|
I will take the remaining slots.
|
|
|
|
What does this have to do with macroeconomics? I believe I was very clear. The government is not monolithic, and a few key individuals can and have sold out this country over the years for private gain. "Common sense" and beliefs are another way of saying baseless assumptions they did their jobs and in our interest. Right now our country is filled with saboteurs at every level of government working for various ideological and profit motives. People don't know it yet, but we are already at war with China. We have been for at least a few years, and they have been at war with us for years before that. They have a very robust fifth column within our nation and part of all the chaos that is happening now is a result of that conflict.
I can very easily find you proof that your concerns about macroeconomics were within projections by first finding published records from the BEA and US Commerce Department. Showing published information that your concerns are inside of the models they use, and then linking the current economic advisors using those models based on press conference statements and accessible proven records. What I cannot do, is interview a government spokesperson and ask them how many ousted spies there have been so far, or how many they expect are still remaining and what impact they have. If I spend an hour compiling all of the proof in the world and then you respond with, thats what the spies want you to think! I've wasted my time. What you've substantiated is that there is a negative economic effect because of Covid. Duh... Your sources aren't saying, "The lockdowns are causing this" they've said "the lockdowns and covid are causing this". Cool, 900,000 jobs lost, what about the 10 billion people that have already died and lost their jobs (I'm counting the subterranean people that have been hit even harder)? https://www.history.com/news/8-mysterious-underground-citieshttps://www.popsci.com/humans-survive-underground/That information was presented to substantiate the claim that there are plenty of motives to lie, manipulate data, and intentionally crash our economy under the pretext of safety. Again you topic slide and resort to more chump like ad hominem attacks instead of substantiating your claims. Very convenient your conclusions are above reproach and you need not substantiate anything based on some chickenshit excuse that it is meaningless because I won't accept it. My acceptance is totally irrelevant. Your inability to substantiate your claims is however quite relevant. |
|
|
|
"A Trump election conspiracy collapses" A Trump election conspiracy theory has fallen apart after Florida’s law enforcement agency said it had found no widespread voter fraud in the 2018 races for Senate and governor.https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2020/05/21/a-trump-election-conspiracy-collapses-1285442I wonder why they are pushing so hard for vote by mail for all?
The more people that vote, the better the democrats will do. Conversely, the fewer people that vote, the better the Republicans will do. Democrats are more prone to allow voter fraud, Republicans are more prone to suppressing voters. You are conflating the ability to commit voter fraud with simply enabling voting. This is a popular fallacy Democrats like to spout any time voter fraud is brought up, because Democrats DEPEND on voter fraud to have a chance in hell. FYI, New Jersey isn't Florida. |
|
|
|
I'm trying to have a discussion.
I responded directly to you about the fisa warrants, what I think Flynn did wrong, and I admitted there are parts of it that I"m not clear on legally.
When Trump fired Flynn he said it was for lying to the VP. What do you think really happened?
I shared what I think most likely happened. What do you think? You aren't trying to have a discussion, you are trying to dictate the discussion with topic sliding. Instead of responding to my evidence that this investigation was criminal activity, you want to discuss personnel choices not related to criminal activity. Regardless of what you think, Trump has already stated he plans to bring Flynn back in to the cabinet, so it is highly likely his decision to remove him was based on the same fraud the criminal investigation was. |
|
|
|
It has already been demonstrated that Flynn dutifully reported his ties to these people, and lying about it would be pointless because it was already a matter of record, and he knew this.
When Trump fired Flynn he said it was for lying to the VP. I think Flynn did lie about his conversations with the Russian ambassador and Trump was right to fire him for it. What do you think really happened? Nice strawman. Care to address any of the actual premises I presented? |
|
|
|
I think it's possible that Obama truly did make an effort to put a wall between himself and any criminal investigation into ties between Trump campaign and Russia and focus only the National Security side of things. There's obviously a bit of overlap, which makes things tricky and all the more reason to make the record very clear the motivations for his actions.
