she souldnt have done that, bad look for america to the rest of the world. the outrage from trump and all his supporters is fake though they just like to make fun of the democrats whenever possible. if trump ripped up pelosis speech in the house, or did something similar, this thread would be about how pelosi deserved it and good for trump for doing that.
"Well if it had been B that killed all those cute puppies instead of A, everyone would be outraged at B instead of A." That's just a plain ridiculous argument you are making. Agree! If we could have observed that incident in an impartial point of view, then our opinion won't have any double standards which is ideally what politicians would be doing regardless of political affiliations yet in reality, it is rarely seen in today's politics. Imho. I think Trump may often come across as blunt enough to be considered rude, arguably he's used those personality traits to our advantage say in dealing with foreign leaders. And just plain winning over and over and over, you know that's very rude. It's inconsiderate, and hurts a lot of peoples' feelings. Other people would like to win too. I'll be the first to criticize him, though, if he rips up some Papers of Pelosi. |
|
|
|
He made it pretty clear that he doesn't believe Trump is fighting for any sort of agenda other than gaining more power and staying in office. and the conservative stances he's taken aren't because of his moral compass, they're because they are the most convenient at that moment. There's no reason to believe Trump wouldn't change them at any moment if he believed it would give him a better shot at staying in power, whether it be foreign policy, social, or economic issues. Example:  I dont think any of that motivated him to vote guilty though, I think he did it because he believed Trump did what he was accused of, he would do it again without with potentially much more at risk national security wise, and he took an oath to cast his vote without partisan motives. That may be the difference in out mindsets, as I do not think that Trump's positions are based on convenience, infact he has been quite consistent for decades.. I also do not think he is doing what he is doing to seek power at all costs and would throw away his morals to remain in power.. Or that he is for sale.. I genuinely believes he wants to do the best he can for America.. I don't think Trump has even been much anti LGBT, but even being generally pro LGBT rights does not mean that you have to be pro trans surgeries for children.. Romney could have made that vote simply to get his name on the news a bit.. Maybe he is pandering to certain voters.. Maybe he is too butthurt still.. Certainly not because he has firm Christian values.. "he took an oath to cast his vote without partisan motives" If they all took that as an oath how do you explain the completely partisan split vote? I also don't think it was wrong for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate the FACTS of any situation, including Biden/past US corruption.. Asking them to make up a false smear campaign would be bad, but not investigating truth.. This I just saw which is quite curious. https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/top-romney-adviser-worked-with-hunter-biden-on-board-of-ukrainian-energy-company/But I have already admitted to just not liking Romney, so it's not exactly like I'm logically debating his merits or lack of. None the less, WTF? Pelosi's son and now someone close to Romney? How many "Jobs" are those guys handing out? |
|
|
|
A guy that started out running a flock of 200 Mormon "missionaries" in France is not exactly what most people who consider themselves Christian and conservative consider as Christian and conservative.
Mormons are Christian. It's common among many different types of Christianity (and religions in general) for the youth to go on a mission to help the less fortunate and spread whatever religion they are. If that is the case, then socialists are communists. It is common for many types of unemployed hipsters to go on a mission on instagram to talk about helping the less fortunate, whatever political religion they are. Not sure where this leads. Maybe in the direction that Romney's now with Twitch, so Romney must be defended? Not interested in super-defining "Mormon" and "Christian conservative." I do think this statement of mine, well it certainly reflects my personal view. A guy that started out running a flock of 200 Mormon "missionaries" in France is not exactly what most people who consider themselves Christian and conservative consider as Christian and conservative. |
|
|
|
Genuine to himself.
