...
This is ridiculous. In no way was the phone call "entirely ordinary and appropriate."
"Congrats on your win, guy. BTW, can you please open investigations into my political opponents for me? ....
One other comment. Is Biden Trump's "political opponent?" I think not. I think he would become that when he had been deemed the Democrat candidate for president. He is the most likely to win the dem nomination, so yes. They certainly are sparring like its a done deal already. Trump is obviously more scared of Biden than any other candidate. He never even mentions them. I see some rationale in what you are saying, but still I have trouble with that on several fronts. Let me just ask this. Consider the incredible assault on Kavanaugh by Democrats with the thinnest shreds of facts. Few Democrats objected to that. And now POTUS requests politely some looking into Biden's past behavior and it's grounds for impeachment.... Sorry, your favored party doesn't have the reasoning ability to run this country. |
|
|
|
Just imagine what we could discover if the financing between space exploration and military switched.  What are your thoughts about what we could achieve?  By the way, is the military spending really necessary? One step at a time. First, the US Space Force... |
|
|
|
Slightly off Topic, but the story of Ukraine from 2010, when Viktor Yanukovych was elected till 2014 when he was removed is pretty crazy. He basically just brought in a bunch of Oligarchs from Russia to bribe the right officials and milk the government and people for every penny he could. Apparently he was averaging close to $2m USD every single day for alost 4 years in just bribes. When he was ousted and fled to Russia, they seized the house he was living in and couldn't believe all the money he had spent on it - he had just been literally spending as much money as possible on himself all while looting the entire government. They turned it into a tourist attraction. Google Mezhyhirya Residence for pictures. Manafort was working for this guy for 4 or 5 years, spending most of his time in Ukraine as a political advisor for the future Ukrainian President/Russian Oligarch. I think this is primarily where he got all his money, and his taste for spending all his money, which meant he had to commit bank/tax fraud to keep it up, and now he will probably die in prison. He likely would've gotten away with all the crime if Trump lost in 2016. Small world. The new President of Ukraine is a Comedian and Pianist. Very Talented.
I'm going to merit this, because it's Interesting Facts and not Political Polemics |
|
|
|
Some other candidates would be able to continue after this, but since the media hates Sanders, they'll constantly portray him as near death. Probably it will hurt his support enough to kill his inertia and force him to drop out after he performs poorly in the first few states.
According to the latest Morning Consult polling, Sanders supporters say that their second choice is:
- 30% Biden
- 28% Warren
- 6% Harris
If you assume that Sanders drops out now, go based on the above numbers along with the current RCP average, and give one-tenth of Sanders' remaining support to candidates not listed in the Morning Consult poll, you get adjusted numbers of:
- Biden 26.1 -> 31.1
- Warren 24.4 -> 29.1
- Buttigieg 5.6 -> 6.2
- Harris 4.7 -> 5.7
- Yang 3.3 -> 3.9
This (incredibly rough/unscientific analysis) makes it look good for Biden and to a slightly lesser extent Warren, but it really solidifies it into a 2-person race.
I would've really liked Sanders vs Trump because it's win-win in some ways: compared to previous presidents Trump is above average in most areas, while Sanders is excellent on foreign policy and civil liberties and terrible on policies that a president is more limited in affecting. Now I probably have to hope for Trump beating Biden or Warren.
In Trump vs Biden, I think Trump would probably win, but it wouldn't be a sure thing. President Biden would be like a mix between Obama and Bush. Biden himself is very authoritarian and pro-intervention, but he would probably appoint some Obama people to his administration, which might improve things somewhat on average. On the plus side, he is definitely not anti-capitalist.
In Trump vs Warren, Warren would have a very low chance of winning, but it'd be high stakes because Warren is really terrible. Warren is a horrible fusion of authoritarianism, interventionism, anti-capitalism, and corporatism, and her victory would embolden progressives while also giving them an opportunity to say, "Warren is destroying the country only because she's not progressive enough: she's no Bernie!". On the plus side, if she loses (which is the most likely outcome), it might diminish AOC-type progressivism in the Democratic party for a while.
I guess Bernie is most likely spewing the same stuff that Trump said about foreign policy - which was the idea that the US was in too many foreign ways and the troops should come home. I don't know much about his foreign policy, though I've heard its pretty much what Trump had spoken about during the campaign trail. I guess we'll see. Only international manipulation could have created this total mess in the Dem party. At least I'd like to believe that. |
|
|
|
...
This is ridiculous. In no way was the phone call "entirely ordinary and appropriate."
"Congrats on your win, guy. BTW, can you please open investigations into my political opponents for me? ....
One other comment. Is Biden Trump's "political opponent?" I think not. I think he would become that when he had been deemed the Democrat candidate for president. |
|
|
|
....
This is kind of garbage that Democrats are pushing. They want to lean over backwards and look the other way at their peoples' corruption, but get out a microscope to find the smallest thing about Trump.
