mcmoustache wrote: » Professor Moriarty wrote: » He is an awful human being. It beggars belief that such a man could be elected. Picture the scene: You're at a party. Maybe you've gone to the bar to get a drink. You're by yourself for a short time. In walks an obese man with a spray-on tan. He makes eye contact. You nod out of politeness. He starts walking over you, maintaining eye contact. You don't want to talk to this guy but your friends are several meters away. You're going to have to make some polite conversation. Perhaps throw in a line about your husband. He gets closer. You start to smell the unmistakable scent of minty tic-tacs. He's right in front of you now. You start into some pleasantries. "Hey, nice party, isn't...". Before you get the words out, your inner monologue is asking "WHAT THE FÚCK???". You look down and this orange, obese, tic-tak smelling guy has his small hand on your vagina and he's just grabbing it. You look around. Nobody can see, or at least they aren't letting on that they see. You make eye contact with the fat one. He just stares, a vacant expression looking into your eyes. He's still grabbing your vagina. Slowly he moves his head towards yours. The minty smell of tic-tacs gets stronger. "Oh Shít!", you think, as he moves in for a kiss. He gets closer. By now, his lips have turned into something resembling a prolapsed anus. Closer still. By now, the minty fresh smell of tic-tacs makes your eyes water. "Is anyone seeing this?", you ask yourself. You're helpless. With his little hand clasping firmly on your vagina, you aren't going anywhere. By now his prolapse-looking lips are slobbering all over your face. "It'll be over soon", you say to yourself. After what feels like an eternity, he lets go of your vagina and casually walks away. No "Thank you" or anything. You spit out a worn-down tic-tac that you find in your mouth and try to take stock of what just happened. You've just been Trumped.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » He is an awful human being. It beggars belief that such a man could be elected.
notobtuse wrote: » ... Or Bill Clinton'd.
mcmoustache wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » ... Or Bill Clinton'd. Or Bill Cosby'd. Or Dahmer'd. Either way, my point stands. That is the behaviour of a man of poor morality.
notobtuse wrote: » to a gang-mentality (popular) vote. IMO.
notobtuse wrote: » Nothing in the charter here states one needs to be fair, or even honest, in one's views.
notobtuse wrote: » Okay. Just curious... did you say those sort of things when Bill Clinton was president? It's okay if you didn't. Nothing in the charter here states one needs to be fair, or even honest, in one's views.
Hurrache wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » to a gang-mentality (popular) vote. IMO. WTF. You mean a normal democracy?
oscarBravo wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » Nothing in the charter here states one needs to be fair, or even honest, in one's views. Well, duh. You're still posting, aren't you?
notobtuse wrote: » No. If we went by a popular vote all a candidate would need to do it make fantastic promises to big population states like California, New York, Michigan and a few others, ignoring or to the detriment of the majority of others at the cost of those small states... and win the presidency. The Founding Fathers in their brilliance understood the need for a limited representative democratic republic.
pixelburp wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » Okay. Just curious... did you say those sort of things when Bill Clinton was president? It's okay if you didn't. Nothing in the charter here states one needs to be fair, or even honest, in one's views. Considering Clintons presidency was approx 17-18 years ago I don't think that particular form of whataboutery is valid. It's all well and good hitting folks over the head about how terrible Clinton was, but that's literally nearly 20 years and several voting generations ago at this stage. It's old news and then some. I was barely a teenager when he was sworn in, 13 to be precise, I won't apologise for not being poltically savvy to his own moral failings. I daresay others around here were even younger.
notobtuse wrote: » pixelburp wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » Okay. Just curious... did you say those sort of things when Bill Clinton was president? It's okay if you didn't. Nothing in the charter here states one needs to be fair, or even honest, in one's views. Considering Clintons presidency was approx 17-18 years ago I don't think that particular form of whataboutery is valid. It's all well and good hitting folks over the head about how terrible Clinton was, but that's literally nearly 20 years and several voting generations ago at this stage. It's old news and then some. I was barely a teenager when he was sworn in, 13 to be precise, I won't apologise for not being poltically savvy to his own moral failings. I daresay others around here were even younger. Didn't we just have a Clinton run for president, and whom had her husband play a large part in the campaign, including acquiring questionable payments/donations? Doesn't seem so long ago. I didn't see any condemnation of Bill recently for those here. But I did see a lot of defending him because people think he got railroaded for his extramarital activities.
notobtuse wrote: » I don't think he or any other individual could change the process. I believe it might take a constitutional amendment to go from the electoral college vote to a gang-mentality (popular) vote. IMO.
notobtuse wrote: » I don't care about Hillary Clinton.