The now public Rice email seems to be doing just that.
You're right about the Warrant thing. The FISA system is a mess and the FBI basically just exploited it. I don't want to have another Russia collusion debate on what we learned years later, but I agree with you that in Jan 2017 the FBI did not have solid evidence that a crime was committed. There was smoke though. And the FISA warrants had nothing to do with spying on Russians. We have to spy on Russia.
I'm not sure if you believe it or not, but let's assume for sake of argument that the FBI had intercepted a call between Flynn and Russian Ambassador where Flynn told the Ambassador not to worry about the sanctions.
Is that a crime? I honestly don't know. I do think it's a big deal though. A retired 3 star general who had served as director of the DIA (basically the CIA for just the military) under Obama for 2 years, undermining the administration by telling our enemy not to worry about the sanctions his president had just applied.
If all that really happened, what's the right thing to do?
And what do you do when you see Flynn lie about it to Pence and Spicer, who turned around and told the Nation?
In hindsight, they probably just should've let Flynn get away with it. But at the time they didn't know what else Flynn, the National Security Advisor to the President, was lying about. Get away with what? Not committing a crime? I like how you phrase this as if Obama was looking out for national security instead of violating it by using its intelligence networks in a criminal plot to overthrow a duly elected president. All the Rice email shows is she knew she was being set up as a patsy and wasn't having it. Of course you don't want to have a debate over "Russian collusion", because you were dead fucking wrong, it never happened, and you have no evidence to support that assertion, so lets never mind that right? "Smoke" (whatever the fuck that means) is not a valid metric for a FISA warrant. "FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power"[22] inside the United States[21] and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent.[22] In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain "minimization requirements" for information pertaining to U.S. persons.[23][21] If the foreign power’s suspected agent communicates with Americans, the communications of citizens of the United States are incidentally intercepted even though they are not the targets of the surveillance.[21]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Warrantless_domestic_wiretapping_programThe basis for the Flynn warrant was the investigation into the manufactured accusations of illegal Turkish lobbying ties (not anything to do with Russia). https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1120621/downloadIt has already been demonstrated that Flynn dutifully reported his ties to these people, and lying about it would be pointless because it was already a matter of record, and he knew this. This the entire warrant "probable cause" was nothing more than an illegal manufactured parallel construction in order to violate protections for wiretapping laws of US citizens. Lying to obtain FISA warrants is a crime. Illegally spying is a crime. Attempting to unseat a duly elected president is treason. "Is that a crime?" you ask? Yes, one punishable by death. |
|
|
|
Definitely a stupid thing to say. But Black people really do like Biden. Like overwhelmingly. I think he polled highest with blacks throughout the entire primary...as an old white guy that's nuts. The identity politics numbers have been pretty consistent since day 1. This is from the most recent fox poll, I don't think (Don't get triggered Trump fans, it's just a general poll,....nothing to do with electoral college. We all know Biden has a 0% chance of winning) [img ]https://i.gyazo.com/39bd8aaac68a2ec5e6682b3aa87e89e8.png[/img] [img ]https://i.gyazo.com/9594f79d4a35ece9bf9b23ef6500db91.png[/img] [img ]https://i.gyazo.com/7f9282c1403db34c1831e6d06c5515ea.png[/img] [img ]https://i.gyazo.com/b28f4dfbd1ffd8fc6a8681025a11ea89.png[/img] [img ]https://i.gyazo.com/6b0228492718148b526c2154652e5fc7.png[/img] https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2020/05/Fox_May-17-20-2020_Complete_National_Topline_May-21-Release.pdfPerhaps Trump didn't say "I'm the best thing that ever happened to black people" and "I'm the least racist person in the world" enough times. Sure they do. Polls are never incorrect or manipulated right? So what Trump said is equivalent to saying you aren't black unless you vote for me? |
|
|
|
....
