DNC builds fence (wall?) around convention site? [Archive] - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Ian

07-28-2016, 06:58 AM

Ummm, maybe you don't know what hypocrisy means.

Republicans are openly in favor of walls for security. SO it' snot surprising that they'd have a fence at their convention.

Now follow closely, here is the important part...

Democrats like to attack Republicans for the fact that we want a wall on the border. Democrats say that we should be building bridges, not walls. And they use this notion at attack Trump.

So if Democrats think it's immoral for Trump to build a wall for security, it's very interesting (read: indefensible bullsh*t) that those same Dems want a wall for their own security.

SO the Dems want a wall to protect them in Philadelphia. But American citizens who live near the Mexican border, are not entitled to the same protection.

Can you explain why that is?

Have fun with that.

So beyond the symbolic hypocrisy here, I have to point out two things:

1) How the hell is the convention supposed to protect its attendees? If they DIDN'T put up a fence and god forbid a couple whack jobs from ISIS made there way in there and caused some crap to happen, you'd all be saying, "Where was the fence? Where was the security?" (And don't say "Democrats hate walls, so they'll have to figure it out themselves... why don't they protect themselves with spoons because once they've taken away all the guns and fences, we're all defenseless" because thats just plain BS and we all know it)

2) The cost of 4 miles of fence around the DNC in Philly vs the cost of a 2000 mile fence are quite different... Like 500x different. Add to that the fact that people would be pole vaulting over an 8' fence on that border, and you have a pretty weak argument. An 8' fence surrounding a convention isn't "huge" and isn't a "wall"... Call a spade a spade and choose a different topic to bend to your own will.

At this point in this race, I'm shocked that anyone can still be lambasting Hillary, because if she loses, Trump wins. You think the rest of the world hates us right now? You think things were bad under the diplomatic policies of Obama, where we tried to settle things with conversation and reason? You think our soldiers were unsafe with Obama calling the shots as the commander in chief?

I have news for you, this guy is a full on whack job. You can paint the whole "I don't like either one" but the reality is that one of them is going to win. And if its not Hillary, its Trump. The past 8 years have proven that a President with aspirations for social change in this country is borderline powerless, and can't do much along a hard left agenda. The next 4 years under President Trump would be a lesson in how much HARM a president can do to our domestic and foreign status. I don't really like her either, but good god she's a better choice than a guy who openly praises the leadership abilities of multiple foreign dictators and invites espionage from a hostile foreign country to forward his status in a national election.

Give me a break

PaulS

07-28-2016, 07:06 AM

What verbal gynastics?
He didn't ask them to hack into anyone's computer and the 30,000 emails he hopes they find. According to Hillary the 30,000 emails were only the personal emails that she deleted. Could there have been information that wasn't personal that she deleted after all? No, she would never lie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hopefully, they find the 20,000,000 emails that were on the RNC's server that the RNC deleted - right?

ecduzitgood

07-28-2016, 07:11 AM

So beyond the symbolic hypocrisy here, I have to point out two things:

1) How the hell is the convention supposed to protect its attendees? If they DIDN'T put up a fence and god forbid a couple whack jobs from ISIS made there way in there and caused some crap to happen, you'd all be saying, "Where was the fence? Where was the security?" (And don't say "Democrats hate walls, so they'll have to figure it out themselves... why don't they protect themselves with spoons because once they've taken away all the guns and fences, we're all defenseless" because thats just plain BS and we all know it)

2) The cost of 4 miles of fence around the DNC in Philly vs the cost of a 2000 mile fence are quite different... Like 500x different. Add to that the fact that people would be pole vaulting over an 8' fence on that border, and you have a pretty weak argument. An 8' fence surrounding a convention isn't "huge" and isn't a "wall"... Call a spade a spade and choose a different topic to bend to your own will.

At this point in this race, I'm shocked that anyone can still be lambasting Hillary, because if she loses, Trump wins. You think the rest of the world hates us right now? You think things were bad under the diplomatic policies of Obama, where we tried to settle things with conversation and reason? You think our soldiers were unsafe with Obama calling the shots as the commander in chief?

I have news for you, this guy is a full on whack job. You can paint the whole "I don't like either one" but the reality is that one of them is going to win. And if its not Hillary, its Trump. The past 8 years have proven that a President with aspirations for social change in this country is borderline powerless, and can't do much along a hard left agenda. The next 4 years under President Trump would be a lesson in how much HARM a president can do to our domestic and foreign status. I don't really like her either, but good god she's a better choice than a guy who openly praises the leadership abilities of multiple foreign dictators and invites espionage from a hostile foreign country to forward his status in a national election.

