Trump [Archive] - Page 5 - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

detbuch

03-01-2022, 12:53 PM

where do you get this lunacy from? which republicans are saying we should be like russia?

it was obama, not a republican, who mocked mitt romney for saying russia was a concern.

yes wayne, liberals are the tolerant ones. it’s not conservatives who get banned from social
media and from speaking on college campuses. liberals are too tolerant to engage in that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup, Jim, your sarcasm is spot on. "Liberals" (not classical liberals) are the repressive tolerant ones. Critical Theorists (namely Marcuse) came up with this notion of "repressive tolerance." According to the Critical Theory that evolved from Neo-Marxist Post Modern philosophers, the policies, thoughts, and expressions from the "left" always lead to "liberation." Whereas those things from the "right" always lead to oppression, to tyranny.

So, according to this Critical Theory, only in a society that has been completely liberated, can all thoughts and expressions be tolerated and debated. And no such society has as yet been established. So, until it is, thoughts and expressions from the "right" must not be tolerated. Not allowed. Totally ignored, dismissed, suppressed, eradicated. Otherwise, if "non-liberal" thoughts are allowed any access to the society, it will eventually fall into despotism.

So, you see, Post Modern "libralism" is liberating--by definition. And "conservatism" is tyrannical.

Critical Theories began to catch hold in the colleges and universities in the 1960's and gradually grew in influence on campus culture through the 80's and 90's, and radicalized the Democrat Party through its transformation by the academically left leaning graduates of our academe. And, as well, this transformation has been achieved by such graduates who have gradually filtered into and dominated our various cultural, corporate, and media organizations. It is even beginning to create the same transformation in our various religious sects, especially Christian.

This transformation is on the cusp of fruition, possibly even becoming an irreversible status, or very difficult one to overcome.

You can see its fruits in our cancel culture, and in the suppression of "right wing" thoughts in social platforms and major internet outlets such as YouTube, and in the suppression of "right wing" speech on college campuses, and in the approval of leftist riots while cracking down and reproaching riots and demonstrations from the "right." And from concocted or imposed negative labels such as racist or white supremacist--especially in their repeated rather indiscriminate, even inaccurate, use in newscasts and various media.

Pete F is an obvious example of this Critical Theory repressive tolerance. He has no tolerance for ideas from the "right." If he can't successfully discredit them, he will ignore them, not actually respond to them, treat them as if they didn't exist by just irrelevantly responding with piling on more, or repetitions, of some anti-Trump or anti-Republican, or anti-"right" rhetoric.

wdmso often will also not respond to a question, but move on to some anti-"right" or anti-Republican, or anti-Trump remark. I doubt that he is consciously practicing Critical Theory. I think he is just doing what is expedient. I think Pete F is conscious of using an actual tactic, maybe even a Critical Theory tactic. I think he once tried to bring the theory into a discussion. And he certainly backs Critical Race Theory which is an offshoot branch of Critical Theory. And he expressed the conservatism always leads to oppression nonsense.

The tactic, whether conscious or not, is conveniently used by leftists on this forum. It certainly enables them to evade getting into serious discussion which could expose their radicalism, while they're painting "conservatives" as being the radicals. They refuse to answer the simplest of questions. They can't even say whether the U.S. states are necessary or not. That would be a good discussion as we are progressively heading into the states' critical loss of power to the Federal Government--which is the kind of power concentration the leftists like and want.

wdmso

03-01-2022, 01:23 PM

which republicans are saying we should be like russia?

They only want the white parts of Russia and a strongman leader and the no tolerance parts ! gays transgender , protesters , and minority’s
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-01-2022, 01:25 PM

yes wayne, liberals are the tolerant ones. it’s not conservatives who get banned from social
media and from speaking on college campuses. liberals are too tolerant to engage in that.

And the taking point parrot speaks lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-01-2022, 01:36 PM

Pete F.

03-01-2022, 07:20 PM

At the G20 Summit in Argentina in 2018, USA cancelled an official meeting with Putin as Vlad had just attacked Ukraine warships, but then Trump had surprise meeting w Putin with no WH aide or interpreter present. Just Donald and Melania and a 15 min chat. Wonder what they said??
from the Hill: ‘Trump was joined by his wife Melania Trump, but there was no note-taker or translator from the U.S. at the meeting. Putin was reportedly accompanied by a translator, with all four at a table.’
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-01-2022, 07:50 PM

Pete F.

03-01-2022, 08:06 PM

Trump probably insisted the Pooty was acting weak and wasting time and should hurry up and invade Ukraine.

Hey, remember when Obama expelled 35 Russian spies and took away two spy compounds because of 2016 election tampering, and then incoming Nat Sec Adviser Mike Flynn secretly called Russians to stay calm because they would fix it later, and then Trump got in and wanted to return the compounds?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-01-2022, 08:22 PM

Former Trump national security adviser John Bolton: “Trump Made It That Much Easier for Putin to Invade Ukraine.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-01-2022, 09:35 PM

Hey, remember when Obama expelled 35 Russian spies and took away two spy compounds because of 2016 election tampering, and then incoming Nat Sec Adviser Mike Flynn secretly called Russians to stay calm because they would fix it later, and then Trump got in and wanted to return the compounds?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I remember that Flynn was diplomatically and legally trying to calm a situation that Obama caused and how he was nefariously tricked into into a confession in order to remove him from the Trump administration because he knew too much.

detbuch

03-01-2022, 09:37 PM

Former Trump national security adviser John Bolton: “Trump Made It That Much Easier for Putin to Invade Ukraine.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sour grapes Bolton tried to get back his lost mojo. Is he still relevant?

wdmso

03-02-2022, 07:35 AM

Sour grapes Bolton tried to get back his lost mojo. Is he still relevant?

Why is that always the excuse
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-02-2022, 07:38 AM

I remember that Flynn was diplomatically and legally trying to calm a situation that Obama caused and how he was nefariously tricked into into a confession in order to remove him from the Trump administration because he knew too much.

nefariously tricked into into a confession

Wow I am amazed how you have convinced yourself that’s what happened to a grown man and former General.

Ps not really amazed .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-02-2022, 12:24 PM

nefariously tricked into into a confession

Wow I am amazed how you have convinced yourself that’s what happened to a grown man and former General.

Ps not really amazed .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great post!! Keep up the good work.

PaulS

03-02-2022, 01:00 PM

U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton berated his former boss, President Donald Trump, over his lack of knowledge dealing with Russia during his presidency.

Bolton appeared on the far-right Newsmax network's Rob Schmitt Tonight disagreeing with the host's opinion that Trump had been hard on Russia while he was in office, saying Trump was not competent to be president.

When Schmitt said the Trump administration's approach was "pretty tough on Russia, in a lot of ways," Bolton disagreed. Bolton argued that Trump "didn't understand what he was doing" in regards to Russia.

"This is not really a policy argument," Bolton said. "This is really about Trump's lack of any significant historical knowledge, his lack of strategic thinking, and frankly, his lack of thinking about pretty much anything other than what benefitted Donald Trump."

Bolton went on to say the former president only made moves that would benefit himself and his own political purposes, not the country.

"Why was he concerned about Ukraine in the summer of 2019? Because he wanted that DNC server," Bolton added. "Why was he concerned about corruption in Ukraine? Because he was looking for an excuse to cover the reason he was refusing to send $250 million of security assistance to the Ukraine, and only when that finally blew up in his face."

Schmitt interrupted Bolton saying that Trump eventually did send Ukraine assistance and even sold them arms. Bolton became more frank, asserting the assistance was mandated by Congress and that Trump "made up the reasons" that he did it to apply pressure for his own motives.

"But in almost every case, the sanctions were imposed with Trump complaining about it and saying we were being too hard," Bolton said. "The fact is that he barely knew where Ukraine was. He once asked John Kelly, his second chief of staff, if Finland were a part of Russia. It's just not accurate to say that Trump's behavior somehow deterred the Russians."

Schmitt insisted that it was unfair to say that Trump made no intelligent moves against Russia during his presidency. In a speech Saturday at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Trump claimed the Ukraine invasion wouldn't have happened had he not lost the 2020 election, continuing to falsely say it was stolen from him.

Bolton continued to back up his thoughts on Trump, telling Schmitt he should have never been president to begin with.

"Trump was not fit to be president," Bolton said. "He was not competent to be president."

Newsweek reached out to Bolton for further comment.

detbuch

03-02-2022, 01:37 PM

scottw

03-02-2022, 01:45 PM

What are we supposed to conclude from someone expressing personal opinions about someone else's competence and motivations? I don't see a competent, unbiased, critical analysis of Trump in this Bolton sketch of Trump. And resorting to what looks more like a smear rather than an analytical observation, raises, for me, a question about Bolton's motivation.

he seems a little bitter....remember when pete told us his book was going to bring down trump?

Jim in CT

03-02-2022, 02:58 PM

"This is not really a policy argument," Bolton said. .

In other words, Bolton can't argue with what Trump actually did, he just hates Trump because Trump pretty much ended Bolton's relevance within the GOP.

How come no one on the left wants to have policy arguments?

PaulS

03-02-2022, 03:10 PM

In other words, Bolton can't argue with what Trump actually did, he just hates Trump because Trump pretty much ended Bolton's relevance within the GOP.

How come no one on the left wants to have policy arguments?

Or maybe he dislikes Trump for being so stupid and only looking out for himself instead of the country (similar to what F. Hill said about Trump).

"This is not really a policy argument," Bolton said. "This is really about Trump's lack of any significant historical knowledge, his lack of strategic thinking, and frankly, his lack of thinking about pretty much anything other than what benefitted Donald Trump."

Bolton went on to say the former president only made moves that would benefit himself and his own political purposes, not the country.

"Why was he concerned about Ukraine in the summer of 2019? Because he wanted that DNC server," Bolton added. "Why was he concerned about corruption in Ukraine? Because he was looking for an excuse to cover the reason he was refusing to send $250 million of security assistance to the Ukraine, and only when that finally blew up in his face."

scottw

03-02-2022, 03:16 PM

Bolton went on to say the former president only made moves that would benefit himself and his own political purposes, not the country.

yet the country was doing great and the world was pretty peaceful till covid and biden...democrats weren't happy of course

wdmso

03-02-2022, 03:54 PM

Trump: Russian Invasion a 'Holocaust,' Calls to 'Stop Killing'

now he's in Damage control

Jim in CT

03-02-2022, 04:00 PM

Or maybe he dislikes Trump for being so stupid and only looking out for himself instead of the country (similar to what F. Hill said about Trump).

Bolton went on to say the former president only made moves that would benefit himself and his own political purposes, not the country.

."

and that’s demonstrably false horse crap.

the country was better ifff before covid but by just about any conceivable measure, that’s. it was in 2020.

as i said, vague personal attacks that are totally refuted by the facts. trump did things americans liked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

03-02-2022, 04:04 PM

and that’s demonstrably false horse crap.

the country was better ifff before covid but by just about any conceivable measure, that’s. it was in 2020.

as i said, vague personal attacks that are totally refuted by the facts. trump did things americans liked.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok so 2 who dealt w/Trump on a daily??? basis behind closed doors both said the same thing but it is horse crap.

Jim in CT

03-02-2022, 04:20 PM

ok so 2 who dealt w/Trump on a daily??? basis behind closed doors both said the same thing but it is horse crap.

Yes, it's horsecrap to say something that's completely contradicted by the facts.

Tax cuts, generationally low unemployment, lowest black unemployment ever recorded, not getting us involved in stupid wars, bringing jihadists to their knees, soaring stock market, criminal justice reform...

NONE of that helped the country?

It doesn't matter if everyone Trump ever met said he didn't do anything to help the country, the fact is he did help the country.

My favorite moment of the Trump presidency? A little kid wrote to Trump that he also wanted to start his own business, a lawn mowing business. So Trump brought him to the White House, let the kid cut the lawn, Trump walked back and forth across the lawn with the kid. A rare nice moment.

The left couldn't let him have it, they claimed he should be investigated for violating child labor laws.

That's why they put the "D" in TDS.

A record number of Americans said they were better off after Trumps presidency. No other president scored higher.

That certainly doesn't mean he was the best president. But sure as hell it means that he helped the country.

Bolton is a washed up has been, consumed by bitterness at his loss of influence.

detbuch

03-02-2022, 04:58 PM

ok so 2 who dealt w/Trump on a daily??? basis behind closed doors both said the same thing but it is horse crap.

There are several others who dealt with Trump on a daily basis who do not say what Bolton said, but say the opposite. If your criteria is believing those who dealt with Trump on a daily basis, then you should believe others besides Bolton. But you don't. You pick the ones you agree with. So your stated criteria is horsecrap.

detbuch

03-02-2022, 05:07 PM

Trump: Russian Invasion a 'Holocaust,' Calls to 'Stop Killing'

now he's in Damage control

He's Putin's puppet.