I don't think it was off topic when you posted about the same investigation in this thread 7 months ago when it was opened. Pretty sure that this is also what Trump is talking about when he says 'OBAMA-GATE!' 'biggest political crime in American history!'....
The part of this which is notable is that this thread is REEEE, created due to and in response to censorship of the original thread. REEEE was a repository for posts which were deleted by abusive moderators or self moderated threads. Now those threads have starved themselves out, leaving ONLY the REEEE threads (predictable, at least to some of us. Yep. First they create a censored thread, it dies. I create an open thread. They run out of arguments knowing that their communist overlord moderator will not move their off topic posts, they then strip my ability to have a discussion again with topic sliding. FREE SPEECH! |
|
|
|
Trust me, there's a lot of roadwork you have to do in order to create a system that blocks scams. Even my project in its infancy is piled with a mountain of TODOs.  Thank you for the perfect quote - don't take this example personally. You ask me to trust that you've had experience dealing with large anonymous member bases, and that you've discovered it's difficult. I don't know you - all I have is your word. It might not work on me, but eventually some user will fall for your fake proof and start to boost your reputation. I don't want to trust that "Bob" did his due diligence in investigating you. I want to verify what you claim. My system is anonymous and trust less. I'm not trying to stop the wave, I'm just going to ride it and assist anyone I see drowning. I like how you have turned a thread about your trust system abuse into an advertisement/ego stroking device all the while never once even attempting to justify your actions. |
|
|
|
None of this is on topic. I wish you were right. He generally shouldn't be involved directly in the investigation of anyone, especially personal enemies - aside from maybe the voter fraud commission, all he's doing is introducing the appearance of a conflict of interest should any of his enemies actually get indicted. But he keeps doing it and making it all about himself. These are not FBI or even congressional investigations...they're Trump Investigations. "Senate Republicans break with Trump over ‘Obamagate’"Trump accused the former president of committing the “biggest political crime in American history.” When asked Monday what crime Obama allegedly committed, Trump replied: “You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody, all you have to do is read the newspapers.” President Donald Trump’s aggressive campaign to encourage sweeping investigations of his predecessor Barack Obama met a unanimous response from Senate Republicans: No thanks. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/11/senate-republicans-trump-obamagate-249734This thread is about investigations into Trump and Trump affiliates, not investigations into his opponents. This is off topic. Make your own thread or take it to a related one. |
|
|
|
I do know she emailed herself to document what she was told, and the most likely explanation for that is she didn't believe what she was told, and didn't want to be the one held responsible for these crimes.
I don't know for sure either, and I do agree that this was her covering her ass, but I just don't see how this could be interpreted as Rice trying not to become the fall guy for Obama. It looks more like she was literally just keeping the record straight. By law, her notes - and literally any other notes or emails involving the President or VP belongs in the Presidential records with plans to eventually be made public. I don't think it's unreasonable to think on her last day of work (Inaguration) she was taking care of the last of whatever it takes to put things in the record. I assume Obama, Biden and Comey all know how the system works and expected there to be a record of their meeting, like every other meeting. I bet Comey filed a memo also considering it was one of the few times they ever spoke. The reason that is a big deal is because if they had information to support the claim that Flynn was working with the Russians, they had no excuse to not inform the incoming president about this so he could take precautions. So in the end this is not just about keeping Flynn in the dark, it is about keeping the president in the dark. If they really believed Flynn did this, they would intentionally be risking national security to go after Trump by not informing him. You can't have it both ways.