Exactly. A higher loyalty. Any senator that would've voted differently if it were a democrat president in the same situation can not say the same, and they violated their oath. I imagine that's most of them, including Democrats, but probably not Romney. That speech was from March 2016, and I think he was being genuine then too. Romney has been a staunch Christian conservative his whole life, a lot of what Trump says and does goes against those values...... A guy that started out running a flock of 200 Mormon "missionaries" in France is not exactly what most people who consider themselves Christian and conservative consider as Christian and conservative. Those are those little funny looking guys on bicycles dressed in 19th century clothes. Just saying. Romney was 100% wrong on Trump in 2016 and 100% wrong on Trump today, except in one respect. He is 100% in line with staunch left wing nutcase Hate-Trump weirdness. He's with you, Twitch. It's that overpowering, drug-like hate that takes control of all reason and emotion and makes one a virtual slave to the Hate-Trump. To those afflicted, they see it in the clouds in the morning, and they see it in the stars at night. It is quite a thing, really, to behold the tremoring, shaking with hate of those afflicted. There is no known cure for this well known, psychological disorder. However, if you want to discuss Trump-hate, please, no sensational news articles. Just pure science. Searching with Google Scholar is a good method. im brought up christian conservative and still consider myself a conservative though less christian than i used to be. are you just insulting him because he voted against trump, or because you see so many people attacking him now, or do you actually think Romney is not a christian conservative? all 3 are pretty ignorant but i cant think of any other reason. if he voted for trump and supported him would you defend him? I have never liked him. Including when he ran for President. It's his appearance, his method of presentation, and what I perceive as a condescending manner of talking. I don't consider him a christian conservative, but a person who hides behind that label. But those are just my opinions and I'm replying to your question - not pushing them on anyone. |
|
|
|
Genuine to himself.
Exactly. A higher loyalty. Any senator that would've voted differently if it were a democrat president in the same situation can not say the same, and they violated their oath. I imagine that's most of them, including Democrats, but probably not Romney. That speech was from March 2016, and I think he was being genuine then too. Romney has been a staunch Christian conservative his whole life, a lot of what Trump says and does goes against those values...... A guy that started out running a flock of 200 Mormon "missionaries" in France is not exactly what most people who consider themselves Christian and conservative consider as Christian and conservative. Those are those little funny looking guys on bicycles dressed in 19th century clothes. Just saying. Romney was 100% wrong on Trump in 2016 and 100% wrong on Trump today, except in one respect. He is 100% in line with staunch left wing nutcase Hate-Trump weirdness. He's with you, Twitch. It's that overpowering, drug-like hate that takes control of all reason and emotion and makes one a virtual slave to the Hate-Trump. To those afflicted, they see it in the clouds in the morning, and they see it in the stars at night. It is quite a thing, really, to behold the tremoring, shaking with hate of those afflicted. There is no known cure for this well known, psychological disorder. However, if you want to discuss Trump-hate, please, no sensational news articles. Just pure science. Searching with Google Scholar is a good method.  |
|
|
|
Romney is an enemy of the people, but fortunately, now showing out in the open, his true colors.
Watch his speech. I think he was being genuine. I would not call Romney the enemy of the people, but I do think he is voting against trump for the sake of voting against Trump. Similar to how democrats refuse to applause for trump saying that unemployment is at multi decade lows. I think he is wanting to harm Trump, even if doing so hurts his country and party. Genuine to himself. And a continuation of his anti-Trump speech of 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iefXdC794I |
|
|
|
she souldnt have done that, bad look for america to the rest of the world. the outrage from trump and all his supporters is fake though they just like to make fun of the democrats whenever possible. if trump ripped up pelosis speech in the house, or did something similar, this thread would be about how pelosi deserved it and good for trump for doing that.
"Well if it had been B that killed all those cute puppies instead of A, everyone would be outraged at B instead of A." That's just a plain ridiculous argument you are making. |
|
|
|
....
Your sources are not researchers. Your sources are news articles. What are you even doing with your life?
....