Give me a break

Unless some foreign entity has the 30,000 missing emails and they use them to influence her. Then let's not forget The pay to play issue with the Clinton Foundation and Bills speaking fees that should alarm anyone with half a brain.

https://youtu.be/YoTn3cHtXxQ
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

07-28-2016, 07:22 AM

More hilarious comments by Trump yesterday. Doesn't know the difference bt Tim Kaine and Tom Kean. Jive and Jibe. Kurds vs Quds.

Why doesn't Ivanka take his phone away?

ecduzitgood

07-28-2016, 07:34 AM

More hilarious comments by Trump yesterday. Doesn't know the difference bt Tim Kaine and Tom Kean. Jive and Jibe. Kurds vs Quds.

Why doesn't Ivanka take his phone away?

Not many people knew either Kaine or Kean until he, let's go with the Democratic term, mispoke.
I noticed you didn't have time to view the video. Take 12 minutes and see what the rest of us know.

https://youtu.be/YoTn3cHtXxQ

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ecduzitgood

07-28-2016, 07:47 AM

Those pesky 30,000 personal emails

https://youtu.be/FejTKEyveAA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman

07-28-2016, 08:00 AM

Hopefully, they find the 20,000,000 emails that were on the RNC's server that the RNC deleted - right?

Maybe the RNC takes security a little more seriously...I mean the other sides servers are just getting hacked left and right
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

07-28-2016, 08:15 AM

Maybe the RNC takes security a little more seriously...I mean the other sides servers are just getting hacked left and right
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So it was ok to use private email accts then but not recently? When did the law change? Do we know the RNC's servers were or were not hacked?

Is there a difference?

PaulS

07-28-2016, 08:16 AM

Not many people knew either Kaine or Kean until he, let's go with the Democratic term, mispoke.
I noticed you didn't have time to view the video. Take 12 minutes and see what the rest of us know.

https://youtu.be/YoTn3cHtXxQ

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really, not many people knew either? They were major politicians. Trump just made the comment 1 day ago. :biglaugh: So you're saying it is ok for a Presidential Candidate not to know where his rivals running mate comes from?

Jim in CT

07-28-2016, 08:49 AM

So it was ok to use private email accts then but not recently? When did the law change? Do we know the RNC's servers were or were not hacked?

Is there a difference?

Who else lied about what they did? That's one difference.

ecduzitgood

07-28-2016, 09:09 AM

Keep your head in the sand. The problem today is social media. You and the other Hillary supporters are very good at using social media to whip up your troops and get them to the poles. The problem arises when social media exposes what either side is actually saying or doing. The facts are out there to be found and posted to inform others. For instance when it came to getting the vote out Democrats handled it like this.

https://youtu.be/KQfPvQf8ZL4

Now you can ignore the videos I link and that's okay because you not discrediting the videos only shows how valid and informative they are.
Some Americans are waking up to how corrupt this government is and we are not going to stand idilely by and allow the BS to continue without being challenged.

https://youtu.be/iM0VCGCh3Fg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

07-28-2016, 09:22 AM

Who else lied about what they did? That's one difference.

Are you familiar w/what happened?

PaulS

07-28-2016, 09:26 AM

Keep your head in the sand - that is funny.

You seem unconcerned that Trump doesn't even know the difference bt the Governor of the state next to where he has lived his whole life and his opponent's VP.

Hope he doesn't try to ship guns to the Quds.

detbuch

07-28-2016, 09:28 AM

At this point in this race, I'm shocked that anyone can still be lambasting Hillary, because if she loses, Trump wins.

They are still lambasting Hillary because if she wins not only will Trump lose but the Supreme Court will be packed with Justices who will not honor their sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but will continue the Progressive mission to destroy it.

You think the rest of the world hates us right now? You think things were bad under the diplomatic policies of Obama, where we tried to settle things with conversation and reason? You think our soldiers were unsafe with Obama calling the shots as the commander in chief?

