 
* And now this whole “hoax” virus comment, which also didn’t happen. 
 

Don’t trust clips from the same media outlets who ran video of a Kentucky Gun range and said it was Syria, or who ran footage from inside Italian hospitals while saying it was in the US. 
 

They’ve proven to be dishonest actors. 

 

 

I'll try to stop back later, but the "dishonest actors" thing is something I take issue with.  Bad reporting?  Perhaps.  Too trusting?  Perhaps also tru.  But just to get to the first point re: WMD, the fundamental problem was that the government (looking at you, Dick Cheney) sold a bill of goods about some yellow cake uranium nonsense.  The media trusted the government, and frankly got it wrong.  But the media doesn't bear primary responsibility for that.  It rested with the government. 

 

Now, when the media challenges the government (watch the Trump pressers every evening), the response is that mistrust of the government somehow is problematic (those who challenge the president's views are cast as "bad reporters," or "nasty," or "terrible," or, even in the case of the WSJ, "fake news").    

 

So I see the "dishonest actors" point as sort of trying to have things both ways.  

 

On "Russia" and its aftermath, I simply and respectfully disagree.  The Mueller report (which I read) could have taken a position on legal sufficiency to exonerate the president (e.g., concluding that there is legally insufficient evidence to support an obstruction charge).  The fact that Mueller refused to so conclude speaks volumes.  It definitely contradicts the president's lie about "exoneration." And from my perspective it supports the public skepticism with respect to his response to the investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election. 

[3rdnlng]

15 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

January 21, 2020.  Long before the "disappear" and "hoax" comments.  

 

 

Any time you're ready to respond to my other points on the merits let me know.  

Is that why you tried to pass off January 7th and 12th as important dates? See, this is why I called you dishonest. I picked one point out and you responded with a lie. I have no desire to respond to all of your false statements because I'm pretty sure I'd just get more of the same from you. 

[Deranged Rhino]

34 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I'll try to stop back later, but the "dishonest actors" thing is something I take issue with.  Bad reporting?  Perhaps.  Too trusting?  Perhaps also tru.  But just to get to the first point re: WMD, the fundamental problem was that the government (looking at you, Dick Cheney) sold a bill of goods about some yellow cake uranium nonsense.  The media trusted the government, and frankly got it wrong.  But the media doesn't bear primary responsibility for that.  It rested with the government. 

 

The point of WMD/Media is not that they bear the responsibilities of making decisions of state, but that they bungled the story from top to bottom -- not because of Cheney, but because their model depended upon trusting anonymous intelligence officials to leak stories to them without providing the evidence to back it up. If the NYTs (as an example, looking at Miller especially) hadn't run the stories they were told to run, they'd lose access to these sources going forward. 

 

Because the media is lazy. They don't do their jobs, they parrot what they're told to report by those "with access". That should be alarming to you as a consumer of their product. 

 

36 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Now, when the media challenges the government (watch the Trump pressers every evening), the response is that mistrust of the government somehow is problematic (those who challenge the president's views are cast as "bad reporters," or "nasty," or "terrible," or, even in the case of the WSJ, "fake news").    

 

They earned that moniker based on their model. They knowingly pushed information which they knew to be false about Trump/Russia because they chose to build a narrative with a political agenda rather than tell the public the truth. There's no doubt about this now, the evidence of their malfeasance in terms of covering the Trump/Russia story (which was never true, and even Mueller knew so before he ever took the job as SCO) is overwhelming to the point of absurdity. 

 

The media has had three years to apologize, backtrack, or even admit they messed up. But instead of doing any of that, they've doubled down on their lies and pushed the theory (for years) that anyone who disagreed with their take on Russia were either Russian bots or Putin supporters. 

 

Now we know, with the distance of time and reams of evidence, that they were wrong from the start.

 

Not because they're bad reporters. But because they chose to deceive the public rather than report the truth. 