What I chose to present to you may not be my sources. News articles are fine. But certainly, scientific sources must be available. My life is fine. How is yours going now that your Serious Discussion has came to an end? .... Lets say the articles are accurate though, they still don't support your hypothesis that the sun is the biggest threat to earth due to Carrington events and global cooling. From the Carrington article: "An event such as this is predicted to happen once every 100-250 years" “The total U.S. population at risk of extended power outage from a Carrington-level storm is between 20-40 million, with durations of 16 days to 1-2 years." And the scientist quoted in the 'Mini Ice Age' article basically said if it happened it could affect crops and another scientist said global warming would vastly offset any Grand Solar Minimum effects. I encourage you to go read some science journals. If you just look for articles with headlines that support your hypothesis, you'll always find them somewhere on the internet. Try searching for the topic you're interested in and read the abstract and conclusion if the abstract is interesting. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/The scientists that write them put a ton of effort into citing every thing and they are peer reviewed many times before being published. Really? So you think a Carrington event would be some minor, unimportant thing? Might want to reconsider that. Immediate effect: a loss of approximately 15% of the satellite fleet After 8 days. Landline and cellular wireless voice and data services will not be available. Broadband internet services will not be available. Iridium and other satellite providers will lose operations centers if not resupplied, resulting in the eventual loss of satellite communications through loss of data centers and ground control stations. In the worst-case scenario, the following systems will be usable if local power is available: • HF and HF ALE for voice and low-bandwidth non-secure and secure nationwide communications (MERS, FNARS). • Local VHF, UHF, and microwave line-of-sight voice communications (5-80 miles depending on system and setup) (MERS). 4-10 years to restore the US power grid Summary: THE END OF LIFE AS YOU KNOW IT How often do these events occur? According to the NOAA SWPC, there are on average 4 05 geomagnetic storms per solar cycle. The 1859 Carrington-Hodgson event is the strongest on record in the approximately 500 years of data that is available. Anecdotal observational records of low-latitude red aurora hint that the largest events may occur roughly every 500-600 years (Silverman, 2005). However, events strong enough to severely impact modern systems may occur as frequently as once in 100 years https://www.governmentattic.org/24docs/UnpubFEMAgeomagRpts_2010.pdf |
|
|
|
That's a wrap for the trial. Article 1: 52-48, (52 Republicans voted Not Guilty, 47 Democrats and 1 Republican voted Guilty) Article 2: 53-47 (Party Lines) Romneys speech about why he thinks Trump should be removed is worth a watch: https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1225138172977459202Don Jr. is mad.   So...Donald Trump has been Unimpeached. What's Next? (Serious Discussion!) Pelosi is mad (both meanings. Angry, and a lunatic) Romney is an enemy of the people, but fortunately, now showing out in the open, his true colors. |
|
|
|
The way Ms. Pelosi tore up SOTU simply points at her immediate reaction to Trump ignoring her handshake (IMHO). It simply shows how fragile the Dem ego is; maybe they nvr expected Trump to win in the first place and then continue to be in office with a second term staring at them in the face with their own stupid acts. I think they'll lose with a better margin despite the sevaral shortcomings on part of Trump Admin. In your opinion does it bode well for the impending elections? democrats are going crazy they might end up getting banned. We could buy Greenland, and relocate the Democrats there. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/22/trumps-idea-buying-greenland-is-far-absurd/ |
|
|
|
Like I said. So where is your problem with my post (A) only that it linked news, not studies (B) GC (C) Carrington. |
|
|
|
Your sources are not researchers. Your sources are news articles. What are you even doing with your life? I post the PIOMAS from the Polar Science Center. Notice how their website is a .edu And their data I'm sure is backed by teams and teams of scientists doing rigorous research. You post news articles. Article 1: Based on the opinion of one "Expert" No studies found during skimming Article 2: Some sensational nonsense about solar storms. You're barely on topic. If this was a forum for serious climate discussion and I was asked whether your post had any merit or added to the discussion in any way, it'd be a thumbs down. Do other people who respect their time need or even want to read this? Ah, but the research certainly does exist, and can be linked to. |
|
|
|