You mean the conversation and reason that created the "reset" with Russia? You mean the conversation and reason that created a sitting duck mission in Benghazi? You mean the conversation and reason that deployed drone strikes? You mean the conversation and reason that supported the violent overthrow of Qadaffi? You mean the conversation and reason that called for and supported the overthrow of Assad? You mean the conversation and reason that touted a so-called conversational and reasonable talking point--The Arab Spring--which exploded into uncontrollable violence? You mean the conversation and reason that dismissed ISIS as the JV? You mean the conversation and reason that led the world from behind while the Middle East burned? You mean the conversation and reason that created red lines which were crossed with impunity? And so forth . . . ?

Soldiers may be safe if they don't have to fight, but are we safe if they don't?

I have news for you, this guy is a full on whack job.

That is not news. It is propaganda which you swallow.

You can paint the whole "I don't like either one" but the reality is that one of them is going to win. And if its not Hillary, its Trump. The past 8 years have proven that a President with aspirations for social change in this country is borderline powerless, and can't do much along a hard left agenda.

Constitutionally speaking, which probably means nothing to you, a President does not, should not, have the unilateral power to force social change on this country. Progressives have, over time, transformed the executive branch as the Central power's figurehead that not only executes, but directs, even dictates, whether and in which way this country changes. And the past 8 years have demonstrated that growth in Presidential power. If the congress won't do it--I will. I have a pen and a phone. Presidents have increasingly, through the various levers of power given to them by Progressive extra-constitutional fabrications such as the regulatory agencies, put us under the thumb of their personal preferences and biases. It has happened so gradually over time that following generations haven't the experience of a different world so accept the growing Central power as how it is supposed to be. Obama has done much to continue the "fundamental transformation" of this country. It is curious that you don't see that. Maybe it has simply not been enough for you. How much power do you want the President to have. Or how much power do you want the Federal government to have, for that matter.

The next 4 years under President Trump would be a lesson in how much HARM a president can do to our domestic and foreign status.

The lesson in how much harm a President can do has grown, and has been demonstrated over the past 100 years of Constitutional deconstruction. The fact that you fear Trump is a result of that deconstruction. It has replaced, to a massive extent, Constitutional government which limits Federal powers in general, and Presidential power in specific, with the Progressive ideal of unlimited central power. That the people now accept this transformation, don't even realize that the transformation has occurred, is a testament to how HARMFUL ignorance is. The Progressives have created the Frankenstein that they now fear. They have been warned, over and over, that the centralized, nearly all-powerful, system (if it can be called a system) of government they have generated to replace the Constitutional order, would eventually be used to harm us in ways that following the Constitution would have prevented. That their own notions would come back to bite them. Along comes Trump. And he has been handed the precedent. They fear what they have created.

Personally, I don't fear Trump as much as Hillary, because he is not irrevocably married to Progressive ideology. I doubt that he is on a mission to thoroughly destroy the remnants of the Constitutional order and to create that unstoppable, unlimited central power which could come back to bite him when he leaves office. Just my opinion, he prefers having enough personal power to influence and "deal" with politicians rather than being utterly dictated to by them.

Besides, if he were to attempt to do something really harmful to this country, he would gladly be impeached by Democrats, and would have the support by most, or enough, Republicans to do so. Hillary, on the other hand, would be the next instrument of the Progressive movement. Her ideology, and her party's, would be the same. Impeaching her would not be possible.

I don't really like her either, but good god she's a better choice than a guy who openly praises the leadership abilities of multiple foreign dictators and invites espionage from a hostile foreign country to forward his status in a national election.

He did not invite espionage from a hostile foreign country. That is spin.

The Dad Fisherman

07-28-2016, 09:30 AM

So it was ok to use private email accts then but not recently? When did the law change? Do we know the RNC's servers were or were not hacked?

Is there a difference?

You have always been able to use a Personal (not Private) E-mail accounts for Personal E-mail....you're NOT allowed to use personal e-mail accounts for classified information (as was determined, via FBI Investigators, as actually happening).

and no we don't know if the RNC was or wasn't hacked....but we do know that the DNC server was hacked by the fact that someone lost their job (Temporarily) over published, leaked e-mails.

so why don't we work in Factual Land and not What-If World.

PaulS

07-28-2016, 10:07 AM

From Wikipedia - looks like potentially lots of public work happened on the private server. We'll never know what was in those emails as they were deleted.