 

Think of how much ink was spilled covering Trump/Russia over the last 3 years. How many times did you hear: "THIS IS IT! THEY GOT TRUMP NOW!", only to have the whole story fall apart due to it being wrong (Cohen in Prague as an example). 

 

40 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

So I see the "dishonest actors" point as sort of trying to have things both ways.  

 

My comments are solely about the media. It's our job as citizens to distrust the government, I have no problem with that. But the mistake is in thinking there has been any sort of meaningful divide between the media and the government pre-Trump.

 

There never was.

 

That's not conspiracy, it's fact. Because the model the modern journalists used relied upon anonymous sources from inside that very government -- not to mention the incestuous nature of how many major media outlets were run by (or overseen in an editorial position) by people either directly serving in government, or married to those who were. 

 

To paraphrase a wiser man than I: "It's one big club. And you ain't in it."

 

43 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

On "Russia" and its aftermath, I simply and respectfully disagree.  The Mueller report (which I read) could have taken a position on legal sufficiency to exonerate the president (e.g., concluding that there is legally insufficient evidence to support an obstruction charge).  The fact that Mueller refused to so conclude speaks volumes.  It definitely contradicts the president's lie about "exoneration." And from my perspective it supports the public skepticism with respect to his response to the investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election. 

 

The bolded is false. All the way false. No prosecutor in this country is responsible for exonerating anyone. The bar in this country is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty unless exonerated. Taking this position exposes your own partisan leanings more than a search for truth. Volume I completely cleared Trump of the central charge for 2 years -- namely that there was Trump/Russian collusion to sway the election. Mueller himself, in volume one, said this did not happen. 

 

And now we now know for certain, with evidence from the OIG, that Mueller's team knew before he even was assigned the case, that there was no "there there" in terms of collusion/conspiracy. They knew that, yet he dragged out the investigation for 2 years regardless. Why? Because it allowed them to interfere in the 2018 midterms, just as the IC interfered in the 2016 presidential election. 

 

Trump/Russia was fiction created by the Obama intelligence heads to interfere and overturn the 2016 election. The evidence for this isn't speculative. It's damning. 

 

[SectionC3]

Actually you asked what the WHO did w/r/t the virus.  I responded that a warning was issued on 1/7, and that the genetic sequence was issued on 1/12.  
 

Then, among other things, you seized upon the fact that I did not refer to another action taken by the WHO on 1/21 as reflective of your pint that I had somehow “lied.”

 

Even using your twisted logic, the president should have known, through the WHO, of the issue re: the virus no later than 1/21.  And yet he proceeded to pass the issue off as a hoax and dream it away weeks later.  
 

Finally, you mentioned that I had made false statements (plural).  I’m still curious what those are.  I’ll take your inability to identify those statements as proof that there were no falsities.  And I’ll take your parachute out of the conversation based on your lack of desire to respond to these invented “lies” as a reflection of your admission that you can’t hang intellectually, took your ball, and went home a sore loser rather than admit defeat.  
 

have a nice night and stay healthy. 

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The point of WMD/Media is not that they bear the responsibilities of making decisions of state, but that they bungled the story from top to bottom -- not because of Cheney, but because their model depended upon trusting anonymous intelligence officials to leak stories to them without providing the evidence to back it up. If the NYTs (as an example, looking at Miller especially) hadn't run the stories they were told to run, they'd lose access to these sources going forward. 

 

Because the media is lazy. They don't do their jobs, they parrot what they're told to report by those "with access". That should be alarming to you as a consumer of their product. 

 

 

They earned that moniker based on their model. They knowingly pushed information which they knew to be false about Trump/Russia because they chose to build a narrative with a political agenda rather than tell the public the truth. There's no doubt about this now, the evidence of their malfeasance in terms of covering the Trump/Russia story (which was never true, and even Mueller knew so before he ever took the job as SCO) is overwhelming to the point of absurdity. 

 

The media has had three years to apologize, backtrack, or even admit they messed up. But instead of doing any of that, they've doubled down on their lies and pushed the theory (for years) that anyone who disagreed with their take on Russia were either Russian bots or Putin supporters. 