Jim in CT

03-02-2022, 05:14 PM

Trump: Russian Invasion a 'Holocaust,' Calls to 'Stop Killing'

now he's in Damage control

it’s Trumps damage to control?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-02-2022, 08:55 PM

Jim in CT

03-02-2022, 09:02 PM

During the presidential transition period, Trump spoke openly about easing off sanctions that had been imposed on Russia for its election meddling. Weeks into his term, after he said he respected Putin and was challenged that the Russian president was “a killer,” Trump pushed back with this apologia: “What, do you think our country’s so innocent?”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

again, if what you’re saying is true, putin might have invaded when trump
was potus, thereby not facing the sanctions that Biden is enforcing.

clobbered by common sense a toddler could figure out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-02-2022, 09:06 PM

again, if what you’re saying is true, putin might have invaded when trump
was potus, thereby not facing the sanctions that Biden is enforcing.

clobbered by common sense a toddler could figure out.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In mid-July 2017, Trump tried to weaken new congressionally imposed sanctions against Russia — before they passed by veto-proof majorities and he begrudgingly signed them into law, calling them “seriously flawed.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-02-2022, 09:14 PM

pete -

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/amp/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-02-2022, 09:53 PM

pete -

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/09/25/on-the-record-the-u-s-administrations-actions-on-russia/amp/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On that ignominious day in July 2018, standing alongside Putin, Trump was asked whether he sided with U.S. intelligence agencies’ universal assessment that Russia had interfered in the 2016 elections. His reply: “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.” Deference has rarely been so devious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-03-2022, 05:51 AM

Jan. 6 panel claims Trump 'engaged in criminal conspiracy'

just another Hoax :crying:

scottw

03-03-2022, 06:36 AM

Jan. 6 panel claims Trump 'engaged in criminal conspiracy'

just another Hoax :crying:

claims or charges?....I think this has been claimed since Jan 6th

Pete F.

03-03-2022, 07:00 AM

Congress can’t charge, they refer to DOJ
The Jan. 6 select committee says it believes Donald Trump violated multiple laws in his quest to overturn the 2020 election — including obstruction of Congress and defrauding the United States.

The committee supported its conclusions by releasing excerpts from multiple depositions, including:

-JASON MILLER
-MARC SHORT
-GREG JACOB
-JOHN EASTMAN
-KEITH KELLOGG
-JEFF ROSEN
-RICHARD DONOGHUE
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

03-03-2022, 07:14 AM

PaulS

03-03-2022, 08:11 AM

On that ignominious day in July 2018, standing alongside Putin, Trump was asked whether he sided with U.S. intelligence agencies’ universal assessment that Russia had interfered in the 2016 elections. His reply: “President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.” Deference has rarely been so devious.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can't make those thing up :spin:

Pete F.

03-03-2022, 10:35 AM

ok...let us know when they charge him...how's that thing in NY going?

Which of the many things are you talking about?
Last I knew there were close to twenty active civil and criminal cases that he or his business were defendants in
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

03-03-2022, 10:39 AM

Which of the many things are you talking about?
Last I knew there were close to twenty active civil and criminal cases that he or his business were defendants in
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

should be in jail any time now I guess...

wdmso

03-03-2022, 10:55 AM

Jim in CT

03-03-2022, 11:07 AM

Love conservatives logic unless trumps isn't charged with a crime and convicted

Then his behavior and actions are acceptable..(even if clear as day) ethics intent need not be considered

Unless it Gov Comuo , Hilary , Hunter , Soros then everything counts all based on a feeling

there’s not one irrational trump apologist here. literally, not one.

the liberal logic is that he’s a Sith Lord, and we need to fanatically discuss him 24/7 to distract attention away from the disastrous first year of the democrat who’s currently in the oval office.

we should never, under any circumstances,,allow it to be known that Biden doesn’t walk on water. Every time it looks like someone wants to discuss an imperfection in the current administration,,liberals will always pivot to how evil
republicans are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-03-2022, 12:05 PM

there’s not one irrational trump apologist here. literally, not one.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that doesn't make what I said. not True

wdmso

03-03-2022, 12:06 PM

As of this writing, March 2nd

Truth Social has fallen to No. 57 in the App Store, just behind Tinder and Planet Fitness Workouts.

Trump's role: The former president is Truth Social's founder and chairman, so he obviously bears some responsibility for putting together the team that's so far fallen on its face. But, most importantly, he's not using the app.

Trump hasn't posted a single time since the launch, despite an international crisis that has captivated the country.

More fleecing of the faithful

Pete F.

03-03-2022, 12:37 PM

Roger Stone on JANUARY 6th sat next to Joshua James, who just pled guilty to SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY and obstructing an official proceeding and is facing 7-9 years in prison as part of a full cooperation agreement.

This is going to get quite interesting.

The J6 committee didn’t file their most recent court documents till after the guilty plea.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-03-2022, 06:59 PM

Try and remember the last time a Congressional Committee accused a President--in a court filing--of committing felonies. This isn't loose talk, it is a solemn court document, subject to all sorts of sanctions for misrepresentations, and backed by evidence they have uncovered.

Having a hard time?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-03-2022, 08:36 PM

While net surfing, saw the headline "Analysis: Donald Trump calling Vladimir Putin a 'genius' was no mistake". It is a CNN article, but I read it anyway, to see what spin they put on it.

And yeah, they did, big time. Spinning into lying. It's that Buck Sexton and Clay Travis podcast that we've discussed on this forum. The article paints Trump as a Putin devotee with whom he sides, even against our country.

Right off the bat, in the headline, they lied. In the interview, Trump did not say that Putin was a genius. He used "genius" in the colloquial manner that he often does to describe really clever things or opinions--this time to comment on Putin's invasion--"This is genius"--which doesn't amount to calling Putin a genius. It's a common expression to describe a particular thing or action, not an unconditional judgment of the doer's mental capacity. And Trump's "Oh, that's wonderful" was pure Trumpian sarcasm. And being "smart" is not an indication of being morally upright or even of being right. Complimenting someone as being smart or doing something smart is not in itself an approval of his character. "I'd say that's pretty smart. He's taking over a country -- really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people, and just walking right in."-- "for two dollars' worth of sanctions." Saying it was "smart" to do that for almost nothing in retribution is not, as a transaction, incorrect. Obviously, Putin miscalculated if he thought the response would be puny in comparison to what he'd get--so he might not be as smart as Trump suggests.

And Trump, the article does not mention, said that the invasion was a disaster.

The article goes on: Then, in a speech at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference last weekend, Trump, again, repeated his praise of Putin. "Yesterday reporters asked me if I thought President Putin was smart," he said. "I said, 'Of course, he's smart,' to which I was greeted with 'Oh, that's such a terrible thing to say.'" I like to tell them, 'Yes, he's smart." Trump obviously likes to poke back at his Press adversaries--they either don't get what he's doing, or they intentionally spin it their way.

The article goes on and links to some timeline, I suppose of Trump praising Putin. I've seen enough selective timelines re Trump to not bother wasting time on it--select what you can spin and disregard the vast residuum of other things Trump has said or done or accomplished. To paint a picture. To create a narrative.

I don't say any of this to "defend" Trump. I would be perfectly happy if he was no longer an issue--whether he was convicted of an actual crime, or was not elected the candidate in the next primary. I am pointing out what is being done on a larger scale to take this country to a place that I do not think is good. And I think Trump is the scapegoat to distract us from the real danger. Paint him as the danger to "our Democracy" while the real culprit, the whole corporate/government/media complex is becoming our ruling class and needs to be exposed. Honest information is needed to fight it. Lies, false narratives, will not help us maintain what is left of our Republic.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/analysis-donald-trump-calling-vladimir-putin-a-genius-was-no-mistake/ar-AAUySPo?ocid=msedgntp

scottw

03-03-2022, 11:10 PM

subject to all sorts of sanctions for misrepresentations

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when have democrats ever worried about this?

Pete F.

03-04-2022, 03:07 AM

detbuch

03-04-2022, 10:00 AM

Oh, the just kidding sarcasm baloney

Sarcasm is sarcasm. Trump employs a lot of it on a consistent basis. He did so in the Sexton and Travis podcast. It's what he does--whether you think its baloney or not, it's what he does.

Trump, is bought and paid for by Putin.
Has been for years

When he lied during the campaign saying that “I have nothing to do with Russia, no deals, no loans, no nothing”
“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
Eric Trump
“Well, we don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia.”
Don Jr
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you have money flowing in and out of Switzerland or Germany, does that mean that Switzerland or Germany own you? For that matter, if your money is tied up in American banks, does that mean you are Biden's puppet?

According to the NY Times, there is no evidence that Trump owes money to Russia: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/technology/no-there-isnt-evidence-that-trump-owes-money-to-russia.html

Pete F.

03-04-2022, 10:41 AM

If you have money flowing in and out of Switzerland or Germany, does that mean that Switzerland or Germany own you? For that matter, if your money is tied up in American banks, does that mean you are Biden's puppet?

According to the NY Times, there is no evidence that Trump owes money to Russia: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/technology/no-there-isnt-evidence-that-trump-owes-money-to-russia.html

So you’re claiming that the Trumpkins were lying when they made those claims, interesting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-04-2022, 11:48 AM

So you’re claiming that the Trumpkins were lying when they made those claims, interesting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They may have been lying. I don't know specifically what they referring to. I don't know why you would be concerned with someone lying. It's a tactic you use a lot. It's not uncommon. Politics is an arena rich in lies. We are daily lied to by politicians, "intelligence" agencies, news medias, corporations, preachers, ad agencies and all manner of things and people who or which seek to influence us to do or think or believe something.

That's not to say that I think it's a good thing. If the Trumps are guilty of punishable offences, it would be good that they be punished.

But that applies to all the others as well. Many of whom want to punish Trump. My larger concern are the lies perpetrated to transform this country into a centralized power state. It appears to me that this is obviously happening, and the lies to cover it up are so persuasive, or we are so gullible, or we are so needy to hang on to the benefits we are promised and so trusting that we will get them that the lies are OK--no different, perhaps, than those we tell in order to get others to love us, or comfort us, or satisfy our pleasure.

So if Trump's lies are the central, important biggy for you, I can understand your need to daily bang the drum. But when you lie, distort, twist, deceive in order to expose what you consider his lies, and you repeat the lies of those who use Trump as one of their scapegoats to achieve the power to transform this nation into an authoritarian state that proscribes what rights we can have rather than protecting our constitutional unalienable rights, then it's a biggy for me to expose the lies and distortions of you and those you parrot.

Pete F.

03-04-2022, 12:01 PM

They may have been lying. I don't know specifically what they referring to. I don't know why you would be concerned with someone lying. It's a tactic you use a lot. It's not uncommon. Politics is an arena rich in lies. We are daily lied to by politicians, "intelligence" agencies, news medias, corporations, preachers, ad agencies and all manner of things and people who or which seek to influence us to do or think or believe something.

That's not to say that I think it's a good thing. If the Trumps are guilty of punishable offences, it would be good that they be punished.

But that applies to all the others as well. Many of whom want to punish Trump. My larger concern are the lies perpetrated to transform this country into a centralized power state. It appears to me that this is obviously happening, and the lies to cover it up are so persuasive, or we are so gullible, or we are so needy to hang on to the benefits we are promised and so trusting that we will get them that the lies are OK--no different, perhaps, than those we tell in order to get others to love us, or comfort us, or satisfy our pleasure.

So if Trump's lies are the central, important biggy for you, I can understand your need to daily bang the drum. But when you lie, distort, twist, deceive in order to expose what you consider his lies, and you repeat the lies of those who use Trump as one of their scapegoats to achieve the power to transform this nation into an authoritarian state that proscribes what rights we can have rather than protecting our constitutional unalienable rights, then it's a biggy for me to expose the lies and distortions of you and those you parrot.

So apparently everyone’s politics are based on the lies they choose to believe and repeat, except for the truth that comes from YouTube
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-04-2022, 12:34 PM

So apparently everyone’s politics are based on the lies they choose to believe and repeat, except for the truth that comes from YouTube
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What I am interested in is preserving and maintaining our constitutional republic. I understand that within its structure of freedom humans will act human. Which includes lying. And telling the truth. And, within that structure, we will protect the freedom of individuals to do those and many creative, beautiful, inspiring, inventive, (and even dumb) things that centralized authoritarian states will not tolerate and will punish if they do not fit within the regulations they impose in order to achieve some probably impossible "equity" if they pretend to "liberate" the people, or, otherwise, if they merely want to dictatorially hang on to power.

I believe that the Progressivism you favor is the false promise of those who think that "liberation" can only be achieved through the power of an authoritarian, unlimited, central state.

Pete F.

03-04-2022, 08:00 PM

detbuch

03-04-2022, 09:09 PM

Your “liberation” has resulted in the highest healthcare costs in the world, a poverty rate far higher than the United States ranking by gdp and a democracy rating that is now categorized as flawed.
Yes, tell me how with zero governmental interference all would be well
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Constitution gives enough leeway for the government to "interfere". And after a century of excessive government "interference" beyond its constitutional limitations we are in a condition you don't seem to approve of.