"House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform[edit]

The House Oversight committee in an interim staff report, released on June 18, 2007:[18]
At least eighty-eight Republican National Committee email accounts were granted to senior Bush administration officials, not "just a handful" as previously reported by the White House spokesperson Dana Perino in March 2007. Her estimate was later revised to "about fifty." Officials with accounts included: Karl Rove, the President’s senior advisor; Andrew Card, the former White House Chief of Staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House Director of Political Affairs; and many other officials in the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of the Vice President.
The RNC has 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these emails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official ".gov" email accounts. Other users of RNC email accounts include former Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 emails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 emails). These email accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.
Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC email accounts, the RNC has preserved no emails for 51 officials.
There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC email accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records.
The evidence obtained by the Committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC email accounts in a manner that circumvented these requirements. At this point in the investigation, it is not possible to determine precisely how many presidential records may have been destroyed by the RNC. Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC email accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing emails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive."

Jim in CT

07-28-2016, 10:20 AM

Are you familiar w/what happened?

Somewhat.

I know she said that she turned over all of her work emails. Except for the 3,000 that the FBI found on their own.

I also know that she said she never sent any emails that were flagged as classified. Except for the 3 she sent that were flagged as classified.

PaulS

07-28-2016, 10:33 AM

No I meant the RNC. - somewhat similiar. Although as Kevin pointed out no way to know if that server was hacked.

The Dad Fisherman

07-28-2016, 10:42 AM

spence

07-28-2016, 10:55 AM

He did not invite espionage from a hostile foreign country. That is spin.

"If he is talking about the State Department e-mails on her server, he is inviting a foreign intelligence service to steal sensitive American government information," Hayden said. "If he is talking about the allegedly private e-mails that she destroyed, he is inviting a foreign intelligence service to violate the privacy of an individual protected by the Fourth Amendment to the American Constitution."

"Perhaps he doesn't know what he's talking about. Just a theory," Hayden said.
General Hayden is spinning?

ecduzitgood

07-28-2016, 10:57 AM

2007....really??? the DNC was hacked 2 weeks ago.

Actually do we know none of the pages came from Hillary's private server? Perhaps there are some, after all very few people would know if one or several are actually part of the over 30,000 PERSONAL emails she deleted and then wiped her system clean so they cannot be recovered. Perhaps there is a message being sent to Hillary from the Hacker in order to influence her to take some sort of action whether it be financial or political in nature. Sure sounds like a conspiracy but what if it isn't? Seems like a big risk to let her be in charge and have access to control or influence all parts of government including the IRS and the NSA.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

07-28-2016, 11:10 AM

2007....really???

Too old?:as:

ecduzitgood

07-28-2016, 11:11 AM

More hilarious comments by Trump yesterday. Doesn't know the difference bt Tim Kaine and Tom Kean. Jive and Jibe. Kurds vs Quds.

Why doesn't Ivanka take his phone away?

https://youtu.be/EpGH02DtIws

https://youtu.be/t4-AKcH3eC8Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

07-28-2016, 11:26 AM

General Hayden is spinning?

I thought Hilary said with conviction that all those missing emails were of a personal nature (yoga classes), and not work-related. So unless she is lying (perish the thought!) there are no national security implications of his likely (who knows) sarcastic remark.

buckman

07-28-2016, 11:47 AM

I thought Hilary said with conviction that all those missing emails were of a personal nature (yoga classes), and not work-related. So unless she is lying (perish the thought!) there are no national security implications of his likely (who knows) sarcastic remark.

Exactly ! However the false narrative about Benghazi that was put out by Hillary and President Obama was a direct threat to national security .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

07-28-2016, 08:28 PM

General Hayden is spinning?

Since there is no quote by Trump in your quote of Hayden, I can't tell if Hayden is spinning or if he doesn't know what he is talking about,

spence

07-28-2016, 08:36 PM

Since there is no quote by Trump in your quote of Hayden, I can't tell if Hayden is spinning or if he doesn't know what he is talking about,
I thought so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

07-28-2016, 09:24 PM

I thought so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump didn't "invite" Russia to hack Hillary's server. He said that they already hacked it. You don't invite somebody to do something they already did, you invite them to do something they have not yet done.

And he added that, "Russia, if you're listening I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing [in the emails that you already hacked]. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." That is pure sarc against Hillary's irresponsible use of the private server and against a press he considers lax on criticizing her for deleting the emails.

He is obviously assuming that her server was already hacked, and not because he invited Russia or others who hacked her server, but, rather, if there was any invitation, it was by Hillary. It was her irresponsible insistence on the private server that invited hacking.