On a different level entirely, this kind of crazy is that which can only be created and propagated by lawyers. Regular people see through. And that's a major reason why Trump is where he is right now.
I think you're right in a way. I think a large amount of people can agree that what Biden did is a problem and is a conflict of interest, me included. I think that the prosecutor was fired due to getting too close to Bidens son, and maybe Biden had another cover -- as the prosecutor maybe was corrupt as well. So Biden had been able to get away with both. In a nutshell. Biden: Prove that he's guilty. Trump: Prove that he's not guilty. The styling of both arguments incorporates the logical error of the "Irrefutable Hypothesis," but it's being used in opposite directions simultaneously. Lawyer tactics to obscure the truth. |
|
|
|
Also -- the prosecutor had been forced out because of his investigation??? Isn't that what we're all saying here.
Yes, that's what you're all saying here because this is an echo chamber outside of my opinion. I'm glad you at least framed it as a question, because that's what it is: a question. We don't know the answer. Of course its easy to assume that's the case if you don't like Biden. I do agree with you about the "conflict of interest" part. As I've said before I don't know what Hunter Biden was doing there other than using his last name to make big bucks. I'm not going to say Biden's conversation was "perfect" when he bragged about having the prosecutor fired. Perhaps that will become its own investigation, if its not already. However, I don't see him being destroyed over this. If he slips in the polls, perhaps it will just be a better entrance for my man Bernie, so I actually wouldn't mind it. I just don't see that happening, however. I think there's a 90% chance he'll still be the dem nominee. Well yeah -- it's a question to me as well. We're most likely never actually going to know if that was the reason that the prosecutor was fired. We're all just going to form our different theories here. Very easy to assume if you don't like Biden.... When you have Joe Biden bragging about threatening to get the prosecutor fired by with holding a billion dollars, said prosecutor being fired exactly when Biden threatened them, you have no factual basis to make the claim bolded above. This is kind of garbage that Democrats are pushing. They want to lean over backwards and look the other way at their peoples' corruption, but get out a microscope to find the smallest thing about Trump. On a different level entirely, this kind of crazy is that which can only be created and propagated by lawyers. Regular people see through. And that's a major reason why Trump is where he is right now. Just to further explain what I meant when I typed that -- if you were to see I had been talking about how no one will know the exact reason that he was fired. Biden is going to say he was fired by an international effort to remove him due to corruption. Trump is going to say the prosecutor was fired due to going after Bidens son, Hunter Biden. We know that the prosecutor was fired because of Biden forcing him out, yes, no one disagrees there. But no one knows the true reason that Biden had pushed for his removal. And we most likely will never know. I meant exactly what I said. All that you have done is note that no one ever can truly know another's internal motivations. Except to the extent that it is evidenced by his statements or actions. Repeating, This is kind of garbage that Democrats are pushing. They want to lean over backwards and look the other way at their peoples' corruption, but get out a microscope to find the smallest thing about Trump.
On a different level entirely, this kind of crazy is that which can only be created and propagated by lawyers. Regular people see through. And that's a major reason why Trump is where he is right now. |
|
|
|
1. What is gang stalking
Gang stalking is simply a form of community mobbing and organised stalking combined. Just like you have workplace mobbing, and online mobbing, which are both fully recognised as legitimate, this is the community form.
Gang stalking is organised harassment at it's best. It the targeting of an individual for revenge, jealousy, sport, or to keep them quite, etc.
It's organised, widespread, and growing. Some describe this form of harassment as, "A psychological attack that can completely destroy a persons life, while leaving little or no evidence to incriminate the perpetrators."
2. Who gets targeted
The people getting targeted seem to be (single) woman, minorities, outspoken individuals, whistle blowers, dissidents, people who have gone against large corporations, etc.
...
You mean, people such as Trump? |
|
|
|
It seems elon musk is really serious in getting people into space. Can't help but admire this guy's vision and dedication. I just watched cosmos last night and i imagine how carl sagan would have reacted to what elon is doing and achieving right now. If only there were more of this guy in the world today.
Yeah! I mean, most people die, and their grave is the tiny space that they occupy for the rest of Earth's existence. Or maybe it's even the smaller space of the urn (cremation). But think of having all of space as your tomb.  Chances of surviving in the Mars is really low,even with the most developed technologies present at the moment.... Wait a minute here... I know Musk was talking about sending people to Mars, but was that live people?  |
|
|
|
Also -- the prosecutor had been forced out because of his investigation??? Isn't that what we're all saying here.