notobtuse wrote: » Didn't we just have a Clinton run for president, and whom had her husband play a large part in the campaign, including acquiring questionable payments/donations? Doesn't seem so long ago. I didn't see any condemnation of Bill recently for those here. But I did see a lot of defending him because people think he got railroaded for his extramarital activities.
notobtuse wrote: » The Democratic National Committee filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit today against the Russian government, the Trump campaign and the WikiLeaks organization alleging conspiracy to disrupt the 2016 campaign and get Donald Trump elected. The suit alleges that top Trump campaign officials conspired with the Russian government and its military spy agency to hack the computer networks of the Democratic Party and disseminating stolen material found there. This is laughable. I have to wonder if the DNC has lost their collective minds. First, the DNC REFUSED to allow the FBI access to their server to determine if the server was actually hacked, and if it was, who hacked it. Second, the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for the specious Steele dossier which utilized information obtained from Russian operatives and was used as the basis to illegally spy on the Trump administration in a scheme to derail Trump’s bid for the White House and later to cripple his presidency. If the DNC goes forward with this lunacy, Trump should immediately file a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and the DNC for their underhanded roll in the 2016 election. I think Trump would have a much stronger case in civil court, as long is it’s not filed in New York or Washington, DC. Trump might just bankrupt the DNC and Clinton. That would be a good thing, IMO.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-party-files-lawsuit-alleging-russia-the-trump-campaign-and-wikileaks-conspired-to-disrupt-the-2016-campaign/2018/04/20/befe8364-4418-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.134d31d79762
notobtuse wrote: » Of course Obama came out relatively clean. If only the Department of Justice would have done their job during his tenure. But with Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch at the helm it only proves political appointees should never be placed at the head of the DOJ… at least Democratic appointees IMO. Eleven House Republicans have signed a joint letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions calling for the criminal prosecution of Hillary for disguising payments to Fusion GPS” in a way that violated federal campaign finance law, former FBI Director James Comey for a politically motivated failure to prosecute Clinton, as well as for the allegedly illegal act of leaking his own notes to a friend, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for the same “lack of candor” that was already the pretext for taking away his pension, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch for not prosecuting the Uranium One deal, FBI agent Peter Strzok and DOJ lawyer Lisa Page for allegedly interfering with the Clinton email investigation. Separately, it calls for prosecution of “all DOJ and FBI personnel responsible for signing the Carter Page warrant application,” which is Comey and McCabe plus former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates plus former US attorney (and current FBI general counsel) Dana Boente for allegedly violating Page’s civil liberties. And even Trump appointee Dana Boente, who is currently the FBI’s general counsel. But Congress can’t take action. The Department of Justice would need to act for anything to get done.
notobtuse wrote: » Campaigns always are looking for dirt on their opposition. Don Jr did nothing wrong taking that short meeting. Now if you want to talk about REAL Russian collusion, lets look at Hillary Clinton paying for a false Russian propaganda dossier used to illegally spy on the Trump administration in a scheme to derail Trump’s bid for the White House and later cripple his presidency, IMO. That may not fall under the term of treason, but it sure sounds like sedition to me. Where’s Mueller’s indictment of Clinton?
notobtuse wrote: » I was referring to the people involved with the Trump campaign. There is no doubt Russian tried influencing the election... But not like people think. IMO, it was not to elect Trump, but rather to weaken the likely winner... Clinton, going into office, whom Putin despised. Russia, like everyone else, believed Hillary would win the election. And I believe that 13 Russians deal by Mueller was only symbolic. How many think any of them will ever be prosecuted? Does Mueller even think any of them will ever be prosecuted?
notobtuse wrote: » I’d say that comment is a bit misleading. It was a media outlet The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website, that originally hired Fusion GPS to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research in May 2016. It was not until after the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC started paying Fusion GPS’s bills that they brought in Steele and the Russian oberatives to produce what became a specious dossier that was used by government agencies during Obama's reign to illegally spy on the Trump administration in a scheme to derail Trump’s bid for the White House and later to cripple his presidency. IMO.
notobtuse wrote: » It’s not "She did this stuff that's wrong.” It’s why are we investigating something based on false and faulty information regarding one party, when we have what could be considered clear evidence of wrongdoing by another party and of which is being ignored. Justice under the law should be blind as to what party someone belongs to. But apparently it isn’t, IMO You want to go after Trump… fine. But the bigger and more serious crimes look to have been committed by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Samantha Power, James Clapper, John Brennan, James Comey and the DNC. Shouldn’t we be going after the more serious crimes regarding Russian collusion, fixing an election and possible sedition first? IMO
notobtuse wrote: » Okay... Would you agree then that Mueller should also open the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State involving the sale of so much control of US Uranium to the Russians; the destruction of her blackberry and personal server after a subpoena was issued; the pay to play accusations of the Clinton Foundation - in particular with donations and payments made by Russians; Hillary, her staff, the DNC and President Obama’s roll in the false Steele dossier which was used as the basis to illegally spy on the Trump administration in a scheme to derail Trump’s bid for the White House and later to cripple his presidency, and a few other Democratic operatives like the UN Ambassador, heads of the CIA, DOJ and FBI and their rolls in suspect actions during the election and ongoing investigations?