But, as is a prime function of spin, it turns your guy's mistake into one commited by your opponent.

spence

07-28-2016, 10:53 PM

Exactly ! However the false narrative about Benghazi that was put out by Hillary and President Obama was a direct threat to national security .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This makes no sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

07-28-2016, 10:55 PM

Since there is no quote by Trump in your quote of Hayden, I can't tell if Hayden is spinning or if he doesn't know what he is talking about,
Really? Butch in a bubble?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

07-28-2016, 11:11 PM

Really? Butch in a bubble?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, everyone knows that Hillary is butch--Trump sort of babbles--and your brain is in her bubble.

buckman

07-29-2016, 04:10 AM

This makes no sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's because you are a devout follower .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

07-29-2016, 04:44 AM

wdmso

07-29-2016, 04:57 AM

Trump didn't "invite" Russia to hack Hillary's server. He said that they already hacked it. You don't invite somebody to do something they already did, you invite them to do something they have not yet done.

yet trump doesn't attack the Russians for committing the crime or espionage He supports it with a request of assistance

And he added that, "Russia, if you're listening I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing [in the emails that you already hacked]. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." That is pure sarc against Hillary's irresponsible use of the private server and against a press he considers lax on criticizing her for deleting the emails.

So you support a guy who want to be the next POTUS using sarcasm when it come to the Russians Hacking

He is obviously assuming that her server was already hacked, and not because he invited Russia or others who hacked her server, but, rather, if there was any invitation, it was by Hillary. It was her irresponsible insistence on the private server that invited hacking.

And the Invitation, it was by Hillary thats like saying she deserved to be raped did you see the sexy clothes she had on she was asking for it

But, as is a prime function of spin, it turns your guy's mistake into one commited by your opponent.

Seem you got spin down to a science if you believe in science that is

spence

07-29-2016, 07:15 AM

Yeah, everyone knows that Hillary is butch--Trump sort of babbles--and your brain is in her bubble.
It's catchy but lacking.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

07-29-2016, 07:34 AM

It's catchy but lacking.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not as perfect as you think you are.

Jim in CT

07-29-2016, 07:44 AM

It's catchy but lacking.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You know what else is lacking? Intellectual honesty, especially from a guy who cannot admit that the Republican party did the heavy lifting to end segregation and pass the 15th amendment to secure voting rights for blacks.

That is historical fact.

I pointed that out.

You implied I needed a history lesson.

I asked how so?

You never replied.

You, like every liberal I know, are unable to accept historical facts that aren't politically convenient for you. If your beliefs require you to deny historical facts, get some new beliefs.

Jim in CT

07-29-2016, 07:45 AM

That's because you are a devout follower .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo. Things like historical facts and 3rd grade arithmetic, must be denied to be a liberal. It's amazing.

detbuch

07-29-2016, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

Trump didn't "invite" Russia to hack Hillary's server. He said that they already hacked it. You don't invite somebody to do something they already did, you invite them to do something they have not yet done.

wdmso reply: yet trump doesn't attack the Russians for committing the crime or espionage He supports it with a request of assistance

I don't think Trump would attack the U.S. for its espionage either. Every major nation does it. So Trump is not "supporting" espionage (your spin). And it only seems to become a crime if you are caught. And the only punishment meted out for it is by the nation being spied on. Then things can be smoothed out by swapping spies.

And Trump is not searching for Hillary's missing emails. So he doesn't need to ask for assistance (your spin). He didn't "ask" for but "hoped" that the Russians would find, among their hacked product, the missing emails. That the Press (which largely leaves unscathed Hillary's deletion of emails when she was subpoenaed to deliver them) would greatly reward the Russians. Obvious sarcasm, not a request for help or a support for espionage.

And he added that, "Russia, if you're listening I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing [in the emails that you already hacked]. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press." That is pure sarc against Hillary's irresponsible use of the private server and against a press he considers lax on criticizing her for deleting the emails.

wdmoso:
So you support a guy who want to be the next POTUS using sarcasm when it come to the Russians Hacking

Oh, get off your high horse. Everybody on this forum uses sarcasm, including you. As do all politicians, and on matters far more important than Russian hacking. Hillary is no exception. She has used it regarding her wiping of the emails. She uses it a lot. And on matters, such as Benghazi, far more important than the obvious and expected Russian hacking

He is obviously assuming that her server was already hacked, and not because he invited Russia or others who hacked her server, but, rather, if there was any invitation, it was by Hillary. It was her irresponsible insistence on the private server that invited hacking.

wdmso:
And the Invitation, it was by Hillary thats like saying she deserved to be raped did you see the sexy clothes she had on she was asking for it

No, it is not at all like saying she "deserved" it. It was saying that if we choose to spin on the notion of "inviting," it was Hillary's use of the private server that "invited" hacking more than anyone else's words or accusations or sarcasm. If we want an analogy on the spin of "deserving," it was more like a criminal deserving punishment for committing a crime.