It was about whether or not they could trust Flynn with sensitive information regarding Russia. It was already known that there were connections between Trump, his family, his campaign and Russia. In Flynns case, he was fired by Obama in 2014 as head of the DIA and a few months later was being paid by RT and having dinner with Putin. Isn't that alone enough for Obama to ask Comey 'should I worry about what we hand over to Flynn about Russia right now?'. I know it was only a couple weeks left, but he was still President and responsible for the country. And he did reportedly warn Trump about Flynn. Told him not to hire him. Chris Christie (when he was head of transition) also said he was a train wreck waiting to happen or something. If this is not her covering her ass from becoming the fall guy, what is she covering her ass from exactly? Please do tell me the liability you think she is concerned about. Of course the emails are part of the record, that is why she emailed herself explicitly to make it part of public record. Not all meetings are transcribed and recorded. Yes, we get it, that is the pretext for the Flynn investigation. That still doesn't explain what evidence they had to get the warrant to begin with, and still doesn't explain why they did not inform Trump so he could take precautions to protect national security. Either they thought Flynn was a real threat or they didn't. Either they believed him to be a security risk, and put national security at risk to go after Trump by not informing him, or they knew it was a baseless illegal warrant used as pretext to go after Trump. Telling him not to hire him is not the same as briefing him on a potential security threat, one which never existed by the way. There are ZERO documented connections involving ANY criminal activity linking the Trump campaign and Russia. This claim is based on 3 years of baseless investigation relying upon illegal warrants and media hype. There is no substance behind any of these claims. You can swear up and down there are but you can't actually ever provide any evidence of it. That makes this whole freak show A TOTALLY ILLEGAL PARTISAN OPERATION utilizing the intelligence and surveillance apparatus of this nation in a criminal attempt to target a duly elected sitting president by the outgoing administration. This is unprecedented criminal behavior putting the very nation itself at risk by threatening the peaceful transition of power that marks an actual democracy. |
|
|
|
Nice ad hominem, we get right to the meat and bones of the problem, and rather than addressing it, you avoid the entire thing. Can you give me just a little hint on how anyone could possibly go about proving that there aren't spies intentionally infiltrating and sabotaging our public policy?  If I do manage to find definitive proof, will you pink promise that you won't just deny it as a hoax from the Russians that are pretending to be Chinese infiltrators to shift the blame onto the Chinese? First your point was that the government was not competent of complex economic analysis, so I set out to find evidence to the contrary. I asked you to elaborate on where you stopped believing in common sense so I could find specific proof and not waste my time explaining that 2+2 = 4, and then you come back with ghosts and bigfoot. Can you prove that ghosts exist? No, but you can't prove that they don't exist either. That must mean that ghosts exist and you can make the statement that ghosts exist and anyone who says otherwise is wrong and a hater because they can't prove that they don't exist. I don't think that we should base our public policy on ghosts. The difference between my ad hominem and your ad hominem, is I substantiated my claims with sources along with it. You substantiate your claims with proclaiming your conclusions are above reproach, and you need not substantiate anything. I didn't ask you to prove anything about spies. I asked you to document that there was analysis done of the macroeconomic impact that these lock downs would have on the population. You are desperately trying to straw man your way out of this corner you have painted yourself into. |
|
|
|
Just to be clear, do you think the truth is the opposite of what she said in her email to herself? How did the declassified paragraph change anything then? Everything else was declassified in 2018.
The article you linked, and much of the right wing media are making the 'smoking gun' out to be the fact that Obama and Comey discussed the possibility of limiting the amount of classified information involving Russia that Flynn was exposed to during the transition. The email just documents what she was told. Like I said, this is her covering her ass. I don't know what she was told. I do know she emailed herself to document what she was told, and the most likely explanation for that is she didn't believe what she was told, and didn't want to be the one held responsible for these crimes. The reason that is a big deal is because if they had information to support the claim that Flynn was working with the Russians, they had no excuse to not inform the incoming president about this so he could take precautions. So in the end this is not just about keeping Flynn in the dark, it is about keeping the president in the dark. If they really believed Flynn did this, they would intentionally be risking national security to go after Trump by not informing him. You can't have it both ways. Now before you go right to saying they suspected him too, there is zero evidence to support any claim that Trump was involved with anything illegal involving the Russians after three years of endless investigations. The actions they took required warrants. Warrants require evidence. There is no evidence therefore the warrants were criminal acts under color of law. |
|
|
|
I believe I was very clear. The government is not monolithic, and a few key individuals can and have sold out this country over the years for private gain. "Common sense" and beliefs are another way of saying baseless assumptions they did their jobs and in our interest. Right now our country is filled with saboteurs at every level of government working for various ideological and profit motives. People don't know it yet, but we are already at war with China. We have been for at least a few years, and they have been at war with us for years before that. They have a very robust fifth column within our nation and part of all the chaos that is happening now is a result of that conflict.