Yet you seem to think that if we just go whole hog and let the government do whatever interference it claims will fix it, then it all will be good. Or at least we all will have the same equal high quality government mandated "healthcare." Probably not. Corrupt Government is easily bribed by those evil one percenters that you don't like and who lord it over the rest of us. No doubt, however, they will see to it that the government they are in bed with will get good democracy ratings.

And it's not my liberation. It's yours. Your the one who wants authoritarian government. The Constitution protects enough of our freedoms if the politicians rule within its bounds. But . . . healthcare . . . we just won't get the proper statistics by world ranking if we don't let the government do what's necessary, in the minds of authoritarian equity seekers, to equalize the global statistics of the global community. No doubt the benevolent dictators will see to it that the statistics will show that they know best, that they have given us what we really need, and will show that they deserve their exorbitant rewards.

Pete F.

03-05-2022, 03:55 AM

Almost immediately after Trump was inaugurated, the first people he invited to the Oval Office were the Russians Sergei Lavrov & Sergey Kislyak. Trump was literally giddy during the visit. Today Lavrov threatens nukes. Never forget.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-05-2022, 09:46 AM

Pete F.

03-05-2022, 04:16 PM

Remember when Trump actually proposed creating an “impenetrable Cyber Security unit” with Vladimir Putin?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-05-2022, 04:19 PM

detbuch

03-05-2022, 06:09 PM

Remember when Trump actually proposed creating an “impenetrable Cyber Security unit” with Vladimir Putin?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He obviously wanted to overthrow the U.S. government and make America a Russian satelite.

detbuch

03-05-2022, 06:12 PM

John Bolton says that he, Pompeo and Esper were “appalled” at how Trump treated Ukraine, that he believes that Trump was going to pull the US out of NATO in his 2nd term, and that is what Putin was waiting for before moving forward with plans to invade Ukraine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I remember Bolton, Pompeo, and Esper being trashed as dangers to democracy by the legacy Progressive Democrat puppet mainstream media.

Pete F.

03-06-2022, 05:44 AM

wdmso

03-06-2022, 08:35 AM

“Trump mused to donors…we should take our F-22 planes, ‘put the Chinese flag on them and bomb the #^&#^&#^&#^&’ out of Russia. ‘And then we say, China did it, we didn't do, China did it, and then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch.’”
Now consider the destruction associated with the BLM protests
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete that was just hyperbole didn’t you know that! LOL

And The vote counter is oftentimes more important than the candidate and the Republicans are going to have to get a lot tougher,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-06-2022, 06:46 PM

Pete F.

03-07-2022, 06:14 AM

He's Putin's puppet.

Rest easy, the guy who said to rake the forest and water-bomb the cathedral and nuke the hurricane is here to tell us exactly how he would win a war against Russia
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers

03-07-2022, 07:15 AM

Rest easy, the guy who said to rake the forest and water-bomb the cathedral and nuke the hurricane is here to tell us exactly how he would win a war against Russia
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now that’s funny!

detbuch

03-07-2022, 11:56 AM

Pete F.

03-07-2022, 02:26 PM

Putin must have ordered his puppet to say those things.

Actually that he’s stupid enough to make and believe those claims is how he qualified to be Putin’s Puppet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-07-2022, 03:10 PM

Actually that he’s stupid enough to make and believe those claims is how he qualified to be Putin’s Puppet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so Putin waited until after his puppet was gone, to invade and alienate russia from the entire western world

makes sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-07-2022, 03:21 PM

Actually that he’s stupid enough to make and believe those claims is how he qualified to be Putin’s Puppet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That makes no sense. You wouldn't want your puppet to be unpredictable and stupid and threaten your security through stupid blunders that could blow up in your face. You don't want your puppet to be an uncontrollable mad man, stupid enough, insane enough, to bring you down in unpredictable ways.

Are you saying you believe Trump was telling the "truth"? So when and how can you tell when he really means what he says, or being sarcastically funny, or sarcastically sarcastic, or lying, or just plain totally stupid no matter what he says?

Pete F.

03-07-2022, 04:06 PM

so Putin waited until after his puppet was gone, to invade and alienate russia from the entire western world

makes sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The story of Putin is a little more complicated than this

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton says 'Putin was waiting' for Trump to withdraw the United States from NATO in his second term
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-07-2022, 04:34 PM

detbuch

03-07-2022, 05:20 PM

And many other people say Putin was waiting for a weakling to be POTUS.

And he invaded while the U.S. is still a part of NATO. So the idea that he was waiting for us to withdraw is a crock.

And Europe is doing more to bring Putin down now. Putin invading Ukraine has awakened the EU up to the fact that it has to be strong enough to defend against Russia with or without the U.S., or with less dependence on us and more backbone of its own.

Putin may well have waited for a weaker US in tandem with what he saw as a weak disunited Europe. Certainly before Ukraine and other European countries joined NATO.

Pete F.

03-07-2022, 06:22 PM

Putin expected Trump to be re-elected. He and his apparatchiks had done everything in their power to assure it. His ministers had told him it was assured. He expected Trump to withdraw from NATO.

When that plain failed to come to fruition, he made choices based on his worldview and the information presented to him.

For that I think Andrei Kozyrev has an insightful look at Putin.

“ First of all, I want to examine where the questioning of Putin’s rationality started. I think it began because most people, particularly in the West, view his decision to invade Ukraine as utterly irrational. I disagree. It’s horrific, but not irrational.”
“ To understand why the invasion was rational for Putin, we have to step into his shoes. Three beliefs came together at the same time in his calculus:
1. Ukraine’s condition as a country
2. Russian military’s condition
3. The West’s geopolitical condition”

“1. Ukraine’s condition. Putin spent the last 20 years believing that Ukraine is not a real nation and, at best, should be a satellite state. Maidan ended any hope of keeping Ukraine independent and pro-Kremlin. He thought the West was behind it.
If Ukraine’s government cannot be kept independent and pro-Kremlin covertly, as he likely concluded, then he will overtly force it to be. He also started to believe his own propagandists that Ukraine is run by a Nazi-Bandera junta. Perfect pretext to “de-Nazify” Ukraine.

2. Russian military. The Kremlin spent the last 20 years trying to modernize its military. Much of that budget was stolen and spent on mega-yachts in Cyprus. But as a military advisor you cannot report that to the President. So they reported lies to him instead. Potemkin military

3. The West. The Russian ruling elite believed its own propaganda that Pres. Biden is mentally inept. They also thought the EU was weak because of how toothless their sanctions were in 2014. And then the U.S. botched its withdrawal from Afghanistan, solidifying this narrative.

If you believe all three of the above to be true and your goal is to restore the glory of the Russian Empire (whatever that means), then it is perfectly rational to invade Ukraine.

He miscalculated on all three, but that doesn’t make him insane. Simply wrong and immoral.

So, in my opinion, he is rational. Given that he is rational, I strongly believe he will not intentionally use nuclear weapons against the West. I say intentionally because indiscriminate shelling near a nuclear power plant can cause an unintentional nuclear disaster in Ukraine.

I will take it a step further. The threat of nuclear war is another example of his rationality. The Kremlin knows it can try to extract concessions, whether from Ukraine or the West, by saber-rattling its last remaining card in the deck: nuclear weapons.
The ultimate conclusion here is that the West should not agree to any unilateral concessions or limit its support of Ukraine too much for the fear of nuclear war.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got Stripers

03-07-2022, 06:23 PM

One stars in the Budweiser commercials and the other is a horses arse, staring only in the reality show running in is messed up mind.

Jim in CT

03-07-2022, 06:27 PM

And he invaded while the U.S. is still a part of NATO. So the idea that he was waiting for us to withdraw is a crock.

exactly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-07-2022, 10:16 PM

PUTIN’S PLAN SHOWS WHY HE DIDN’T INVADE UKRAINE UNDER TRUMP.

The “peace deal” he just offered is the same kind of deal trump allies were trying to get for Putin.

As long as what Putin wanted was on the table, there was no need to invade.

According to the Mueller report, and a sloppily redacted filing by Manafort, Pauly Walnuts and sanctioned Russian spy Kilimnik worked on the “Ukraine Peace Plan”. According to documents, the plan was to put Yanukovic back in power in Ukraine and carve it up for Putin.

Manafort worked for Yanukovich - trying to make him a more likable guy. He was paid by Deripaska who eventually sued him, but when Manafort got the job grooming trump to install him for Putin, Manafort indicated he would make Deripaska “whole”.

Van der Zwaan - son-in-law of Alfa Bank mogul German Khan, was indicted by Mueller for lying about on behalf of Yanukovich by bad mouthing his opponent, Tymoshenko without registering as a foreign agent.

Kilimnik also had another “Ukraine peace plan” in the works called “The Mariupol Plan”. So while Manafort was trying to install Donald, he was helping Russian-backed separatists with a plan that would hand Ukraine back to Putin. Is this making more sense now?

Another “peace plan” was worked on by Cohen, Flynn, and Artymenko. And we all remember Manafort, along with Dearborn and Mashburn #^&#^&#^&#^&ing up the Ukraine language in the GOP platform in Cleveland.

So Russia was helping donald win the election while his allies were putting together plans to drop sanctions and hand Ukraine over to Putin. Manafort was there for all of it, and donald pardoned him. And when Ukraine wasn’t down with the plan, donald withheld aid.

Rudy and his pals got Yovanovitch out of the way and worked to extort Zelenskyy for fake dirt on Biden so donald could stay in power and continue to pursue Putin’s plan for Ukraine. But donald lost. With the trump “peace plan” off the table, Putin invaded.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

03-08-2022, 08:40 AM

The story of Putin is a little more complicated than this

Former National Security Advisor John Bolton says 'Putin was waiting' for Trump to withdraw the United States from NATO in his second term
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Putin was thrilled Trump was President. Why upset the way Trump was taking things.

"Putin wanted to undermine the NATO alliance, and Trump undermined the NATO alliance. Putin wanted to weaken the E.U., and Trump made little effort to express his disdain for the E.U. Putin wanted to help authoritarians, and Trump cozied up to authoritarians. Putin wanted to hurt Ukraine, and Trump launched an extortion scheme that threatened to hurt Ukraine. Putin wanted to weaken the U.S. political system, and Trump was unnervingly aggressive in trying to weaken the U.S. political system."

wdmso

03-08-2022, 08:58 AM

Trump: Barr 'Went to the Other Side' on 2020, Fearing Impeachment

Omg will it ever end?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-08-2022, 09:15 AM

Trump: Barr 'Went to the Other Side' on 2020, Fearing Impeachment

Omg will it ever end?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it will end, when you stop
obsessing 24/7. let’s not pretend you don’t love it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-08-2022, 10:04 AM

it will end, when you stop
obsessing 24/7. let’s not pretend you don’t love it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok Iam obsessing , I didn’t say this Trump did you know the guy you’re willing to vote for LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

03-08-2022, 10:07 AM

Ok Iam obsessing , I didn’t say this Trump did you know the guy you’re willing to vote for LOL

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:huh:

Jim in CT

03-08-2022, 10:09 AM

Ok Iam obsessing , I didn’t say this Trump did you know the guy you’re willing to vote for LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how many posts do you make a week, about the former president? answer that, then tell me if you’re obsessive about him.

that’s also some quality gibberish there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-08-2022, 03:52 PM

how many posts do you make a week, about the former president? answer that, then tell me if you’re obsessive about him.

that’s also some quality gibberish there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wonder how many times Trump's greatest defender has posted about him in this thread alone?

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/search.php?searchid=8245218

Jim in CT

03-08-2022, 04:15 PM

Wonder how many times Trump's greatest defender has posted about him in this thread alone?

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/search.php?searchid=8245218

I’m his most honest critic. My disdain for him is genuine,not based purely on politics.

I cannot stand him and hope he goes away forever.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-08-2022, 07:56 PM

I’m his most honest critic. My disdain for him is genuine,not based purely on politics.

I cannot stand him and hope he goes away forever.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure Jan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-08-2022, 08:31 PM

Sure Jan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’ve never criticized a democrat or complimented a conservative. not once.

if you think i’m a rabid
trump fan, that’s your problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-08-2022, 09:04 PM

you’ve never criticized a democrat or complimented a conservative. not once.

if you think i’m a rabid
trump fan, that’s your problem.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Silly boy, that’s not my objective
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-08-2022, 10:39 PM

you’ve never criticized a democrat or complimented a conservative. not once.

Jim, Pete is a Neo-Marxist Critical Theorist. He has openly stated that conservatism always leads to oppression and liberalism always leads to liberation.

When you point out that he never criticized a Democrat or complimented a Conservative, he admits "that’s not my objective."