Deleted Post « Sent to: Spendulus on: Today at 09:24:12 PM » Reply with quoteReply with quote Remove this messageDelete A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. Quote Quote from: TwitchySeal on Today at 07:28:34 PM Flynn worked out a plea deal to *only* be charged with a single count of lying to the FBI. He was acting as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkey, he discussed sanctions with Russia after he was named National Security Advisor but while Obama was still president, and then he lied about to the Vice President and the FBI. When he found out he was being investigated, he filed some FARA documents that also had lies in them. If he would've been charged with all the crimes he admitted to (under penalty of perjury) , he would be facing spending the rest of his life in prison. Defending him is like defending a guy who was speeding and drunk getting pulled over and let off with only a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt. https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/downloadQuote from: Spendulus on Today at 05:08:31 PM How much do you understand about FBI standard operating procedure? Google "FBI entrapment" maybe add "drugs". OR if you still have problems understanding, go to Glocktalk.com, discussion forum for gun owners but mostly LEO, and ask the simple question, "Is entrapment a typical FBI technique." I am not seeing where you have a problem with me. You have a problem trying to thread a needle to get to some desirable conclusions, but that's no concern of mine. Quote from: Spendulus on Today at 05:08:31 PM Why would your recitation of opinions be relevant? I'm gonna delete any posts that say stuff like this from now on to keep the thread from going to shit. Please stop. Quote from: Viper1 on Today at 01:35:03 PM Do you have a way past the paywall? Disabling JS doesn't work for that one. This works great. Install it and most sites with paywalls just work. https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chromehttps://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-firefoxGreat. What's next? Trump's been Impeached. What's next? Twitch recommends cheating the Wall Street Journal So what's next? Flynn gets off. What else is next? Trump-Hate-a-GoGo. State of the Union. The babies cry about their Trump-hate. Formal vote on "impeachment." More Trump-hate. Highest rating ever for Trump. The reeking stink of the Trump-haters. What else is next? This post gets deleted and reposted in the thread with freedom. |
|
|
|
The impeachment... a distraction designed to distract from Biden and others like him.
Graham: Senate to Investigate Whistleblower, Bidens After Impeachment VoteSpeaking to Fox News' Maria Bartiromo yesterday, the senator said, "I want to understand how all this crap started," and claimed that Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) will call the "whistleblower" for questioning.
He said that investigations into the whistleblower and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden's dealings in Ukraine, two issues at the heart of the impeachment charges against Mr. Trump, will continue to be investigated by the Senate after the president's impeachment acquittal that is expected this week on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
The impeachment stemmed from the whistleblower allegation that Mr. Trump pressured Ukraine, including withholding nearly $400 million in military aid, to investigate the Bidens and Ukraine meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
"If the whistleblower is a former employee of [or] associate of Joe Biden, I think that would be important. If the whistleblower was working with people on Schiff's staff that wanted to take Trump down a year-and-a-half ago, I think that would be important. If the Schiff staff people helped write the complaint, that would be important."
 Oh good. More time taken away from doing their actual jobs. More money wasted. Sounds good to me. Keep it all going right up until the election. That should be fun. I'm sure this would be just perfectly fine with you. If the whistleblower was working with people on Schiff's staff that wanted to take Trump down a year-and-a-half ago, I think that would be important. If the Schiff staff people helped write the complaint, that would be important."Trump haters are o-so-predictable. But look at the exact assertion. Why would anyone in their right mind have a problem with simply checking that the whistleblower statutes were not abused strictly for political purposes? But there's something we could likely agree on. I don't care for or have interest in the big media senate and congress shows. Just let the AG check into this boy, and if he's a bad boy show him the way to his little room. |
|
|
|
...
Do you have a way past the paywall? Disabling JS doesn't work for that one.
---------------
Found some other ones.
So I don't see it. One of the articles I read, despite the message clearly being that he was entrapped, actually pointed out that it appeared all legal. So if it was legal, then in what way was he entrapped?
He's an old guy. He has a ton of life experience. He's been around the block a few times. Even I know it's illegal to do that. And then when it came down to it he said he knew it was illegal to lie to them but did it anyway. He took personal responsibility for his actions. So what's the issue?
If people want to bitch about the law and say it's too broad and gives them too much leeway and the like, then fine. Argue that. That's a valid point and seems correct. But then don't cry about law enforcement doing what they're permitted to do. It's the fault of the politicians for writing crap laws. Put the blame where it belongs. Cause crying about the FBI won't change a damn thing. Bitching about the law to your representatives might if enough do it.