 

Now we know, with the distance of time and reams of evidence, that they were wrong from the start.

 

Not because they're bad reporters. But because they chose to deceive the public rather than report the truth. 

 

Think of how much ink was spilled covering Trump/Russia over the last 3 years. How many times did you hear: "THIS IS IT! THEY GOT TRUMP NOW!", only to have the whole story fall apart due to it being wrong (Cohen in Prague as an example). 

 

 

My comments are solely about the media. It's our job as citizens to distrust the government, I have no problem with that. But the mistake is in thinking there has been any sort of meaningful divide between the media and the government pre-Trump.

 

There never was.

 

That's not conspiracy, it's fact. Because the model the modern journalists used relied upon anonymous sources from inside that very government -- not to mention the incestuous nature of how many major media outlets were run by (or overseen in an editorial position) by people either directly serving in government, or married to those who were. 

 

To paraphrase a wiser man than I: "It's one big club. And you ain't in it."

 

 

The bolded is false. All the way false. No prosecutor in this country is responsible for exonerating anyone. The bar in this country is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty unless exonerated. Taking this position exposes your own partisan leanings more than a search for truth. Volume I completely cleared Trump of the central charge for 2 years -- namely that there was Trump/Russian collusion to sway the election. Mueller himself, in volume one, said this did not happen. 

 

And now we now know for certain, with evidence from the OIG, that Mueller's team knew before he even was assigned the case, that there was no "there there" in terms of collusion/conspiracy. They knew that, yet he dragged out the investigation for 2 years regardless. Why? Because it allowed them to interfere in the 2018 midterms, just as the IC interfered in the 2016 presidential election. 

 

Trump/Russia was fiction created by the Obama intelligence heads to interfere and overturn the 2016 election. The evidence for this isn't speculative. It's damning. 

 

With respect on your statement on prosecutors, respectfully, you’re wrong.  Prosecutors don’t exonerate; that much is true.  But prosecutors can no bill based on the absence of legally sufficient evidence.  Mueller easily could have done that.  He consciously refused to do so.  
 

on the rest of the Russia issue, surely there was some flawed reporting.  But there is something to the story as a whole.  The gist of the mueller report was that team trump was to inept to collude.  So the media might have had parts of the story wrong, but parts too were correct.  
 

On the anonymous sources issue, with respect that’s how reporting works.  Look at watergate.  That doesn’t happen without anonymous sources.  Sometimes reporters get played.  But that’s part of how it works. 

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

With respect on your statement on prosecutors, respectfully, you’re wrong.  Prosecutors don’t exonerate; that much is true.  But prosecutors can no bill based on the absence of legally sufficient evidence.  Mueller easily could have done that.  He consciously refused to do so.  

 

Because he's a partisan and was intentionally deceiving the country. That's an important factor to keep in mind which has nothing to do with our legal system or rule of law. We know this is fact now, not conjecture. His team, many of whom worked on Cross Fire Hurricane, knew in January of 2017 (at the latest) that there was no there-there. Those same people worked as Mueller's investigators. There's no way Mueller didn't know -- unless he was a puppet (which he was) and removed from the day to day activities of the people he was in charge of. 

 

The bar in this country is innocent until proven guilty. Full stop. That doesn't change for the president. Volume I was definitive in its conclusion that there was not enough evidence to even bring that charge. 

 

8 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

on the rest of the Russia issue, surely there was some flawed reporting.  But there is something to the story as a whole.  The gist of the mueller report was that team trump was to inept to collude.  So the media might have had parts of the story wrong, but parts too were correct.  