But, as is a prime function of spin, it turns your guy's mistake into one commited by your opponent.

wdmso:
Seem you got spin down to a science if you believe in science that is

I don't "believe" in science. I don't treat it as a religion as many do. It is a useful tool. But, like all tools, it is often misused. But thanks for the sarcasm. And you might want to hone your spin down closer to a science rather than haphazard reliance on the spin of others'

PaulS

07-29-2016, 01:00 PM

From some liberal rag today.

The Real Plot Against America

In retrospect, it worked out much better than planned. Who’d have thought a pariah nation, run by an authoritarian who makes his political opponents disappear, could so easily hijack a great democracy? It didn’t take much. A talented nerd can bring down a minnow of a nation. But this level of political crime requires more refined mechanics — you need everyone to play their assigned roles.

You start with a stooge, a fugitive holed up in London, releasing stolen emails on the eve of the Democratic National Convention, in the name of “transparency.” Cyberburglars rely on a partner in crime to pick up stolen goods. And WikiLeaks has always been there for Russia, a nation with no transparency.

The emails show office gossip — catty, sometimes crude back-and-forth by party operatives, and a bias for one candidate. Ho-hum. To make the plot work, reporters have to take the bait. On cue, they decry the fact that politics is going on inside a major political party. The horror — Democratic hacks saying nasty things about Senator Bernie Sanders.

Next, lefty extremists have to act like lefty extremists — that is, myopic to the greater good, guided by a Trumpian sense that they alone know how to solve the world’s problems, and everyone else is a sellout. Angered at the contents of the cybertheft, they boo any mention of their party’s nominee. And told by Senator Sanders, the man who brought them there, that booing is too easy, they boo his call to unite to save their country from a monster.

But Russia still has to seal the deal. Some work remains. If enough angered lefties won’t go for the Democratic nominee, a longtime foe of Vladimir Putin, it will be just enough to put a Putin puppet in the White House. And it would also usher in the term that drove the right wing crazy when George H.W. Bush used it — a New World Order.

What’s in it for Russia? Well, everything. Territory. Hegemony. Its takeover of the Crimean Peninsula has brought sanctions and condemnation from the West. What stands between Putin and further aggression in, say, the Baltic States, is a NATO pact that has kept Europe safe for nearly 70 years. And if you thought Trump stiffed the poor suckers who signed up for his “university,” wait till you see how he treats some of our oldest allies.

Plus, Putin despises Hillary Clinton. Like Trump, his skin is rice-paper-thin, albeit a paler shade of orange; and, like Trump, he never forgets a slight. He still hasn’t gotten over Clinton’s comment on George W. Bush’s infamous look into Putin’s soul. As a former K.G.B agent, said Clinton, “he doesn’t have a soul.”

What’s in it for Trump? Help at winning the ultimate throne of his gilded dreams. And maybe some investment money from Russian oligarchs close to Putin, one of many things Trump may be hiding in his tax returns. The two narcissists share a love of torture, authoritarian rule, and women on runways in bathing suits.

But then, a wild card, something unplanned. Putin didn’t expect Trump to be so all-in with his collusion. He knows Trump is a fool, world class in only one thing — ignorance. He doesn’t need spies for that. He knows Trump is a man who will say anything, and deny in the same breath that he ever said it. The Talented Mr. Trump.

Last November, before a national television audience, Trump said of Putin, “I got to know him very well.” And Wednesday, Trump said, “I never met Putin.” That was a standard Trump lie, on one end or the other. But even Putin couldn’t fathom that Trump really will say anything.

So there was the Republican Party nominee for president inviting an American adversary to wage cyberwar against the country he wants to lead. If that wasn’t Trump’s shoot-somebody-on-Fifth-Avenue moment, nothing will be. What’s more, he was way too obvious about the role of the other pawns in the scheme. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” he said to Mother Russia.