Yes, that's what you're all saying here because this is an echo chamber outside of my opinion. I'm glad you at least framed it as a question, because that's what it is: a question. We don't know the answer. Of course its easy to assume that's the case if you don't like Biden. I do agree with you about the "conflict of interest" part. As I've said before I don't know what Hunter Biden was doing there other than using his last name to make big bucks. I'm not going to say Biden's conversation was "perfect" when he bragged about having the prosecutor fired. Perhaps that will become its own investigation, if its not already. However, I don't see him being destroyed over this. If he slips in the polls, perhaps it will just be a better entrance for my man Bernie, so I actually wouldn't mind it. I just don't see that happening, however. I think there's a 90% chance he'll still be the dem nominee. Well yeah -- it's a question to me as well. We're most likely never actually going to know if that was the reason that the prosecutor was fired. We're all just going to form our different theories here. Very easy to assume if you don't like Biden.... When you have Joe Biden bragging about threatening to get the prosecutor fired by with holding a billion dollars, said prosecutor being fired exactly when Biden threatened them, you have no factual basis to make the claim bolded above. This is kind of garbage that Democrats are pushing. They want to lean over backwards and look the other way at their peoples' corruption, but get out a microscope to find the smallest thing about Trump. On a different level entirely, this kind of crazy is that which can only be created and propagated by lawyers. Regular people see through. And that's a major reason why Trump is where he is right now. |
|
|
|
.....My response to the article is, bring it on. But is it a wise, or a NECESSARY, path to go down? |
|
|
|
...
Sorry to disappoint you all but I like Biden more now than I ever did before. I have a feeling that a lot of usually-dem voters paying attention to the news feel the same.
This would appear to be a textbook example of cognitive dissonance at work. |
|
|
|
Thus it has no specific meaning. I have specific meaning to this, and I think all here understand what meaning is under this words. Maybe just because i don't want (or can't) to give more specific term, and don't want to write every time big essay about what i mean under this term. Rather it's used by a person to smear those that do not agree with his views.
I said it many times before, but you can't disagree with the fact of climate change. It's the same as disagree with the fact that the Sun is rising on the east The term is used ad hoc in political discourse as an insult, often to get someone fired. It is used to mean whatever is of advantage to the accuser. I doubt if you have specific meaning, actually. RE "you can't disagree", blah-blah-blah, these are not scientifically qualified assertions. What is your opinion. of the magnitude of the climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivityEquilibrium climate sensitivity[edit] The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric equivalent CO 2 concentration (ΔT2×). A comprehensive model estimate of equilibrium sensitivity requires a very long model integration; fully equilibrating ocean temperatures requires the integration of thousands of model years, although it is possible to produce an estimate more quickly using the method of Gregory et al. (2004).[10] As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C".[11] For example if you respond 4.0C, you and I are in disagreement and you are welcome to call me anything you want, I don't care. If you say you don't know, you cannot make the broad assertions you make. |
|
|
|
Overall, The Last Refuge (Conservative Treehouse) far right biased and borderline questionable based on multiple failed fact checks. This source is one failed fact check from moving to the Questionable list. Nice source you chud. As usual, not even an attempt to address any of the contents of the information, just a simple attack on the source (from a hacked account I might add). The usual weak failing attempt at refutation to be expected from the left because they have no actual principles or arguments. - gets upset about an "attack on the source" - immediately attacks source of comment without trace of irony "Rules for thee but not for mee, REEEEE......." LoL. So what is Pelosi doing that is illegal again? I should start a poll, "What excuse will Trumptards use when Trump is impeached by the House?" Then list the obvious options. Read it to the end, and I would be curious if you think this is a wise or necessary path to go down. |
|
|
|
|
Let the Dems rally around Biden, a third rate candidate for the POTUS.
That virtually assures Trump wins Four More.
I'm okay with that.
|
|
|
|
...
I actually saw this video on Donald Trump's instagram page but I initially doubted it's authenticity because it was mainly posted by Trump himself ....
Might be wise to reverse that logic, and doubt the authenticity of everything presented by the liars and schemers behind the fake news AGAINST TRUMP. You'd be betting 5 for 5 then. |
|
|
|
When a scientist says that he does not deny global warming, that does not mean that he agrees with alarmist or politicians or common yep, they can disagree with media representation or some ways to resolve it, but compared to climate deniers they don't deny the fact of it. ... You are wrong. The phrase "climate denier" is used by anyone, politically or religiously a climate activist, to smear anyone they wish. Thus it has no specific meaning. Rather it's used by a person to smear those that do not agree with his views. Often the term "climate denier" is used in conjunction with one of the arguments which is logically erroneous. These include Ad Hominem, and Argument by Ridicule. |
|
|
|
I was always interested in how realistic this story is. Was traveling to the moon possible with those technologies?
One thing discussions "Was the Moon landing a hoax" 100% proves is the very low understanding of science of many people today. |
|
|
|
I know of no 'climate denier' who thinks that the earth is flat. 'Flat Earth' is a psy-op developed specifically to associate with people who don't go along with the corp/gov line on such things as 'global warming', 'vaccines', etc.
Ahahahahahahahahahahaahahaha. Global warming deniers == vaccines deniers. It's your words, are you? I have one interesting thought in my mind: If some people denies the fact of global warming which is not denied by any famous scientists... When a scientist says that he does not deny global warming, that does not mean that he agrees with alarmist or politicians or common people's brainwashing on what to do, if anything, about it. The one thing DOES NOT LEAD to the other. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