Although you can call it whatever you want, the most common word used to describe what happened to Flynn is "entrapment." I am curious, why would you want to argue about this now? I mean, think about it. These are events from 2016. The beginning of the hunt for the Russians under the bed. The article is from 2018. Today is 2020 and Flynn is likely to see the entire case against him thrown out. And in the four years, people directly involved in the Flynn interview and write-up - Strzok and McCabe - fired. In fair part for their handling of this exact case. <snip> You brought it up and made a statement that it was "reasonable" to assume it was entrapment. And you said the FBI "always" do it.. with a little wiggle room. .... If you want to call it entrapment in order to paint the FBI .... There is no need to impute motive to me when many articles use the phrase to describe the FBI actions. You are now making things up. From the article. Yet in commonsense terms, what McCabe and his agents did was obviously entrapment. It may even have crossed the official legal line of entrapment to the effect that Flynn’s conviction might be thrown out. At first perusal, it appears to have done so....
You brought it up and made a statement that it was "reasonable" to assume it was entrapment. And you said the FBI "always" do it.. with a little wiggle room. ... How much do you understand about FBI standard operating procedure? Google "FBI entrapment" maybe add "drugs". OR if you still have problems understanding, go to Glocktalk.com, discussion forum for gun owners but mostly LEO, and ask the simple question, "Is entrapment a typical FBI technique." I am not seeing where you have a problem with me. You have a problem trying to thread a needle to get to some desirable conclusions, but that's no concern of mine. |
|
|
|
.. it aint just about plant tree's and walk away. its about know what tree's to plant, why and what for
Reminds me of the millions of acres of farmland devastated by improper crop rotation. Conclusion: Randomly planting random tree species in random places has almost a zero chance of being "good for the planet." |
|
|
|
Do you have a way past the paywall? Disabling JS doesn't work for that one. --------------- Found some other ones. So I don't see it. One of the articles I read, despite the message clearly being that he was entrapped, actually pointed out that it appeared all legal. So if it was legal, then in what way was he entrapped? He's an old guy. He has a ton of life experience. He's been around the block a few times. Even I know it's illegal to do that. And then when it came down to it he said he knew it was illegal to lie to them but did it anyway. He took personal responsibility for his actions. So what's the issue? If people want to bitch about the law and say it's too broad and gives them too much leeway and the like, then fine. Argue that. That's a valid point and seems correct. But then don't cry about law enforcement doing what they're permitted to do. It's the fault of the politicians for writing crap laws. Put the blame where it belongs. Cause crying about the FBI won't change a damn thing. Bitching about the law to your representatives might if enough do it. Although you can call it whatever you want, the most common word used to describe what happened to Flynn is "entrapment." I am curious, why would you want to argue about this now? I mean, think about it. These are events from 2016. The beginning of the hunt for the Russians under the bed. The article is from 2018. Today is 2020 and Flynn is likely to see the entire case against him thrown out. And in the four years, people directly involved in the Flynn interview and write-up - Strzok and McCabe - fired. In fair part for their handling of this exact case. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/fbis-entrapment-of-general-flynn-was-despicableFBI's entrapment of Gen. Flynn was despicable by Quin Hillyer | December 14, 2018 01:48 PM Investigators into Russian attempts to subvert American democracy grievously mistreated Gen. Michael Flynn, now convicted of perjury related to the investigation. Some of the prosecutors should themselves face professional punishment for their misbehavior. As this site’s resident defender of special counsel Robert Mueller, I am obligated to insist that the investigators themselves uphold the same standards they would apply to others. Without excusing Flynn’s lies to investigators, a fair-minded observer can call foul on an obviously unfair, and perhaps unlawful, perjury trap. Federal district judge Emmet Sullivan likewise seems quite perturbed by the latest information about the Flynn case. With Flynn’s sentencing imminent, Sullivan suddenly ordered prosecutors to produce any existent memoranda regarding their conduct of the interview in which Flynn lied. And for good reason. The investigators’ treatment of Flynn, as described in a memo filed with the court by Flynn’s lawyers, looks like a textbook case of unethical entrapment. The interview was set up directly via a phone call to Flynn from Andrew McCabe, who then was deputy director of the