Also, he’s getting carried away with his dictator-philia. On Thursday, he said Putin was a better leader than President Obama. D’oh! In public, at least, you’re supposed to root for the home team.

Trump misses the old days, back when you could “knock the crap out of” a demonstrator. Yeah, the old days. Back when it was disqualifying for an American politician to flirt with treason.

This all seems too preposterous to be planned. Where are the conspiracy nut jobs when you really need them? Even fiction, Philip Roth’s “The Plot Against America,” about a fascist-lite president during World War II, does not have this level of absurdity.

But it unfolds, still, if not according to Russia’s design, then according to Russia’s will. Trump is now a national security risk, actively rooting for a foreign adversary to tamper with an American election. And very soon, he will start receiving classified briefings on that adversary. Ehhhhhcellent!

ecduzitgood

07-29-2016, 01:10 PM

buckman

07-29-2016, 01:12 PM

spence

07-29-2016, 01:17 PM

That the Press (which largely leaves unscathed Hillary's deletion of emails when she was subpoenaed to deliver them) would greatly reward the Russians. Obvious sarcasm, not a request for help or a support for espionage.

I don't believe Clinton ever deleted anything while under subpoena. And as per State Department policy she had the judgement on what was a government record.

As for Trump, even if it was sarcasm it would be seen as an invitation for a foreign government to interfere with a US election. It's yet another in a long string of reckless comments that demonstrate why he doesn't have the temperament to be POTUS.

spence

07-29-2016, 01:28 PM

Uranium one..The reason Putin loves Hillary. Look it up, if you don't know what Uranium one is so you can read it yourself rather than take my opinion.
Hillary has been proven to be terrible at national security.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yea, because donations to the Clinton Foundation influenced 9 US government organizations including the DoD, Treasury and Energy Department, the Utah State Nuclear Regulator and the government of Canada. People in the loop say Clinton wasn't even involved in the process.

By the way...the deal was actually a result of a Bush initiative to expand trade.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

PaulS

07-29-2016, 01:30 PM

Did the DNC editors help with this one too ?
I think you need a break from the forum , you're becoming unglued .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Expain how I'm being unglued. Maybe explain how I parrott the DNC talking points also.

Pls. don't run away this time.

buckman

07-29-2016, 01:57 PM

Expain how I'm being unglued. Maybe explain how I parrott the DNC talking points also.

Pls. don't run away this time.

See above
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckman

07-29-2016, 02:06 PM

I don't believe Clinton ever deleted anything while under subpoena. And as per State Department policy she had the judgement on what was a government record.

As for Trump, even if it was sarcasm it would be seen as an invitation for a foreign government to interfere with a US election. It's yet another in a long string of reckless comments that demonstrate why he doesn't have the temperament to be POTUS.

It obviously was and it was funny .
Explain to me again the harm .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

07-29-2016, 02:21 PM

See above
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok, bc I posted a op ed from a newspaper - Thanks got it.

buckman

07-29-2016, 02:31 PM

ok, bc I posted a op ed from a newspaper - Thanks got it.

No everything you pasted above that too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

07-29-2016, 02:50 PM

ecduzitgood

07-29-2016, 03:58 PM

How about something not from 2009 and not blogger street interview it funny you'll uses your gotcha stuff and cite it as Truth But when the left does the same gotcha stuff its BS lets stick to facts heres what Newt says about Facts VS feelings from a CNN interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4f5ewIYYuQ
Yeah the Clinton news network...lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ecduzitgood

07-29-2016, 04:15 PM

I don't believe Clinton ever deleted anything while under subpoena. And as per State Department policy she had the judgement on what was a government record.

As for Trump, even if it was sarcasm it would be seen as an invitation for a foreign government to interfere with a US election. It's yet another in a long string of reckless comments that demonstrate why he doesn't have the temperament to be POTUS.
The FBI found she deleted work emails which a subpoena was not necessary since she was required by LAW to turn over all work related emails when she left her SOS position.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/288190-fbi-to-begin-transferring-deleted-clinton-emails-friday
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ecduzitgood

07-29-2016, 04:20 PM

Yea, because donations to the Clinton Foundation influenced 9 US government organizations including the DoD, Treasury and Energy Department, the Utah State Nuclear Regulator and the government of Canada. People in the loop say Clinton wasn't even involved in the process.