notobtuse wrote: » Yes, there should be sympathy for Trump. The Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Michael Horowitz just issued report on Andrew McCabe, the disgraced former deputy director of the FBI regarding his part in the 2016 election.https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/us/politics/20180413a-doj-oig-mccabe-report.pdf Bottom line… Andrew McCabe leaked information to the media about an ongoing investigation because he wanted to help Hillary Clinton and harm Donald Trump. He then lied repeatedly about his behavior both under oath and in unsworn conversation with superiors. He should be prosecuted. Horowitz will be following up with reports on other FBI partisan activities in the 2016 presidential election. Maybe even collusion with the State Department, mishandling of the Clinton email investigation, pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation, and who knows what else? I’m predicting this might turn out to be the largest political scandal in US. History. Think about it… A concerted effort by operatives in the Department of Justice, the FBI, and other intelligence agencies to influence the course of a presidential election and then, when that didn’t work... to sabotage the people’s choice.
notobtuse wrote: » I believe at least 18 classified emails sent from the account of Clinton's aide Huma Abedin were found by the FBI on the personal laptop of Anthony Weiner, which is illegal in of itself... with five previously unreleased classified emails.
notobtuse wrote: » Comey did look good on TV. But looks can be deceiving. I think most will agree Comey is guilty of politicizing the FBI and meddling in the 2016 election. And an investigation should commence to determine if Comey is guilty of several federal crimes. IMO, absence of a federal investigation into his potential wrongdoing will only show that America's top law enforcement officials are above the law. I think Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation is greatly suspect. Why was no Grand Jury empanelled in this case, no search warrant issued, and immunity granted to Clinton aides that stripped Congress of its power to issue subpoenas to gather evidence from phones and laptops before they were destroyed? And Comey testified to Congress that he made the decision to clear Hillary Clinton AFTER she was interviewed by the FBI, but surfaced FBI documents suggest Comey made that decision beforehand. It looks like it may be a case of lying to Congress… which is a federal crime. Then, Comey has publicly admitted that he gave memos recording his interactions with President Trump to a friend at Columbia Law School with the intention that the contents would be leaked to the media in order to prompt the appointment of a Special Counsel. Those documents were created on an FBI computer and which dealt with an ongoing and highly sensitive investigation. It was FBI property and therefore Comey might be guilty of theft of government property or records. Mueller probably won't focus any attention on his good friend James Comey. So a second independent special council needs to be convened in order to look into Comey and McCades actions.
notobtuse wrote: » This is just my opinion, but an opinion shared by a large majority here in the states. So Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had numerous locations raided because he presumably made some shady payment to a porn star, and because Trump received $150,000 from the Ukrainians for a speech. Okay. But didn’t Bill Clinton receive a $500,000 speaking fee from Russia? Didn’t the Clinton Foundation receive hundreds of millions in the lead-up to her campaign for president, and didn't those 'donations' all but dry up after she lost? Didn’t Hillary pay for specious opposition research that was used as evidence to wire-tap the Trump organization? Didn’t Hillary and her team smash phones and computers to bits after the evidence therein was subpoenaed? Didn’t Hillary and her lawyer Cheryl Mills claim attorney-client privilege when Mills herself was under investigation for obstruction? Why have we not seen any no-knock raids by the government against Hillary Clinton and her team? The thing is... anyone here, if they were truthful with themselves, knows no Democrat would ever be subjected to the type of investigative circus we are seeing involving Trump. Currently, justice is not blind... it is a joke. Many outside of the media here see that a dangerous political game is now being played... And revolt may be in the near future.
notobtuse wrote: » It is obvious Democrats are favored by the Fourth Estate. IMO, Sessions should resign and Mueller be fired. The both are not doing what they were appointed to do. Why did they wait until after Trump got elected? Because nobody ever thought Trump would get elected to the presidency. I think the establishment Republicans had settled on keeping control of Congress with a Democrat president in office. That way they could maintain some level of balance in government. They did manage to keep Obama's wish to lurch the country to the far left in check and felt they could do the same with HRC, IMO, and Clinton would have just continued Obama's policies. Who knew Obama's efforts to move the country farther left then they felt comfortable with would put Trump in office.