Yeah, none of that is clear at all. So even if I did prove that Trump approved the best possible choice given the information available at the time of his choice, and that he took into consideration the advice of however many aides and economic/medical experts that I could find evidence of. The models that the experts were basing their advice on were comprehensive and inclusive of your concerns. You'd still be able to nullify all of it with actual baseless claims that someone sabotaged it. What was the point of asking for proof? Common sense isn't a baseless assumption, the very definition is the base assumption. If something works the way common sense dictates in 99/100 cases, it becomes common sense and you tend to believe so unless something out of the ordinary dictates otherwise, not the other way around. I don't really care that your world view is "non traditional", just don't bother wasting anyone's time asking them to disprove that the ghost of Lincoln is running the shadow government from the basement of the pentagon. Convenient out for yourself without documenting anything chump. You are everything you accused me of being. |
|
|
|
Here's the declassified part: "Director Comey affirmed that he is proceeding ‘by the book’ as it relates to law enforcement. From a national security perspective, Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing sensitive information. President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn. Comey replied ‘potentially.’ He added that he has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that ‘the level of communication is unusual.'"\ https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000172-2e48-d57a-ad7b-7e6f97060000They were discussing whether or not to give Flynn classified information before Trump took office. The email points to Obama not wanting to have anything to do with the law enforcement side of things. Just the National Security stuff. "The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book." Thanks for demonstrating how lost you are. This declassified email is what you call "covering your ass". Rice was put in a position to speak for these people in a way that put her in liability, they were attempting to use her as a patsy. She predicted this eventuality based on the nature of the illegal investigation, as a result, she sent this email TO HERSELF to provide an out in case this was in fact investigated. Who sends emails to themselves? |
|
|
|
Are you fucking kidding me? Street gangs? So which one of them was after General Flynn, the Triads or the Tongs, buahahahahahahaHA? Okay, just keep digging those heals in deeper. If you had brought up the Chinese government or business interest like Huawei, or something with SOME credibility I would actually engage in a meaningful discussion with you. But it's obvious you're too stubborn to admit you were wrong and would rather continue fantasizing. Now that you've gone off the deep end your just sounding like a complete moron. Calling the Triads a street gang is like calling Kraft a street vendor because ice cream trucks sell their products on the streets. These organizations are international, they are not like the Bloods, the Crips, or the Latin Kings. You want another good example? How about MS-13, another widely known international criminal organization that serve as criminal mercenaries and often do hit jobs for some of the scummier politicians here domestically. The fact that you feel the need to compare the CCP with a street gang demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty and your need to obfuscate the reality of international criminal organizations just so you can feel right rather than be correct. Pretending those huge corporate interests don't overlap with international criminal organization interests is just retarded, and I seriously doubt you believe that. |
|
|
|
None of this is on topic. |
|
|
|
If the feedback is only for Meriting a post (and it looks like that from the Reference link), I think it is.
I would agree that negative trust for a merit would be trust abuse. The reference link was a poor choice, but I also left negative trust for bonesjonesreturns for doing the exact same thing. Look at my sent trust. No conspiracy - just a jealous troll. I've said it before but I'll say it again: OgNasty should ignore Vod, and Vod should ignore OgNasty! You two don't like each other, we get it. That's okay. Let it be, and move on.
I'm hoping to have a system to prevent scams up by Jul 1, assuming I can collect all the data I need. Oh, I see. You have done it multiple times, therefore it is ok! Great argument. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