 

There was something more to the story -- but it has everything to do with Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, and Obama who paid foreign spies for information they knew to be false in order to build a FAKE narrative designed to ensure Clinton's victory (at first) and then Trump's ouster (second). The entire story was fiction. Every bit of it. And the parts you think are "correct" I promise you are distortions. Like the Trump Tower meeting -- which was not at all what Mueller tried to paint it as being. All of this was done hide this: 

 

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

 

Which is what really started the Trump/Russia story. It's a FISC opinion memo, describing how the NSA under Admiral Rogers discovered the FBI and DOJ had been abusing the 702 system for years to illegally spy on Americans. The FISC found 85% of the queries run out of the FBI and DOJ on the 702 programs were illegal and done by private contractors (working for the administration). It was a MAJOR scandal, which carry potential jail time in the dozens of years for some of the biggest names in the Obama administration. 

 

This broke within the IC in March and April of 2016 -- long before there were any Trump/Russia stories or rumblings. That story didn't exist (because it wasn't real). But in the immediate days and weeks of the NSA ordering the audit of the DOJ/FBI abuses, Obama's intelligence chiefs were suddenly scrambling to hire oppo research firm Fusion GPS and deploying long time western intelligence assets to entrap Trump team members (Halper, Downer, Mifsud et al). 

 

Again, you'll recoil at what I said above -- because the media has lied to you about this story for three years. But every single thing above can be backed up with evidence. More evidence than any bit of the Trump/Russia story every produced. 

 

15 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

On the anonymous sources issue, with respect that’s how reporting works.  Look at watergate.  That doesn’t happen without anonymous sources.  Sometimes reporters get played.  But that’s part of how it works. 

 

Anonymous sources are important, I don't deny that. But the problem comes when the entire profession is based on them to the point of being dependent upon them. Especially when it comes to sources within the Intelligence Community. A dependence can be, and has been, exploited by the IC in order to control the narrative. That's been SOP for the IC and the media since the 60s. It's not new. 

 

But it's DEEPLY problematic if your agenda is truth. 

 

(and I appreciate the civil conversation even though we disagree  )

[3rdnlng]

49 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Actually you asked what the WHO did w/r/t the virus.  I responded that a warning was issued on 1/7, and that the genetic sequence was issued on 1/12.  
 

Then, among other things, you seized upon the fact that I did not refer to another action taken by the WHO on 1/21 as reflective of your pint that I had somehow “lied.”

 

Even using your twisted logic, the president should have known, through the WHO, of the issue re: the virus no later than 1/21.  And yet he proceeded to pass the issue off as a hoax and dream it away weeks later.  
 

Finally, you mentioned that I had made false statements (plural).  I’m still curious what those are.  I’ll take your inability to identify those statements as proof that there were no falsities.  And I’ll take your parachute out of the conversation based on your lack of desire to respond to these invented “lies” as a reflection of your admission that you can’t hang intellectually, took your ball, and went home a sore loser rather than admit defeat.  
 

have a nice night and stay healthy. 

 

The WHO declared that the coronavirus could be passed from human to human on 1-31-2020. On 1-23-2020 China shut down its movie theaters. If the WHO was doing its job they would have at least presumed that China knew something about the virus's ability to go from human to human. They lied for over a week.

 

Your "hoax" bs is just that and it has been proven over and over that Trump was not calling the virus a hoax but the MSM and dems narrative was what was the hoax. If you are not aware of that you either have not been following the coronavirus situation for long or you're just a dumb *****. Either way I have no desire to take the time educate your dumb ass. 

[SectionC3]

4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

The WHO declared that the coronavirus could be passed from human to human on 1-31-2020. On 1-23-2020 China shut down its movie theaters. If the WHO was doing its job they would have at least presumed that China knew something about the virus's ability to go from human to human. They lied for over a week.

 

Your "hoax" bs is just that and it has been proven over and over that Trump was not calling the virus a hoax but the MSM and dems narrative was what was the hoax. If you are not aware of that you either have not been following the coronavirus situation for long or you're just a dumb *****. Either way I have no desire to take the time educate your dumb ass. 

Yeah I’m dumb.  That’s it.  Name calling your way out of losing an argument isn’t going to work.  Try watching the video link I posted earlier.