He is on a Neo-Marxian mission. That's why he supports Critical Race Theory. Or Critical Theory in general.

If you have the slightest expectation that he will have a rational conversation with you in which he can recognize what you consider some tolerance or approval of any Conservative opinion whatsoever, you don't understand what he is about.

For him, THERE CAN BE NO TOLERANCE for any Conservative opinion. Any such opinion to him would by like garlic or a cross to a vampire.

His objective is the total eradication of "Conservatism." By any means necessary.

Jim in CT

03-09-2022, 07:14 AM

Jim, Pete is a Neo-Marxist Critical Theorist. He has openly stated that conservatism always leads to oppression and liberalism always leads to liberation.

When you point out that he never criticized a Democrat or complimented a Conservative, he admits "that’s not my objective."

He is on a Neo-Marxian mission. That's why he supports Critical Race Theory. Or Critical Theory in general.

If you have the slightest expectation that he will have a rational conversation with you in which he can recognize what you consider some tolerance or approval of any Conservative opinion whatsoever, you don't understand what he is about.

For him, THERE CAN BE NO TOLERANCE for any Conservative opinion. Any such opinion to him would by like garlic or a cross to a vampire.

His objective is the total eradication of "Conservatism." By any means necessary.

i agree with you 100%. i’m not sure anything them are capable of criticizing their own side, or complimenting the other side. difficult to have a worthwhile conversation. probably not worth trying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-09-2022, 12:28 PM

Jim, Pete is a Neo-Marxist Critical Theorist. He has openly stated that conservatism always leads to oppression and liberalism always leads to liberation.

When you point out that he never criticized a Democrat or complimented a Conservative, he admits "that’s not my objective."

He is on a Neo-Marxian mission. That's why he supports Critical Race Theory. Or Critical Theory in general.

If you have the slightest expectation that he will have a rational conversation with you in which he can recognize what you consider some tolerance or approval of any Conservative opinion whatsoever, you don't understand what he is about.

For him, THERE CAN BE NO TOLERANCE for any Conservative opinion. Any such opinion to him would by like garlic or a cross to a vampire.

His objective is the total eradication of "Conservatism." By any means necessary.

Neo-Marxism
Never as horrific as the right-wing propagandists claim,

And calling you a right-wing propagandists fits you like a glove :btu:

Pete F.

03-09-2022, 01:03 PM

Both the rabid Trump fans have yet to realize they are actually his victims
Senate Republicans, including Ron Johnson and Marco Rubio, are now praising Rick Scott’s 2022 GOP platform that calls for raising taxes on “over half of Americans,” including seniors.

This all makes sense when you recognize that the supposedly conservative GOP believes that if you're rich you deserve to be rich, and if you're poor, you deserve to be poor.

To tax the rich is to deprive them of what they deserve, and to tax the poor is to give them what they deserve.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-09-2022, 01:40 PM

GOP believes that if you're rich you deserve to be rich, and if you're poor, you deserve to be poor.

To tax the rich is to deprive them of what they deserve, and to tax the poor is to give them what they deserve.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"GOP believes that if you're rich you deserve to be rich"

True enough, I guess.

"if you're poor, you deserve to be poor."

Said no influential conservative, ever. I think policy results make it pretty clear that liberals are the ones who want a permanent underclass.

"To tax the rich is to deprive them of what they deserve, and to tax the poor is to give them what they deserve."

Again, no one thinks that.

Why did Trump double the standard deduction, which INCREASES the number of poor people who pay no federal income tax? Please explain why anyone would do that, if their goal was to stick it to the poor?

Just keep making up nonsense.

Jim in CT

03-09-2022, 01:41 PM

Neo-Marxism
Never as horrific as the right-wing propagandists claim,

Look what it did to you guys. I'd say pretty horrific.

detbuch

03-09-2022, 02:57 PM

Neo-Marxism
Never as horrific as the right-wing propagandists claim,

Where in my post to which you responded did I say it was horrific? Do you know that the notion that "conservatism" always leads to oppression and "liberalism" leads to liberation, and so expression from the "right" ("conservative) should be suppressed, not tolerated, is a tenet found in one of one of Marcuse's most important works, "Repressive Tolerance." Marcuse is recognized as a prominent Neo-Marxist, as in the Wikepedia subject entry Neo-Marxism: "Many prominent neo-Marxists, such as Herbert Marcuse and other members of the Frankfurt School".

Marcuse's tenet is practiced by current leftist or left leaning groups such as ANTIFA, cancel culturalists, social media orgs, major internet opinion and communication outlets, even to some degree by print or TV media.

Censorship of the right and support of leftist expression (including even the support of leftist riots, but censures of the riots by the right this past year) that is occurring now is "horrific" to many, but not to Pete F, nor, it seems, to you and some others on the forum. That's up to you. I'm merely pointing it out. Pete's own words on this forum have specifically supported Marcuse's tenet. And his refusal to give any credit or support of "conservative" expression is demonstrable "praxis" (practice) of Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance, as well as a praxis of Critical Race Theory.

And calling you a right-wing propagandists fits you like a glove :btu:

I've told the truth. If you consider that to be right-wing propaganda, then you may inadvertently be practicing Repressive Tolerance.

wdmso

03-09-2022, 03:22 PM

I've told the truth. If you consider that to be right-wing propaganda, then you may inadvertently be practicing Repressive Tolerance.

He is on a Neo-Marxian mission. That's why he supports Critical Race Theory. Or Critical Theory in general.

I've told the truth.

And calling you right-wing propagandists

Guess what I've told the truth :kewl:

detbuch

03-09-2022, 05:54 PM

He is on a Neo-Marxian mission. That's why he supports Critical Race Theory. Or Critical Theory in general.

I've told the truth.

And calling you right-wing propagandists

Guess what I've told the truth :kewl:

Are you saying that Pete doesn't vigorously defend and support Critical Race Theory and doesn't try to persuade us to see and agree with its view of America being a racist system designed by white supremacists for the sole purpose of granting privilege to whites at the expense of those who are not white? And that the system cannot be incrementally improved, that the legal equality created by all the civil rights initiatives have actually further entrenched white privilege rather than liberating non-whites, and so must be torn down at its roots and replaced by an equitable system created by critically race conscious theorists and governed by the same sort? Are you saying CRT is not a neo-Marxian theory derived from neo-Marxist Critical Theory?

Are you saying that Pete F does not believe that "conservatism" inevitably leads to oppression and its ideas must be suppressed, not tolerated or even granted space in political and social discourse in public, political, and media spaces?

Are you saying that Pete is not on a mission to rid us of the classical liberal idea of individual sovereignty that we were founded on and replace it with the Progressive notion of universal equity created and enforced by authoritarian government that has unlimited power to give us what we need and that notions like individual liberty are outdated and are an obstacle to the Good that powerful centralized government can do for us?

Pete F.

03-09-2022, 07:44 PM

detbuch

03-09-2022, 09:21 PM

I see the poor victims are crying again.
Interesting how the victims consistently defend the man who numerous times tried to subvert the American electoral system and didn’t care where he got aid in doing so from.
He was just kidding
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Poor baby! You see! (Through a glass darkly). . . And you spout! Yet your wonderful distortions are not able to prevail on so many of the poor that they are truly victims of your marvelously crafted nightmare . . . but you valiantly continue to preach! Oh! . . . will they not listen!

How tragic . . .

Pete F.

03-10-2022, 05:18 AM

Jim in CT

03-10-2022, 06:14 AM

I see the poor victims are crying again.
Interesting how the victims consistently defend the man who numerous times tried to subvert the American electoral system and didn’t care where he got aid in doing so from.
He was just kidding
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how is that different from 2016, when democrats also tried to subvert the electoral
system, by (1) asking electors not to cast their ballots for the winning candidate, and the.n (2) congress challenging the certification of election results in some states with zero evidence of wrongdoing, and (3) undermining confidence in our elections by saying “the russians did it”?

Answer - it’s always ok when democrats do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-10-2022, 07:21 AM

Jim in CT

03-10-2022, 07:27 AM

The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday released the final report on its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, finding numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow posed a "grave" counterintelligence threat.

"We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling," Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement, directly refuting President Donald Trump's repeated assertions that Russian interference was a "hoax" perpetrated by Democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, how about we be clear? are you saying trump didn’t win fairly?

And i know how much that question boxes you into a corner.

I have no doubt there was meddling. just like i have no doubt dead people voted in chicago. the question is, did it effect the outcome?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-10-2022, 08:11 AM

Pete, how about we be clear? are you saying trump didn’t win fairly?

And i know how much that question boxes you into a corner.

I have no doubt there was meddling. just like i have no doubt dead people voted in chicago. the question is, did it effect the outcome?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no problem with that question
Trump had and encouraged aid from his Russian good friends.

What did Manafort do?
Why was he pardoned?
What are Manaforts connections to Russia and Ukraine?
Why did the Trump campaign push and succeed in removing Ukraine from the 2016 Republican platform?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-10-2022, 08:12 AM

I have no problem with that question
Trump had and encouraged aid from his Russian good friends.

What did Manafort do?
Why was he pardoned?
What are Manaforts connections to Russia and Ukraine?
Why did the Trump campaign push and succeed in removing Ukraine from the 2016 Republican platform?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you have no problem with that question, why didn’t you answer it?

I’ll ask again…

Did Trump win fairly?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-10-2022, 08:19 AM

if you have no problem with that question, why didn’t you answer it?

I’ll ask again…

Did Trump win fairly?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump had and encouraged aid from his Russian good friends.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-10-2022, 08:30 AM

Trump had and encouraged aid from his Russian good friends.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can't answer! Shocker!

Pete F.

03-10-2022, 08:44 AM

Can't answer! Shocker!

I suppose you think getting aid from his Russian friends is acceptable and fair.

Since you dismiss or encouraged Russian interference in the 2016 US election then explain how you’re now tough on Russia on Ukraine. The two acts are part of the same Putin plan to undermine rule of law & the West - aggression that goes back at least to Georgia in 2008.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-10-2022, 08:49 AM

I suppose you think getting aid from his Russian friends is acceptable and fair.

Since you dismiss or encouraged Russian interference in the 2016 US election then explain how you’re now tough on Russia on Ukraine. The two acts are part of the same Putin plan to undermine rule of law & the West - aggression that goes back at least to Georgia in 2008.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think it's acceptable, but I'm certain it didn't effect the outcome.

If I combed through Hilary's donor list, I'm quite certainI'd find some loathsome people.

Anyway, I knew full well there was no way you'd give me a yes or no answer. You can't. If you say it was fair, you're going against the Narrative, and you can't do that.

If you say it wasn't fair, you know you sound exactly as nutty as Trump when he says 2020 wasn't fair.

I backed you into a corner, you couldn't escape with a direct answer, so you dodged.

Pete F.

03-10-2022, 08:55 AM

I don't think it's acceptable, but I'm certain it didn't effect the outcome.

If I combed through Hilary's donor list, I'm quite certainI'd find some loathsome people.

Anyway, I knew full well there was no way you'd give me a yes or no answer. You can't. If you say it was fair, you're going against the Narrative, and you can't do that.

If you say it wasn't fair, you know you sound exactly as nutty as Trump when he says 2020 wasn't fair.

The difference is there is no evidence of the 2020 election being unfair, there is plenty of evidence that the Russians interfered with both the 2016 and 2020 elections

I backed you into a corner, you couldn't escape with a direct answer, so you dodged.

Yes, both elections had significant evidence of russian interference.

But just keep repeating the Russian propaganda and claiming that what is clearly visible is fake news.

Jim in CT

03-10-2022, 10:44 AM

Yes, both elections had significant evidence of russian interference.

But just keep repeating the Russian propaganda and claiming that what is clearly visible is fake news.

i’m not denying the russians interfered. i asked what evidence there is, that russian interference impacted the outcome in any way.

pretty simple question. you’ve obviously concluded that it had an effect.

there’s no evidence to support that. but you still believe it, because it supports the narrative
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-10-2022, 11:00 AM

i’m not denying the russians interfered. i asked what evidence there is, that russian interference impacted the outcome in any way.

pretty simple question. you’ve obviously concluded that it had an effect.

there’s no evidence to support that. but you still believe it, because it supports the narrative
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There’s plenty of demonstrative, documentary and digital evidence that Russia’s million plus a month spending on a disinformation campaign to aid Trump had an effect on the outcome of the 2016 election, what would you find acceptable as evidence?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-10-2022, 11:22 AM

There’s plenty of demonstrative, documentary and digital evidence that Russia’s million plus a month spending on a disinformation campaign to aid Trump had an effect on the outcome of the 2016 election, what would you find acceptable as evidence?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Russia's spending is not enough evidence. The Dems raised 40 million dollars more in campaign money. The media propaganda was heavily in favor of the Dems. There's no telling how much influence money was spent by other countries and for whom. The polls, which should have reflected how much influence the spending (including Russia's) had on public opinion, were massively favoring the Dems.