By the way...the deal was actually a result of a Bush initiative to expand trade.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
People in the loop...lol

Uranium one...see below :)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/23/tangled-clinton-web.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence

07-29-2016, 04:46 PM

People in the loop...lol

Uranium one...see below :)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/23/tangled-clinton-web.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Perhaps they could actually investigate and report on facts rather than just recite the conspiracy theories from an author out to bash the Clintons.

spence

07-29-2016, 04:47 PM

The FBI found she deleted work emails which a subpoena was not necessary since she was required by LAW to turn over all work related emails when she left her SOS position.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/288190-fbi-to-begin-transferring-deleted-clinton-emails-friday
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Totally different issues.

buckman

07-29-2016, 05:01 PM

You mean bc I posted that the RNC had issues with emails in the past or that I pointed out that Trump doesn't even seem to know who the VP is? That is coming unglued - got it.

Let's talk about how many time Pres. Obama said I in his speach. You didn't get that from some right wing wack job site who actually spent time counting the word I in his speech. That is not a talking point?

That was just a joke for Spence . He has a problem calling the president a narcissist .
You really don't have a sense of humor at all
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

07-29-2016, 06:05 PM

It obviously was and it was funny .
Explain to me again the harm .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it was hilarious which is why the lib panties are all in a bunch...Hill's campaigns has apparently been hacked as well

I think O referred to himself only 119 times which was a little disappointing....thought he'd really go for it this time and smother himself with affection.....

ecduzitgood

07-29-2016, 07:02 PM

They banned uniformed police from the convention floor. Apparently they feel police in uniform may negatively effect their chances in November. I don't recall former Democrat Ku Klux Klan klegal Senator Robert Byrd being barred from the convention floor. I guess KKK okay, Cop in uniform not okay.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/29/philly-police-say-uniformed-cops-were-barred-from-dnc-floor/?ref=yfp

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

07-29-2016, 10:13 PM

I don't believe Clinton ever deleted anything while under subpoena.

Probably true, but not 100% ( or less) sure.

And as per State Department policy she had the judgement on what was a government record.

That's a peculiar policy. If it is required to turn over work related emails to the Department, and it is left to the judgment of the person who is required to return those emails . . . why even have the policy? Sort of like we hope you return the work related emails, but if you don't, well, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. thanks anyway.

As for Trump, even if it was sarcasm it would be seen as an invitation for a foreign government to interfere with a US election.

Now that is hilarious. Way funnier than Trump's sarcasm.

"Oh, look Ahmed, Trump is making sarcasm on Mrs. Clinton. This must mean he is inviting us to hack American government emails."

"Uh, Faisal, you do know that we've been hacking their emails for many years now? And we already hacked hers. I hear the Russians and the Chinese did too."

"Nooo, Ahmed. You cannot be saying that we have been breaking the law all these years. That would not be right. Surely Mohamet, may peace be upon him, would not condone such a thing. But I am sure that he would agree to it if Mr. Trump invites us to it."

"Faisal, your mother should have commanded you to blow yourself up in a crowded Paris nightclub. Then you would have been of some use. Sometimes, maybe often, you can be such a fool."

Yeah, it "would be seen" as an invitation by idiots and propagandists.
Because you so want to believe your beloved's portrayal of Trump as unreliable and lacking proper temperament, you fail to see how adroit he is at making his adversaries, including her, look like the ones who are the fools to average folks who will vote. On the stage that counts, he is calculating, and he is appealing to those who seem to be invisible to the "smart," Progressive minded folks. Most folks would not be aware, subliminally or consciously, of a so-called "invitation" to foreign countries to hack U.S. emails in Trump's comments. They would actually accept what he said in the way he intended it to be accepted.

But "smart" folks, like you, who desperately want him to be dumb, temperamental, treasonous, whacked, will twist his comments and concoct something that verifies how you all paint him to be, no matter how silly that is when actually examined. And you all are so "smart" you believe your concoction. At least you convince yourself to believe it.

His temperament is just fine. He is handling all the stuff thrown at him in ways that make his popularity grow.

It's yet another in a long string of reckless comments that demonstrate why he doesn't have the temperament to be POTUS.

It's yet another in a long string of poor judgments that Hillary was unable to determine something as easy as "what is a government document" . . . if her "judgement on what was a government record" in her deleted emails was so obviously and egregiously wrong, that would demonstrate why she does not have the judgment to be POTUS.