notobtuse wrote: » Perhaps I am misunderstanding it. Steele's had a close association with Russian informants and common sense dictates the informants were authorized to cooperate with Steele by the Russian government. I think a good argument can be made that Steele was acting on behalf of Russia within the meaning of the statute to interfere in our election. He also acted on behalf of Hillary Clinton and the DNC to influence the election, and did so by leaking his dossier to media sources that published them and of which served as the basis for government spying on the Trump campaign. Clinton and the DNC paid Steele, which possibly makes them co-conspirators with Steele. Also, to take it to a possible conclusion, the Steele dossier was paid for by Hillary and the DNC, which we already know relied heavily on Russian informants, and therefore Hillary and Steele technically might have conspired with paid Russian agents to interfere with the election to damage Trump. And perhaps we need a Special Council to investigate and make a determination of whether Clinton and the DNC conspired with Steele and the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election
notobtuse wrote: » Robert Mueller's indictment seemingly also makes Christopher Steele a criminal. He is a foreign citizen, he tried to influence an election, he received payments to do so, and he neither registered as a foreign agent nor listed his receipts and expenditures to the Federal Election Commission. And if that is the case with Steele, a case can possibly be made that FusionGPS was a criminal co-conspirator. Also entangled would be the DNC and the Clinton campaign as they might have run afoul of the Federal Election Commission by disguising their payments to Steele as legal expenses through a law firm. They knew Steele was a foreign citizen, they paid Steele to influence an election, and knew Steele neither registering as a foreign agent. It is highly unlikely the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and even Barack Obama will ever be charged, as it would be detrimental to the US system to have an entire party determined to be guilty of illegally trying to influence an election, using governmental agencies to target political opposition and help another, and possibly of sedition. But it will give the GOP political ammunition going into the 2018 and 2020 elections.
notobtuse wrote: » Steele’s past is irrelevant. Just because Steele might have been clueless in that he seemingly was being played by the Russian government through their informants doesn’t negate his actions regarding his trying to influence the election. First, he was a foreign agent. Second, his motives appear political. Steele relayed to Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr that he was "desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president." It is also important to note that Ohr's wife is a former CIA researcher who was hired by Fusion GPS to collect anti-Trump material, and was paid for my the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. And this was after the FBI cut Steele loose after discovering he shared the dossier's contents with journalists in efforts to influence the election. Pertinent factors that Steele might be looking at criminal proceedings.
notobtuse wrote: » All that for I don't care if Hillary goes bankrupt?
FrostyJack wrote: » notobtuse wrote: » All that for I don't care if Hillary goes bankrupt? I don't think that is what you said. For someone who doesn't care about Clinton you seem to post a lot of Right Wing propaganda about her.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Every day I'm more and more baffled by the poorest of Americans continuing to support Trump. I get tax cuts, the company I work for gets tax cuts and the poor get poorer. I'm sitting here disgusted with Trump and how's he's treating the worst off parts of the USA and (excluding Puerto Rico) they love him. It's like a dominatrix situation.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Much the same here. I'd highlight that the Democrats would be unlikely to help them much either but perhaps this is the result of generations of scaremongering about the state, gun law repeal, foreigners, atheists, LGBT people, immigrants, socialists, etc... twinned with much weaker education that many people in European countries and some of the worst inequality in the world. People who support Trump can't explain how he is helping the poorest Americans because they can't so they either employ whataboutery about Hilary Clinton who isn't president or point out some anodyne nonsense about Wall Street and Swamp Inc. doing better than ever. Then there's the spiteful response that they won... somehow. The important thing is to keep Liberals out (Don't think America has too many of those anyway) rather than making the best decision for the future of the nation.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » The great irony being that a modicum of socialist policies would greatly benefit those who rally against it so hard. I do, however, believe that democrat policies in some areas which are hardly hit by economic progress (i.e. coal areas) have had benefit - I'm thinking of the coding initiative that was introduced by a democrat and paid for by the state.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Absolutely but even something as basic as the Affordable Care Act has proven controversial. However, it does illustrate the absurdities of US Politics so well when you have the poor and elderly clamoring for it to be dismantled. An anecdote but I know a Nurse in Ohio who works in a nursing home where the clients all watch Fox News and think that the ACA and Medicare need to be abolished ASAP.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » I'm more upset with myself for using the word "hardly" when I meant "harshly" - I checked the dictionary and it means the same thing, so I'm back on track. The thing about the ACA was that, IMO, it was destroyed by the amount of nonsense that had to be inserted to get it through congress - it unduly benefited certain corporate interests whilst damaging the pockets of the doctors. It's like the Republican criticism of the ACA was almost correct, but they couldn't sell to their voters the idea that "rich" doctors were losing out so they created this nonsense about killing elderly and not being able to see your doctor (particularly when the latter was actually their fault).
ancapailldorcha wrote: » What is concerning me is how much longer the US can continue without serious and radical change. When a country votes for as its head of state an embodiment of everything wrong it itself then I do wonder about its viability in its current form.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