Pete F.

03-10-2022, 11:36 AM

Russia's spending is not enough evidence. The Dems raised 40 million dollars more in campaign money. The media propaganda was heavily in favor of the Dems. There's no telling how much influence money was spent by other countries and for whom. The polls, which should have reflected how much influence the spending (including Russia's) had on public opinion, were massively favoring the Dems.

Both US intelligence agencies and Mueller’s investigation affirmed that Russian hackers wanted to help Trump win office and committed crimes toward that end. Trump even acknowledged it at one point.

A Senate Intelligence Committee report released on Thursday indicated that beyond hacking and propaganda campaigns, the Kremlin’s efforts included attempts to penetrate elections systems in all 50 states. It also affirms there is no evidence Russian hackers messed with vote totals or were able to change votes. So in that very narrow sense, the claim that Russia didn’t affect the outcome of the election is defensible.

University of Tennessee Knoxville study funded by the Defense Department found that Trump’s polling upticks during the 2016 campaign correlated with social media activity by Russian trolls and bots. According to the study, every 25,000 retweets from troll and bot accounts connected with Russia’s Internet Research Agency predicted a 1 percent bump in Trump’s polling.

Damian Ruck, the study’s lead researcher, told NBC’s Ken Dilanian that his findings indicate Russia played a very key role in Trump’s victory:

In an interview with NBC News, Ruck said the research suggests that Russian trolls helped shift U.S public opinion in Trump’s favor. As to whether it affected the outcome of the election: “The answer is that we still don’t know, but we can’t rule it out.”

Given that the election turned on 75,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, “it is a prospect that should be taken seriously,” Ruck wrote, adding that more study was needed in those swing states.

He points out that 13 percent of voters didn’t make their final choice until the last week before the election.

There is also a strong argument to be made that WikiLeaks, which published the first tranche of emails purloined from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta by Russian hackers just hours after the Washington Post published the Access Hollywood tape of Trump on October 7, swayed voters during the final month of the campaign. In this period, Trump overcame a string of sexual misconduct allegations and a 7-point deficit in the polls to win the election.

As Harry Enten noted for FiveThirtyEight in an analysis of WikiLeaks’ impact during the campaign’s closing stretch, the case remains circumstantial, but Americans were definitely paying attention to WikiLeaks. Enten found that for much of October, there was almost twice as much search interest in WikiLeaks than there was in the FBI, which was also in the news that month because of a letter then-Director James Comey sent to Congress publicizing the Clinton email investigation. Here are a couple additional important data points from Enten’s piece:

Trump, for instance, won among voters who decided who to vote for in October 51 percent to 37 percent, according to national exit polls. That’s Trump’s best time period. He carried voters who decided in the final week, when you might expect Comey’s letter to have had the largest impact, 45 percent to 42 percent.
It’s worth remembering that Trump’s closing message centered largely around WikiLeaks. He mentioned Julian Assange’s operation about five days a day during the campaign’s final month, but now pretends that never happened. (“Problematic is an understatement,” Mueller said on Wednesday about Trump’s promotion of WikiLeaks.) Is it possible the Clinton campaign email dumps and Trump’s relentless hyping of them on the campaign trail had no impact on the outcome of the election? It seems exceedingly unlikely.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-10-2022, 11:41 AM

Trumplicans always project

"Mark Meadows, who as chief of staff to President Donald Trump promoted his lies of mass voter fraud, is facing scrutiny about his own voter registration status. Public records show he is registered to vote in two states."

January 2017: “I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states…”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More election fraud found

Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters has been INDICTED on 11 counts and Deputy Clerk Belinda Knisley on 6 counts in "election system breach." This is out of the DA's office in Mesa County.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-10-2022, 02:03 PM

Both US intelligence agencies and Mueller’s investigation affirmed that Russian hackers wanted to help Trump win office and committed crimes toward that end. Trump even acknowledged it at one point.

A Senate Intelligence Committee report released on Thursday indicated that beyond hacking and propaganda campaigns, the Kremlin’s efforts included attempts to penetrate elections systems in all 50 states. It also affirms there is no evidence Russian hackers messed with vote totals or were able to change votes. So in that very narrow sense, the claim that Russia didn’t affect the outcome of the election is defensible.

University of Tennessee Knoxville study funded by the Defense Department found that Trump’s polling upticks during the 2016 campaign correlated with social media activity by Russian trolls and bots. According to the study, every 25,000 retweets from troll and bot accounts connected with Russia’s Internet Research Agency predicted a 1 percent bump in Trump’s polling.

Damian Ruck, the study’s lead researcher, told NBC’s Ken Dilanian that his findings indicate Russia played a very key role in Trump’s victory:

In an interview with NBC News, Ruck said the research suggests that Russian trolls helped shift U.S public opinion in Trump’s favor. As to whether it affected the outcome of the election: “The answer is that we still don’t know, but we can’t rule it out.”

Given that the election turned on 75,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, “it is a prospect that should be taken seriously,” Ruck wrote, adding that more study was needed in those swing states.

He points out that 13 percent of voters didn’t make their final choice until the last week before the election.

There is also a strong argument to be made that WikiLeaks, which published the first tranche of emails purloined from Clinton campaign chair John Podesta by Russian hackers just hours after the Washington Post published the Access Hollywood tape of Trump on October 7, swayed voters during the final month of the campaign. In this period, Trump overcame a string of sexual misconduct allegations and a 7-point deficit in the polls to win the election.

As Harry Enten noted for FiveThirtyEight in an analysis of WikiLeaks’ impact during the campaign’s closing stretch, the case remains circumstantial, but Americans were definitely paying attention to WikiLeaks. Enten found that for much of October, there was almost twice as much search interest in WikiLeaks than there was in the FBI, which was also in the news that month because of a letter then-Director James Comey sent to Congress publicizing the Clinton email investigation. Here are a couple additional important data points from Enten’s piece:

Trump, for instance, won among voters who decided who to vote for in October 51 percent to 37 percent, according to national exit polls. That’s Trump’s best time period. He carried voters who decided in the final week, when you might expect Comey’s letter to have had the largest impact, 45 percent to 42 percent.
It’s worth remembering that Trump’s closing message centered largely around WikiLeaks. He mentioned Julian Assange’s operation about five days a day during the campaign’s final month, but now pretends that never happened. (“Problematic is an understatement,” Mueller said on Wednesday about Trump’s promotion of WikiLeaks.) Is it possible the Clinton campaign email dumps and Trump’s relentless hyping of them on the campaign trail had no impact on the outcome of the election? It seems exceedingly unlikely.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is no evidence in all this that there is ENOUGH of what Russia did to change the election. Nor is there an accounting of the dark money that was spent in Hillary's favor.

The NYT says that dark money is what swayed the election in 2020 in favor of Biden. "A New York Times analysis reveals how the left outdid the right at raising and spending millions from undisclosed donors to defeat Donald Trump and win power in Washington.":

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/politics/democrats-dark-money-donors.html

Pete F.

03-13-2022, 07:32 AM

When a man tells you he wants to become a dictator, believe him.

"We will pass critical reforms making every executive branch employee fireable by the president of the United States. The deep state must and will be brought to heel." -- Trump proposes a drastic expansion of presidential power
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-13-2022, 09:29 AM

scottw

03-13-2022, 09:46 PM

sorry pete......

Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg has effectively pulled the plug on a state criminal prosecution of Donald Trump and/or his family over the Trump Organization’s business and taxes. While Bragg has not formally shut the door, and Trump’s legal woes are far from over, it seems that New York will get no closer than the small-beer indictment of former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg over the tax reporting of perks.

Whatever you think of Trump as a political figure, that is a good thing. Political opponents bringing criminal charges against a former president is a dramatic step that has never before been taken in the United States. It would be entirely appropriate to charge Trump or another former president over a clear, obvious violation of a regularly enforced criminal law — if, for example, Trump actually shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue. But pushing the envelope to indict a former president under a creative expansion of the law, upon tenuous evidence, in ways not customarily done to ordinary citizens, would be a disaster for the rule of law.

Back in 1988, Justice Antonin Scalia penned his famous lone dissent in Morrison v. Olson against the constitutionality of the independent-counsel statute. The statute, already unpopular with Republicans, was allowed to expire a decade later, after the investigations of Bill Clinton convinced Democrats that Scalia had been right about the risk of selective, politicized prosecutions when prosecutors are set to investigate one particular person and removed from the competing responsibilities of other cases.

Ben Protess, William K. Rashbaum, and Jonah E. Bromwich of the New York Times took a look under the hood of the Manhattan DA’s Trump investigation. What they found is a striking illustration of precisely the sort of loss of perspective that Scalia predicted.

Picking the Team

Scalia on the hiring of prosecutors recruited to pursue one particular target:

An independent counsel is selected. . . .What if . . . [this is] a prosecutor antagonistic to the administration, or even to the particular individual who has been selected for this special treatment? . . . The independent counsel thus selected proceeds to assemble a staff. . . . In the nature of things this has to be done by finding lawyers who are willing to lay aside their current careers for an indeterminate amount of time, to take on a job that has no prospect of permanence and little prospect for promotion. One thing is certain, however: it involves investigating and perhaps prosecuting a particular individual.

Can one imagine a less equitable manner of fulfilling the executive responsibility to investigate and prosecute? What would be the reaction if, in an area not covered by this statute, the Justice Department posted a public notice inviting applicants to assist in an investigation and possible prosecution of a certain prominent person?

The Manhattan DA’s investigation, initiated under Bragg’s predecessor Cyrus Vance Jr., was headed by two veteran prosecutors specially tabbed for the role, Mark Pomerantz and Carey Dunne. How did Pomerantz come to this job? As a volunteer, working without pay, with nothing else to do but investigate one man:

Mr. Pomerantz, 70, had once run the criminal division of the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan. He had also been a partner at the prestigious law firm Paul Weiss, and he came out of retirement to work on the investigation without pay.

Why was he hired?

In 2012, in the first of his three terms, Mr. Vance closed an investigation into accusations that Mr. Trump’s son Donald Jr. and his daughter Ivanka had misled potential buyers of apartments at one of the Trump Organization’s New York hotels, Trump Soho. The decision trailed Mr. Vance for years, subjecting him to criticism after Mr. Trump was elected president.

Who else did Vance consult when deciding to go forward? More people who had tried and failed to prosecute Trump:

As his tenure drew to a close in December, he consulted a group of prominent outside lawyers to help inform what would be his final decision. The group was referred to internally as “the brain trust” — a handful of former prosecutors that included two senior members of Robert S. Mueller’s special counsel inquiry into Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign.

How did Bragg get elected to replace Vance?

At the attorney general’s office, Mr. Bragg had overseen a significant amount of civil litigation against Mr. Trump and his administration — cases he often cited in the district attorney race.

Picking the Man

Scalia on the investigation’s tendency to expand beyond the original “crimes” it was supposed to investigate, while remaining fixated on the individual targeted:

Should the independent counsel or his or her staff come up with something beyond that scope, nothing prevents him or her from asking . . . to expand his or her authority . . . which would in all likelihood assign it to the same independent counsel.

He quoted Robert Jackson, then the attorney general and later a justice, on the hazards of approaching a criminal prosecution this way:

One of the greatest difficulties of the position of prosecutor is that he must pick his cases, because no prosecutor can even investigate all of the cases in which he receives complaints. . . . What every prosecutor is practically required to do is to select the cases for prosecution and to select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain.

If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his case, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted. With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.

It is in this realm — in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.

Here’s how the Manhattan DA’s investigation metastasized, with only the target staying the same:

For months, the prosecutors had envisioned charging Mr. Trump — and possibly Mr. Weisselberg and the Trump Organization — with the crime of “scheming to defraud” for falsely inflating his assets on the statements of financial condition that had been used to obtain bank loans. But by the end of the year, the prosecutors had switched gears, in part because Mr. Trump’s lenders had not lost money on the loans but had in fact profited from them.

The new strategy was to charge Mr. Trump with conspiracy and falsifying business records — specifically his financial statements — a simpler case that essentially amounted to painting Mr. Trump as a liar rather than a thief. The case still was not a slam dunk, Mr. Dunne acknowledged at the meeting. But he argued that it was better to lose than to not try at all. “It’s a righteous case that ought to be brought,” Mr. Dunne told Mr. Bragg.

Fixating on the Target

Scalia on why prosecutors employed only to chase one defendant lose the perspective provided by having other, important cases to prosecute:

The mini-Executive that is the independent counsel . . . operating in an area where so little is law and so much is discretion, is intentionally cut off from the unifying influence of the Justice Department, and from the perspective that multiple responsibilities provide. What would normally be regarded as a technical violation (there are no rules defining such things), may in his or her small world assume the proportions of an indictable offense. What would normally be regarded as an investigation that has reached the level of pursuing such picayune matters that it should be concluded, may to him or her be an investigation that ought to go on for another year.