FBI. McCabe, by his own account, made it sound like an ordinary national-security-related briefing of the sort Flynn was accustomed to giving the FBI. Even though McCabe clearly knew that Flynn was a potential subject of investigation, he deliberately dissuaded Flynn from having attorneys present. Moreover, when the agents arrived, they and Flynn both treated the meeting as rather informal, even “jocular,” and “the agents did not provide General Flynn with a warning of the penalties for making a false statement … before, during, or after the interview.” The agents’ decision not to so inform Flynn was made at the direct behest of McCabe because “they wanted Flynn to be relaxed.” This is an absolute outrage. Granted, it’s not certain that the ordinary requirement for a “ Miranda warning” were applicable in this situation because Flynn had not been detained by, nor was in the custody of, law enforcement. Yet in commonsense terms, what McCabe and his agents did was obviously entrapment. It may even have crossed the official legal line of entrapment to the effect that Flynn’s conviction might be thrown out. At first perusal, it appears to have done so. Let’s be clear what this FBI perfidy does and doesn’t mean. First, it does not have any bearing on Mueller’s conduct of the investigation: The interview with Flynn occurred months before Mueller was appointed. And Mueller, pleased with Flynn’s cooperation, has recommended no jail time for the general. Flynn’s case is only a small part of Mueller’s overall investigation, which has been conducted “by the book” (as the expression goes). Second, it does nothing to invalidate, or make legally unusable, any other information Flynn provided Mueller’s team while cooperating. If Flynn provided evidence implicating others in misdeeds, that evidence is still good. Third, though, this entrapment provides even more reason for McCabe himself to be investigated for wrongdoing. Again and again, it has been shown that McCabe acted not as the impartial enforcer of justice that a top FBI official should be, but rather as a partisan or ideological hack against conservatives in general or against Trump’s team in particular. Fourth and finally, this might remove the status of “felon” from Flynn’s permanent record. A man with a distinguished military career, whose lie did not involve conduct that in itself was criminal and was less self-protective than it was a matter of political ham-handedness, perhaps merits some slack anyway. His reputation already has suffered; must his legal status also be permanently scarred? Either way, McCabe’s behavior here appears shameful, well deserving of fierce condemnation. |
|
|
|
That's a New York Post editorial (a tabloid owned by Murdoch and the chief editor is Trumps personal friend Col Allan) So who owns a newspaper discredits an article in it. That's certainly an interesting point of view... But those guys had to be strung up either for entrapped charges (Flynn)
Flynn's entrapment is a disgrace.
Flynn was acting as a foreign agent for Turkey, he discussed sanctions with Russia after he was named National Security Advisor but while Obama was still president, and then he lied about to the Vice President and the FBI. He negotiated a plea deal with Mueller to cooperate in exchange for *only* being charged with lying to the FBI. There's a decent argument that the case wasn't handled properly, and honestly I don't think he should serve time. We're only talking about a few weeks tops and the guy dedicated his life to the military before getting caught up in politics and eventually cooperating with the investigation. But the narrative that they just tricked him into lying and that's how they got him is literally fake news and that article you linked which makes it seem like the only crime was lying to the fbi is a great example of Trumps friends spreading misinformation, and his supporters believing it. There has been a whole lot of that going on throughout the entire impeachment process, most of it doesn't even defend the president, but it's been successful enough, and repetitive enough that if you ask some loyal Trump supporters straight forward questions like 'do you think he use the money and WH visit to pressure Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden?" the response might be about Clinton, or the DNC, or Comey, or just how stupid the dems are, or Hunter, or the whistle blower, or 'who cares even if he did, it's not impeachable'....but getting an actual answer is very unlikely since we all know he did it, but If you answer yes, then you'll have to think about why Trump lied about it over and over and over, and attacked all those people who said he did it. Why would your recitation of opinions be relevant? This is an issue being played out in courtrooms according to rules of evidence and procedure. I guess you could claim you are right, and the courtrooms are wrong? The reasonable reason to think that Flynn was "entrapped" is because, that's simply what the FBI DOES. Standard operating procedure, a lot of cases. Sure, not all the time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