How frightening it must be to have your own independent counsel and staff appointed, with nothing else to do but to investigate you until investigation is no longer worthwhile — with whether it is worthwhile not depending upon what such judgments usually hinge on, competing responsibilities. And to have that counsel and staff decide, with no basis for comparison, whether what you have done is bad enough, willful enough, and provable enough, to warrant an indictment.

How did the Manhattan DA’s prosecutors who had other cases to work on react?

Some of the career prosecutors who had worked on the inquiry for more than two years expressed concern. They believed that Mr. Vance, who had decided not to seek re-election, was pushing too hard for an indictment before leaving office. . . . Concern among the office’s career prosecutors about the investigation into the former president came to a head in September at a meeting they sought with Mr. Dunne. Mr. Dunne offered to have them work only on the pending trial of Mr. Weisselberg or leave the Trump team altogether. Two prosecutors eventually took him up on the latter . . . [at the end of Vance’s term], a third prosecutor left the investigation into Mr. Trump.

By contrast, how did Pomerantz and Dunne react?

Once [Bragg] told Mr. Pomerantz and Mr. Dunne that he was not prepared to authorize charges, they resigned. Explaining the resignation to his team of prosecutors in a meeting a day later, Mr. Dunne said he felt he needed “to disassociate myself with this decision because I think it was on the wrong side of history.” . . . Mr. Dunne, however, left the door open to a possible return. If Mr. Bragg reconsidered his decision, Mr. Dunne told colleagues, he would gladly come back.

Imagine having a prosecutor declare that a case should be brought so as to stay on a “side of history.”

This investigation was conducted under an elected district attorney, rather than a judicially appointed prosecutor accountable to nobody, so the process was not without some ultimate checks and balances. The Times notes that “Mr. Bragg’s decision on the Trump investigation may compound his political problems in heavily Democratic Manhattan, where many residents make no secret of their enmity for Mr. Trump.” But in the end, even Alvin Bragg has to consider what Pomerantz and Dunne did not: the public consequences of expending vast resources to pursue an unprecedented case on a flimsy theory that could easily fall apart in court. In that sense, Bragg’s decision vindicates Scalia’s view about the crucial nature of prosecutorial accountability to the voters. But the way in which this investigation proceeded is also a perfect illustration of prosecutors suffering from target fixation, so locked on the man they wanted to prosecute that they lost all sight of how we, as a society, are supposed to decide what crimes deserve prosecution.

scottw

03-13-2022, 09:47 PM

fundraising emails went out after a private jet in which Trump was traveling on March 5 lost power in one of its three engines after leaving New Orleans

Still fleecing his flock

But won’t commit to if he’s running
So he can keep the money flowing in
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is he not allowed to fundraise from a jet with two working engines after leaving New Orleans?

I bet a lot of people who sent money to biden-in-a-basement want their money back....

Jim in CT

03-14-2022, 07:13 AM

Pete F.

03-16-2022, 05:09 AM

Jim in CT

03-16-2022, 05:21 AM

Let's flash back to when Trump was president to see how tough he was on Russia:

Russia got kicked out of the G8 for invading Ukraine. Trump covered for Putin and made up a new reason why and said he favored letting Russia back in. Real tough.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

trump took some tough actions against russia, sent you an article that went through all of them. you ignored it.

and you love obama, who famously mocked mitt romney for saying russia is a threat

As always with you, you have no actual principle here. Other then to hug liberals and spit on conservatives. You’ll ignore any fact, contradict anything you previously said, spin any yarn, in that pursuit. there’s nothing you won’t say toward that end.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-16-2022, 06:49 AM

When Russia sanctioned Canada, it barred leaders from all major federal parties, including conservative leaders.

But when Russia sanctioned the U.S., it barred Democratic leaders only. It didn’t name a single GOP leader.

The signal couldn’t be clearer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-16-2022, 09:28 AM

Pete F.

03-16-2022, 01:02 PM

Trump backpedaled on his previous support of Vladimir Putin: “I think he’s changed. I think he’s changed. It’s a very sad thing for the world. He’s very much changed.”

Fact is, Putin hasn’t changed. He first invaded Ukraine in 2014, which Trump claimed the people of Crimea somehow welcomed. He poisoned Navalny while Trump was president. He twice interfered in US elections in which Trump was a candidate. SolarWinds hack was on his watch as well
In fact US imports of Russian oil doubled during Tweety’s administration, their GDP grew at double the prior rate….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-16-2022, 01:27 PM

Trump backpedaled on his previous support of Vladimir Putin:

Good.

Pete F.

03-16-2022, 02:34 PM

Jim in CT

03-16-2022, 03:07 PM

Trump fan White nationalist Nick Fuentes encourages prayers for the brave Russian soldiers who are fighting to "liberate Ukraine from the Great Satan and from the evil empire in the world, which is the United States."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There aren't ANY loathsome people who vote for democrats. None. Harvey Weinstein was a big, big conservative, right Pete?

Boy are you desperate now. Trump is responsible for everyone who voted for him. But Biden isn't.

Who'd Al Sharpton vote for in the last few presidential elections,. do you suppose?

Pete F.

03-17-2022, 12:48 AM

There aren't ANY loathsome people who vote for democrats. None. Harvey Weinstein was a big, big conservative, right Pete?

Boy are you desperate now. Trump is responsible for everyone who voted for him. But Biden isn't.

Who'd Al Sharpton vote for in the last few presidential elections,. do you suppose?

The stories of Trump and Weinstein have a lot in common. Both men have been accused of touching women against their will, of making unsolicited and sexualized comments about women’s bodies, of using their power to coerce women into sex and to protect themselves in the aftermath.

Both men have been caught on tape. In a recording published by the New Yorker, Weinstein appears to admit to groping model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez and pressures her to come to his room. In the Access Hollywood tape released in October 2016, Trump bragged that his celebrity status allowed him to touch women: “When you’re a star, they let you do it,” he said. “Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” After the tape was released, several women came forward to say that Trump had done the things he described, kissing and touching them without their consent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-17-2022, 05:10 AM

The stories of Trump and Weinstein have a lot in common. Both men have been accused of touching women against their will, of making unsolicited and sexualized comments about women’s bodies, of using their power to coerce women into sex and to protect themselves in the aftermath.

Both men have been caught on tape. In a recording published by the New Yorker, Weinstein appears to admit to groping model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez and pressures her to come to his room. In the Access Hollywood tape released in October 2016, Trump bragged that his celebrity status allowed him to touch women: “When you’re a star, they let you do it,” he said. “Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” After the tape was released, several women came forward to say that Trump had done the things he described, kissing and touching them without their consent.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which party did Weinstein support Pete? Are you capable of simply answering?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-17-2022, 06:14 AM

Which party did Weinstein support Pete? Are you capable of simply answering?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No idea, not my concern
You spend a lot of time desperately trying to find liberals to equate with Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman

03-17-2022, 06:26 AM

Which party did Weinstein support Pete? Are you capable of simply answering?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1OX2xGPlPkafWmMyZ6UBXssjc7Y=/0x0:2182x1142/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9474405/51570764.jpg

https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?q=60&c=sc&poi=face&w=1764&h=882&url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F20%2F2017%2F10%2Fharve y-weinstein-obama-1-2000.jpg

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-17-2022, 07:01 AM

No idea, not my concern
You spend a lot of time desperately trying to find liberals to equate with trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

liar.

i didn’t equate anyone with trump. you said it was trumps fault that a bad person supported him.

fine. using that logic, what does it say that Weinstein supported democrats?

a principled person would see you have to apply that logic to both sides (or even better, apply it to neither side, as it's a stupid argument). you can’t.

what are you afraid would happen exactly, if you just said weinstein was a big loyal democrat? why can’t you do it? why does it say about you, that you can’t do that?

incredible.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-17-2022, 07:01 AM

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1OX2xGPlPkafWmMyZ6UBXssjc7Y=/0x0:2182x1142/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9474405/51570764.jpg

https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?q=60&c=sc&poi=face&w=1764&h=882&url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.onecms.io%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F20%2F2017%2F10%2Fharve y-weinstein-obama-1-2000.jpg

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thank you!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-17-2022, 07:31 AM

Now do Epstein
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-17-2022, 07:37 AM

Now do Epstein
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Problem for you is, I've said here a million times that there are a huge number of republicans who are terrible people. It's true, therefore I can immediately concede it.

You are the one, not me, who denies EVERYTHING that doesn't serve your political agenda.

My god that must be tiring.

Are you still saying you "have no idea" which party Weinstein supported Pete?

I'll help you out. Weinstein was a fiercely loyal democrat, just like you. But his actions say absolutely nothing about you. Nothing. You aren't responsible for what he does. Neither are the politicians he voted for, unless they knew what he was doing.

Similarly, it says nothing about Trump that some terrible people voted for him.

The Dad Fisherman

03-17-2022, 08:04 AM

Now do Epstein
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/ghislaine-trial-clinton.jpg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-17-2022, 11:52 AM

Epstein only got coffee

I was reading one of Putin’s ‘alerts’ this morning attacking a free press and NATO and then I realized it was actually a statement from Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-17-2022, 02:26 PM

Former President Donald Trump on Thursday urged Wisconsin Republican lawmakers to continue their pursuit of 2020 presidential election decertification.

Wisconsin GOP Assembly Speaker Robin Vos on Wednesday said there had been widespread fraud in the 2020 election, but he didn't believe there was a constitutional avenue to decertifying the results.

wdmso

03-17-2022, 02:39 PM

https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/ghislaine-trial-clinton.jpg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems Trump's involvement was more social again again and again ..

But nothing to see ..

Jim in CT

03-17-2022, 03:19 PM

Wayne, Pete brought Epstein. I'd like to know what Trumps relationship was, because it might prevent Trump from running again.

The only one on these recent posts denying anything, was Pete, who blamed Trump for having bad people vote for him but won't concede Weinstein was a huge democrat supporter.

The Dad Fisherman

03-17-2022, 05:12 PM

Seems Trump's involvement was more social again again and again ..

But nothing to see ..

Well, I see Clinton’s name on here a couple of times, and Schumer, and Kerry…but like you said, nothing to see when it comes to Trump.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rU9q5vU0x2c7zfd7VaUVW5lA-AZu8Xpg4fEALuitteI/htmlview#
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-18-2022, 07:38 AM

Well, I see Clinton’s name on here a couple of times, and Schumer, and Kerry…but like you said, nothing to see when it comes to Trump.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rU9q5vU0x2c7zfd7VaUVW5lA-AZu8Xpg4fEALuitteI/htmlview#
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am just using conservatives processes of accusing others of crimes. Seeing evidence and facts are not required .

I just need to feel that’s what Trump was doing buying underage girls !

Simply Because he’s in a photo with

2 convicted felons years prior
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

JohnR

03-18-2022, 08:12 AM

I am just using conservatives processes of accusing others of crimes. Seeing evidence and facts are not required .

I just need to feel that’s what Trump was doing buying underage girls !

Simply Because he’s in a photo with

2 convicted felons years prior
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Like the Steele Dossier?

wdmso

03-18-2022, 08:33 AM

Like the Steele Dossier?

Did the F.B.I. open the investigation because of the dossier?
Nope

counterintelligence agents launched the effort on July 30, 2016, they did not yet know about the dossier. An inspector general report established

like I said evidence and facts are not required ...

Jim in CT

03-18-2022, 09:03 AM

Did the F.B.I. open the investigation because of the dossier?
Nope

counterintelligence agents launched the effort on July 30, 2016, they did not yet know about the dossier. An inspector general report established

like I said evidence and facts are not required ...

did they get a FISA warrant to temporarily suspend the civil rights of an american citizen, based in part on the steele dossier?

Yup.

Just because the steele dossier didn’t kick the whole thing off, doesn’t mean there isn’t a story there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-18-2022, 07:51 PM

did they get a FISA warrant to temporarily suspend the civil rights of an american citizen, based in part on the steele dossier?

Yup.

Just because the steele dossier didn’t kick the whole thing off, doesn’t mean there isn’t a story there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The former White House Chief of Staff is under both federal and state investigation for criminal contempt of congress and voter fraud.

That’s a hell of a statement, and yet it’s page six news.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

03-19-2022, 12:58 AM

so you are saying nobody cares? ;)

Pete F.

03-19-2022, 06:07 AM

so you are saying nobody cares? ;)

You only care about what your choice of news tells you to
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-19-2022, 08:38 AM

temporarily suspend the civil rights of an american citizen

Happens every day . In America
But Page is special?
Only in the eyes of Conservatives he feeds their deep state mantra .

Texas does this daily to families across the state , fearful of a knock on the door because Their kids gay or trans . And the are investigated for child abuse . Target by the Government with information provided by private citizens

Another example of Conservatives targeting others promoting discrimination by hiding behind words like child abuse or voter integrity

Don’t see you concerned over these Americans suspension of their civil right?

question why did Trump even hire him

Was because he one-man investment fund and consulting firm specializing in the Russian and Central Asian oil and gas business
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-19-2022, 12:24 PM

Jim in CT

03-19-2022, 12:25 PM

wdmso

03-19-2022, 01:57 PM

is the state of texas rounding up gays now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

is that where you draw the Line Jim? until that happens anything else is acceptable?

Jim in CT

03-19-2022, 03:10 PM

is that where you draw the Line Jim? until that happens anything else is acceptable?

you said parents of gays live i. fear because of what the state of texas is doing. what are they doing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-19-2022, 04:20 PM

you said parents of gays live i. fear because of what the state of texas is doing. what are they doing?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Parents of transgender children in Texas are reeling after Governor Greg Abbott issued a directive telling "licensed professionals" and "members of the general public" to report parents of transgender minors to authorities if it appears those children are receiving gender-affirming medical care.

The directive, which is not a law, was sent to the state's Department of Family and Protective Services this week, calling on the agency to investigate any reports of minors receiving gender-affirming care. On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton released an opinion that said allowing children to receive care like puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery is child abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-19-2022, 06:41 PM

Parents of transgender children in Texas are reeling after Governor Greg Abbott issued a directive telling "licensed professionals" and "members of the general public" to report parents of transgender minors to authorities if it appears those children are receiving gender-affirming medical care.

The directive, which is not a law, was sent to the state's Department of Family and Protective Services this week, calling on the agency to investigate any reports of minors receiving gender-affirming care. On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton released an opinion that said allowing children to receive care like puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery is child abuse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thus involves situations where people are giving hormones or gender changing treatment to children, right?

i don’t let my kids pick the dinner menu regularly, because i don’t want to eat snickers bars for dinner. i ain’t letting them decide to mutilate themselves.

kids can’t make these decisions, they’re not equipped. not even close. that’s why they need parents.

looks like there’s no consensus on whether or not the effects of these treatments are reversible. i’d outlaw it in the case of children.

i want every single kid to be ecstatically happy and confident and secure. im skeptical that allowing little kids decide to do this to themselves, is a good idea. it sounds bonkers to me. adults can do whatever they want.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-19-2022, 07:53 PM

thus involves situations where people are giving hormones or gender changing treatment to children, right?

i don’t let my kids pick the dinner menu regularly, because i don’t want to eat snickers bars for dinner. i ain’t letting them decide to mutilate themselves.

kids can’t make these decisions, they’re not equipped. not even close. that’s why they need parents.

looks like there’s no consensus on whether or not the effects of these treatments are reversible. i’d outlaw it in the case of children.

i want every single kid to be ecstatically happy and confident and secure. im skeptical that allowing little kids decide to do this to themselves, is a good idea. it sounds bonkers to me. adults can do whatever they want.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if it appears those children are receiving gender-affirming medical care.

So you support citizens reporting parents based on if they think or it appears ?

Jim this is just like CRT or FLA don’t say gay bill

It’s not happening in schools and trans parents aren’t abusing their children ! It’s just in the imagination of law makers and their uninformed voters .

But guess what

Conversion Therapy’ Aimed at Gay People Remains Legal in Texas

Funny how that works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

03-20-2022, 02:08 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOopLmUCvUg

Nebe

03-20-2022, 05:12 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOopLmUCvUg

Best post you have ever made.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-20-2022, 06:27 AM

Best post you have ever made.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hard to believe we’re debating that issue, hard to believe there are two sides.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scottw

03-20-2022, 06:33 AM

gotta like our chances in the Olympics in the future....China and Russia tried to send teams of women bulked up on drugs to be like men...we can just send teams of biological men who decide they are women....if we can just get kids to start understanding at kindergarten or so that there really aren't any genders...or possibly a million...they can grow up to compete in whatever they feel like at the time....they could grow up to be "man of the year" and "woman of the year "...all in the same year potentially....progress

wdmso

03-20-2022, 07:21 AM

Classic Scott only post the side of the story that supports the outrage he feels towards people who are not like him.. very classy and very petty

Seems the grammar and spelling expert missed the subtle differences between woman a singular noun whereas women is a plural Noun

USA today did not have 1 woman of the year but 61 women So please present the whole Truth not just A bra wearing youtube Host

Rachel Levine is one of 60 USA TODAY’s Women of the Year

https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/grid/women-of-the-year-2022/

Transgender and gays have been around Since Society started keeping records ...

And those most afraid of these people in America seem to be Christain Republican hetorosexual white Men !

if we can just get kids to start understanding at kindergarten or so that there really aren't any genders thanks you for supporting my observation

scottw

03-20-2022, 07:35 AM

^^^that was insightful...

scottw

03-20-2022, 07:40 AM

Classic Scott only post the side of the story that supports the outrage he feels towards people who are not like him.. very classy and very petty

yeah, not really outrage...but we know your brain is a funny place....

I'm very happy for Lia, that they were able to accomplish her lifelong dream of competing as a woman in women's swimming at the highest level....

I am very sad for the women who were never told, as they trained for years to compete at the highest level in women's swimming that they would eventually be competing against and losing to a biological man....

Jim in CT

03-20-2022, 08:36 AM

The Dad Fisherman

03-20-2022, 08:47 AM

If you have a Y chromosome, you’re a man

Believe the Science
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-20-2022, 10:47 AM

If you have a Y chromosome, you’re a man

Believe the Science
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why are you such a hatemonger?

here’s a sincere question. i see a lot of men claiming to be women. how come i don’t see nearly as many women identifying as men?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete F.

03-20-2022, 08:54 PM

why are you such a hatemonger?

here’s a sincere question. i see a lot of men claiming to be women. how come i don’t see nearly as many women identifying as men?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tell us why, in the meantime, I’ll assume it’s the fault of liberals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-20-2022, 09:13 PM

Tell us why, in the meantime, I’ll assume it’s the fault of liberals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would he ask a SINCIERE question if he knew the answer? And why would you answer with a question?

Pete F.

03-21-2022, 04:22 AM

Why would he ask a SINCIERE question if he knew the answer? And why would you answer with a question?

I’ve seen enough “sinciere” questions to know
Is that the Russian spelling?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso

03-21-2022, 07:34 AM

truth? you want truth? if you have a wee wee, you’re a man. how’s that for truth. not complicated or refutable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

only seeing things that are physical
That’s deep

I just never understand why any of you care , about these people who have zero influence on you life …

0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender.

Over all 7.1% of U.S. adults identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or something other than straight or heterosexual.

Once again It amazing to see the fear over this small subset of society

But it’s not surprising seeing these same people seeing Mexicans as a threat. Their invading as type this !
Muslims , still on the list they’ll come up if there a Terrorist attack

And I’d bet if their was a push to take in Ukraine refugees there wouldn’t be a single Republican

Yelling that they haven’t been properly vetted ..

And this fear of others is policy for conservatives Republicans fear and hate gets out the vote .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-21-2022, 09:00 AM

only seeing things that are physical
That’s deep

I just never understand why any of you care , about these people who have zero influence on you life …

0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender.

Over all 7.1% of U.S. adults identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or something other than straight or heterosexual.

Once again It amazing to see the fear over this small subset of society

But it’s not surprising seeing these same people seeing Mexicans as a threat. Their invading as type this !
Muslims , still on the list they’ll come up if there a Terrorist attack

And I’d bet if their was a push to take in Ukraine refugees there wouldn’t be a single Republican

Yelling that they haven’t been properly vetted ..

And this fear of others is policy for conservatives Republicans fear and hate gets out the vote .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"only seeing things that are physical
That’s deep "

I'm sorry, gender is a physical thing, I said wee wee but probably more accurate to say it's dictated by chromosomes. It is a physical state, not a spiritual or emotional decision.

I don't care how someone chooses to live, we all have the right to do what makes us happy, as long as that doesn't intrude on anyone else. So a man can date whoever he wants, dress however he likes. But I don't go as far as letting men share rest rooms with little girls, or for sure letting men compete against women in physical contests. Not sire how that helps women, but it helps republicans win elections (probably a big reason why hispanics are shifting a little to the right) so you can keep beating that drum loudly.

A man can live however he wants, but he is a man.

"I just never understand why any of you care , about these people who have zero influence on you life "

When my oldest was in 8th grade last year, he was forced to watch a video at school, parents were given no warning. The vide was about accepting gays, which I have no problem with, but it also showed boys making out, and it encouraged students to form and join gay support groups. THAT I have a huge problem with. That's pushing kids to advocate for a social cause, and public school is no place to do that when you're talking about divisive causes. Also, men competing against women is sports, is proof that this is intruding on our lives.

I just never understand how you don't get that.

"0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender. "

And yet we expect the remaining 99.4% of Americans jump through a lot of hoops to accommodate that 0.6%. I've never seen such a small group demand, and get, so much accommodation. Never.

"Once again It amazing to see the fear over this small subset of society

It's not even close to "fear". Annoyance isn't fear.

"it’s not surprising seeing these same people seeing Mexicans as a threat."

Not Mexicans. Uncountable millions of undocumented people coming across the border is a concern, regardless of where they're from.

Do you shut your front door at night? If so, how come? It's that simple Wayne. It's really that simple. There's a limit to how many penniless and unskilled immigrants we can support.

Again, this is a winning issue for my side, so the more the left demonizes those who want limits on illegal immigration, the better it is for the GOP.

"And I’d bet if their was a push to take in Ukraine refugees there wouldn’t be a single Republican "

I know you'd bet that. Because you're too blind to accept that the data shows that liberals aren't more charitable than conservatives. You believe they are, but there's exactly zero data to support it.

John McCain adopted an orphaned girl from Africa. Yet your side insisted he was a racist, and the New York Times ran a made up story that he fathered her with an extra marital affair, rather than adopted her.

You don't care about facts or truth, you care about spin.

Truth: practicing Christians are more than twice as likely to adopt, as the general population. Not surprising at all.

https://www.barna.com/research/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-adoption/

detbuch

03-21-2022, 10:05 AM

I’ve seen enough “sinciere” questions to know
Is that the Russian spelling?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, Russian spelling is и̏скрен. "Sinciere" is a transcription of how a French Hillbilly might say "sincere".

Congrats on seeing "enough" sinciere questions--I'm guessing you've seen only the one cited here, and that was enough to stump you.

Pete F.

03-21-2022, 01:11 PM

No, Russian spelling is и̏скрен. "Sinciere" is a transcription of how a French Hillbilly might say "sincere".

Congrats on seeing "enough" sinciere questions--I'm guessing you've seen only the one cited here, and that was enough to stump you.

Sincerely, you'd be short by a lot

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/search.php?searchid=8348658

detbuch

03-21-2022, 02:45 PM

Sincerely, you'd be short by a lot

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/search.php?searchid=8348658

None of those were "sinciere." Many were not even questions. So it looks like, indeed, you only got the one question regarding a "sinciere question" and you gave a typical lying response that you had enough "sinciere" questions to "know". To know what? That they're not "sinciere." Oh, right, you're not only an amateur Nostradamus, you also think you can read minds.

Pete F.

03-21-2022, 02:55 PM

None of those were "sinciere." Many were not even questions. So it looks like, indeed, you only got the one question regarding a "sinciere question" and you gave a typical lying response that you had enough "sinciere" questions to "know". To know what? That they're not "sinciere." Oh, right, you're not only an amateur Nostradamus, you also think you can read minds.

Actually the spelling error is yours
Here’s a few since you apparently can’t look further than 1787

This isnt a political question, but a sincere question.

How many of Barrett's 79 majority opinions, were overturned by a higher court? That's a sincere question...

Here's a sincere question, is there data th

Sincere question, what's a drop box? Peopl

that’s a sincere question.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

03-21-2022, 03:40 PM

Actually the spelling error is yours
Here’s a few since you apparently can’t look further than 1787

You made an issue of it. The issue is yours. And, again you lie, I can, and have, looked further than 1787.

This isnt a political question, but a sincere question.

How many of Barrett's 79 majority opinions, were overturned by a higher court? That's a sincere question...

I don't know. Do you? If you do, then it's not a sincere question.

Here's a sincere question, is there data th

No clue as to what th is.

Sincere question, what's a drop box? Peopl

that’s a sincere question.

Actually, Jim's question seemed more sincere to me than your drop box and Peopl query.

Raider Ronnie

03-21-2022, 05:00 PM

Jim in CT

03-21-2022, 05:28 PM

Pete F.

03-21-2022, 07:01 PM

[QUOTE=Raider Ronnie;1224573]

"A guy born with a #^&#^&#^&#^& can put on a dress, make up, have surgery to get a fake set of tits "

He doesn't even need to do that. All he needs to do is say "I'm a woman", like that child molester who said hes a woman after he got arrested, so that he can get sentenced to a womans prison. He looks like a man, dresses like a man, just said "I'm a woman", and poof! he's a woman.

You seem to be very afraid

Do you actually think that “straight” people are in more danger from LGBTQ people than LGBTQ are from “straight”?

You do know that being a child abuser is not the same as being LGBTQ?

Maybe you should consider that no other institution has the long history of enabling child abusers that the church you fund does, are the robes your priests wear dresses?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Raider Ronnie

03-22-2022, 06:23 AM

The Dad Fisherman

03-22-2022, 07:01 AM

wdmso

03-22-2022, 07:19 AM

[QUOTE=wdmso;1224550]only seeing things that are physical
That’s deep

I just never understand why any of you care , about these people who have zero influence on you life …

“Zero Influence”. ????

A guy born with a #^&#^&#^&#^& can put on a dress, make up, have surgery to get a fake set of tits & then can identify as a woman, society & government let him/her use a ladies room possibly with my wife or daughter in there and that has zero influence on my life ?

So in your experience Men play dress up so he can rape them.. Unlike Normal Rapist who will just follow them into restroom and rape them?:kewl:

That same Man/broad can compete in sports against natural born women and that has no influence on my life ?

Schools have been catering to gays, lesbians and transgenders and pushing it down my kids throats & that has zero influence on my life ?

The only influence in your life is created by you and the fear driven world you create .... your afraid all this catering might temp your kids to and be Gay ? not how it works sorry ..

was this you ?

Man follows woman into restroom after mistaking her for a man

Quick Google restroom rapes searches

Oklahoma woman raped in public Mississippi bathroom, husband helps catch suspect

Police arrest man accused of raping woman inside Center City Macy’s restroom

Man tried to rape woman in restroom of downtown Orlando bar, police sayByDavid Chang, NBC10February 24, 2021

Man accused of raping a woman in restroom of Ballard car dealership

same search using Rest room rapes by men dressed as women

and found VA Judge Teen Guilty of Sexual Assault in Loudoun County High School Girl's Bathroom Case

But the Girl The victim, a 15-year-old girl, testified in court that she engaged in consensual sexual activity with the defendant two other times in the girl's bathroom at Stone Bridge High School.

See refused this advance is why he was Guilty Him wearing a skirt had nothing to do with him in being the bathroom

So Glad you are as Uninformed as ever :kewl:

wdmso

03-22-2022, 07:25 AM

You see, if you don't believe every single thing that Pete and Wayne sell here daily, you are obviously a Fanatical Religeous Zealot Facist Nazi Trump Cultist that wants to re-establish plantations, throw gays off of rooftops, and put women back in the kitchen where they belong. Just accept this as your role in life.

Conform or be cast out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if people actually posted Facts and not their Feeling parading as the truth ... I wouldn't feel compelled to post. to counter their nonsense ..

Fanatical Religeous Zealot Facist Nazi Trump Cultist that wants to re-establish plantations, throw gays off of rooftops, and put women back in the kitchen where they belong.

If the shoe fits....

Jim in CT

03-22-2022, 08:03 AM

Jim in CT

03-22-2022, 08:04 AM

if people actually posted Facts and not their Feeling parading as the truth ... I wouldn't feel compelled to post. to counter their nonsense ..

Fanatical Religeous Zealot Facist Nazi Trump Cultist that wants to re-establish plantations, throw gays off of rooftops, and put women back in the kitchen where they belong.

If the shoe fits....

Wayne, you have posted that republicans don't do anything and hate everybody. Those aren't facts.

"If the shoe fits"

It doesn't fit. But you claim it does.

Pete F.

03-22-2022, 08:33 AM

You see, if you don't believe every single thing that Pete and Wayne sell here daily, you are obviously a Fanatical Religeous Zealot Facist Nazi Trump Cultist that wants to re-establish plantations, throw gays off of rooftops, and put women back in the kitchen where they belong. Just accept this as your role in life.

Conform or be cast out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Poor victim

The House Republican leader is supporting Madison Cawthorn and opposing Liz Cheney for re-election. Think about the respective quality of those two members, then think about what this says about today's Republican Party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-22-2022, 09:06 AM

Poor victim

The House Republican leader is supporting Madison Cawthorn and opposing Liz Cheney for re-election. Think about the respective quality of those two members, then think about what this says about today's Republican Party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A lot of conservatives want nothing to do with Liz Cheney.

To you, a "quality" Republican who sufficiently hates Trump. The GOP has different criteria for what constitutes a quality Republican legislator.

Your side has Eric Swallwell who slept with a Chinese spy, Hank Johnson who thinks Guam is going to tip over, AOC who wants to destroy our economy with the green new deal, rabid anti-semites like Ihan Omar, Maxine Waters telling Americans to hound Trumps cabinet so that they're not welcome anywhere, anytime..

Your side has a handful (not a large number, but a handful) of dummies and kooks as well. You'll never ever admit that. You can't.

Jim in CT

03-22-2022, 09:33 AM

You see, if you don't believe every single thing that Pete and Wayne sell here daily, you are obviously a Fanatical Religeous Zealot Facist Nazi Trump Cultist that wants to re-establish plantations, throw gays off of rooftops, and put women back in the kitchen where they belong. Just accept this as your role in life.

Conform or be cast out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Senator Josh Hawley had the nerve to ask Biden's SCOTUS nominee about some past things she wrote, and MSNBC literally said that Hawley was trying to get her killed.

He's a racist assassin, because he asked her questions. He didn't go through her high school yearbook, didn't accuse her of raping anybody.

The Dad Fisherman

03-22-2022, 09:36 AM

Poor victim

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yep, that's me, where do I fill out the paperwork for my reparations?

Silly Boy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

03-22-2022, 10:26 AM

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1224574]

You seem to be very afraid

Do you actually think that “straight” people are in more danger from LGBTQ people than LGBTQ are from “straight”?

You do know that being a child abuser is not the same as being LGBTQ?

Maybe you should consider that no other institution has the long history of enabling child abusers that the church you fund does, are the robes your priests wear dresses?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You seem to be very afraid "

You seem to not be able to distinguish between afraid and annoyed. Those are very different things.

"Do you actually think that “straight” people are in more danger from LGBTQ people than LGBTQ are from “straight”?

In general, no I don't think that. Not sure how you could have concluded I do think that. I am sure that group suffers a lot of abuse, stress, loneliness, despair. They don't deserve that.

That doesn't mean that men deserve to be able to go to the bathroom with women or little girls, nor does it mean we have to tell women they can't compete in sports.

"You do know that being a child abuser is not the same as being LGBTQ?"

Yes I do know that, again what did I veer say, that could POSSIBLY lead you to conclude I don't know that.

"Maybe you should consider that no other institution has the long history of enabling child abusers that the church you fund does"

Can you prove that please? The catholic church has an abysmal record on this matter, as do other religions, doctors, therapists, and for damn sure public schoolteachers. Yet I've only ever seen you talk about Catholics when it comes to child abusers. Why is that? The answer, is that you only care about the issue when it helps you politically.

Round 'em up and execute them for all I care. But it's not a problem isolated to the Catholic church. The media just frames it that way for political reasons.

Pete F.

03-22-2022, 01:08 PM

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1224575]

"You seem to be very afraid "

You seem to not be able to distinguish between afraid and annoyed. Those are very different things.

"Do you actually think that “straight” people are in more danger from LGBTQ people than LGBTQ are from “straight”?

In general, no I don't think that. Not sure how you could have concluded I do think that. I am sure that group suffers a lot of abuse, stress, loneliness, despair. They don't deserve that.

That doesn't mean that men deserve to be able to go to the bathroom with women or little girls, nor does it mean we have to tell women they can't compete in sports.

You do know that two things can be true at the same time and not be equivalent, don't you?

"You do know that being a child abuser is not the same as being LGBTQ?"

Yes I do know that, again what did I veer say, that could POSSIBLY lead you to conclude I don't know that.
(He doesn't even need to do that. All he needs to do is say "I'm a woman", like that child molester who said hes a woman after he got arrested, so that he can get sentenced to a womans prison. He looks like a man, dresses like a man, just said "I'm a woman", and poof! he's a woman.)

"Maybe you should consider that no other institution has the long history of enabling child abusers that the church you fund does"

Can you prove that please? The catholic church has an abysmal record on this matter, as do other religions, doctors, therapists, and for damn sure public schoolteachers. Yet I've only ever seen you talk about Catholics when it comes to child abusers. Why is that? The answer, is that you only care about the issue when it helps you politically.

Round 'em up and execute them for all I care. But it's not a problem isolated to the Catholic church. The media just frames it that way for political reasons.

I cite the Catholic Church because no other organization in the world has ever had a systemic child abuse and institutional coverup anywhere near as widespread as the Catholic Church.

A Church-commissioned report in 2004 said more than 4,000 US Roman Catholic priests had faced sexual abuse allegations in the last 50 years, in cases involving more than 10,000 children - mostly boys.

About 333,000 children were abused within France's Catholic Church, a report finds

A 2009 report found that sexual and psychological abuse was "endemic" in Catholic-run industrial schools and orphanages in Ireland for most of the 20th Century.

Theodore McCarrick, a former Roman Catholic cardinal in the US, was defrocked over claims he sexually assaulted a teenager in New York in the early 1970s. Mr McCarrick - thought to be the highest-ranking US Catholic to face sex abuse charges - has said he has "no recollection" of the alleged abuse, and pleaded not guilty at a US court last month

The Catholic Church in Scotland announced that it was setting up an independent watchdog to deal with abuse complaints against members of the clergy following a number of sex scandals where the church was accused of failing to respond to concerns

Germany's top Roman Catholic cleric, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, earlier this year offered his resignation over child sex abuse scandals, saying it was important to him "to share the responsibility for the catastrophe". However, the Pope later rejected his resignation

In November 2020, New York's Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the Buffalo Catholic Diocese, alleging its leaders protected priests accused of child sex abuse. The diocese has pledged "full cooperation" with authorities

French priest Bernard Preynat was sentenced to five years in prison in March 2020 for sexually abusing dozens of children in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. During his trial, he told the court he had not understood how serious or grave his crimes were

Australian Cardinal George Pell - the most senior Catholic figure ever jailed for such crimes - had his conviction for child abuse overturned in April 2020 and was freed from prison. Australia's High Court judges agreed that the jury had not properly considered all the evidence presented at the trial. The former senior adviser to the Pope had consistently maintained his innocence.

Jim in CT

03-22-2022, 01:19 PM

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1224590]

I cite the Catholic Church because no other organization in the world has ever had a systemic child abuse and institutional coverup anywhere near as widespread as the Catholic Church.

A Church-commissioned report in 2004 said more than 4,000 US Roman Catholic priests had faced sexual abuse allegations in the last 50 years, in cases involving more than 10,000 children - mostly boys.

About 333,000 children were abused within France's Catholic Church, a report finds

A 2009 report found that sexual and psychological abuse was "endemic" in Catholic-run industrial schools and orphanages in Ireland for most of the 20th Century.

Theodore McCarrick, a former Roman Catholic cardinal in the US, was defrocked over claims he sexually assaulted a teenager in New York in the early 1970s. Mr McCarrick - thought to be the highest-ranking US Catholic to face sex abuse charges - has said he has "no recollection" of the alleged abuse, and pleaded not guilty at a US court last month

The Catholic Church in Scotland announced that it was setting up an independent watchdog to deal with abuse complaints against members of the clergy following a number of sex scandals where the church was accused of failing to respond to concerns

Germany's top Roman Catholic cleric, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, earlier this year offered his resignation over child sex abuse scandals, saying it was important to him "to share the responsibility for the catastrophe". However, the Pope later rejected his resignation

In November 2020, New York's Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the Buffalo Catholic Diocese, alleging its leaders protected priests accused of child sex abuse. The diocese has pledged "full cooperation" with authorities

French priest Bernard Preynat was sentenced to five years in prison in March 2020 for sexually abusing dozens of children in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. During his trial, he told the court he had not understood how serious or grave his crimes were

Australian Cardinal George Pell - the most senior Catholic figure ever jailed for such crimes - had his conviction for child abuse overturned in April 2020 and was freed from prison. Australia's High Court judges agreed that the jury had not properly considered all the evidence presented at the trial. The former senior adviser to the Pope had consistently maintained his innocence.

Pete, I never said, or came close to implying, that all trans people are predators. You merely heard that, as you hear many many things that no one has ever said.

Most trans people are totally harmless. But it only takes a nanosecond of rational thought to predict that some monsters out there will use this as an excuse to get access to victims.

It is fact that all a man has to do is say "I'm a woman", and the left will allow him to act like a woman. That doesn't mean all trans folk are dangerous. But some are, and I'm not inclined to sacrifice a single innocent female on the altar of idiotic woke virtue-signaling. You are. I'm not.

You are the one, not me, who is taking a few bad apples (Catholics in this case) and pretending that the whole barrel is rotten. You do it constantly.

You call me out for saying that all trans people are bad (which I never came close to saying), then you paint all catholics with the pedophile brush. You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing, and which I never did.