TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
119. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    24 20.17%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    34 28.57%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    47 39.50%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    2 1.68%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    12 10.08%
Page 417 of 422 FirstFirst ... 167317367372377382387392397402407412413414415416417418419420421 ... LastLast
Results 10,401 to 10,425 of 10544

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #10401
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Lord Dampnut's education secretary muses how awfully inconvenient strikes are when done at working hours and suggests that perhaps teachers should strike on their own free time:

    https://www.apnews.com/1158bc78cf3543da85fdd27f4de69ac8

    BALTIMORE (AP) — Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said Monday that teachers are walking off the job too often and that protests about pay and school conditions should be done on “adult time” so students aren’t hurt.

    DeVos made the comments in Baltimore while speaking at a conference for education journalists.

    Teachers from West Virginia to California have walked out of classrooms in recent months to protest working conditions and call for better benefits. Many have demanded changes including higher pay, smaller class sizes and more classroom funding.

    When asked if she supports teachers who have gone on strike, DeVos said she thinks “great teachers need to be well paid,” but that issues should be resolved without disrupting school instruction.

    “I think it’s important that adults have adult disagreements on adult time, and that they not ultimately hurt kids in the process,” DeVos said. “I think too often they’re doing so by walking out of classrooms and having arguments in the way that they are.”

  2. #10402
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Why? Obama stoked a regional conflict through indirect intervention in an attempt to stymie ISIS. There were no real reasons compelling Trump to escalate our involvement there to the point he did.
    oh please, ISIS was not the target, Assad has been .
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/polit...sad/index.html

  3. #10403
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Can we please stay on the thread topic...


  4. #10404
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    oh please, ISIS was not the target, Assad has been .
    https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/polit...sad/index.html
    Assad was A target, not THE target. Our concerns in Syria have always centered around ISIS, considering the country was practically their home base.

  5. #10405
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    Thanks, Nicker, my puppy's gone beserk.

  6. #10406
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    I blame Trump.

  7. #10407
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Assad was A target, not THE target. Our concerns in Syria have always centered around ISIS, considering the country was practically their home base.
    That's not true.

    When the whole fight in Syria started, it was described as "Dictator Assad versus the Rebels". The word "rebels" has a very positive connotation in the west. We all love rebels. (Who hasn't seen Star Wars, after all ?) We, the west, the US, the EU and their allies, supported the Rebels. Because who doesn't want to support Rebels against a dictator ? And the Bad Russians (tm) supported Assad. So that was another sign that supporting the Rebels was good.

    Only a while later it became obvious that almost all of the rebels were in fact jihadist groups. Supported, financed and armed by Saudi-Arabia and Qatar. The level of their jihadist enthusiasm was varying from rebel-group to rebel-group. But one of the groups was plain old Al-Qaeda. That was a first sign that the Rebels might not all be like the Rebels on Alderaan. And then ISIS started their publicity offensive. Publishing movies on the Internet of decapitations, crushing people alive, setting people on fire alive, etc. The public opinion started to change. At least in Europe. But politicians (both in the US and in Europe) still tried to defend the "campaign to liberate Syria from Assad". God knows why. Maybe because they were still trying to keep Saudi-Arabia happy ? It took a long time (a loooong time) before the west reluctantly and silently started to stop trying to get rid of Assad, and focused on destroying ISIS.

    Claiming that the west's concern has always been to defeat ISIS is pure ret-conning. The west was wrong to support the jihadist and Saudi-Arabia. And now we're changing history to keep making us look like the good guys ? 600k people died in Syria. And for a large part we (our politicians) are responsible. Everybody hates the Russians. But in this fight, they took the right side immediately. Probably a coincidence, but they were right, and we were wrong. I despise Republican politicians. But Syria is an issue where I blame Obama and his government.

  8. #10408
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    That's a very simplistic view of the conflict: US and the West bad, Assad and Russia good, everyone opposed to Assad a terrorist. Quite a few questions complicate this picture, though...
    If the rebels who started the war were almost all jihadists, why did they demand more freedoms for the Syrian people? Why did people who were labelled as terrorists campaign for human rights? In the first place, why was the Ba'th party ruling Syria under emergency law (that gave them nearly unlimited authority to restrict freedoms and detain suspects) for 48 years?

    I would propose a different idea that rather it was Assad's brutal regime that inspired protests and it was his violent cracking down on the protesters that inspired the defections from the army, forming the initial insurgency loosely labelled as the Free Syrian Army. That was what led to the civil war, not anything done by Obama. And it was that conflict that enabled islamist groups like ISIL and Al-Nusra to gain a foothold. The US (CIA) and its Western allies did support some groups they considered to be more secular and moderate within the FSA (which had become an umbrella term embraced by various different groups opposing Assad), but they actively opposed the radical islamist groups (as did Russia, btw). The more active US involvement started in 2014, when the war was already in full swing and large parts of Syria were occupied by ISIL. And the involvement largely consisted of attacking ISIL. It wasn't until 2017 that the US began to attack Syrian government directly.

  9. #10409
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Gryz -

    Obama contributed relatively little to the cause, a token level of support to placate our regional allies. He didn't even respond militarily when Assad/Russia crossed his chemical weapons "red line". The people to blame are the Assad government itself, the Islamic State, and Sunnis around the region who indiscriminately threw their support behind any group that was against Assad.

    If you want to blame the West for cheerleading, start with Sarkozy:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_Syria_Group

    The initial uprising in Syria was part of the Arab Spring movement. The West cheered that movement on, and when Assad cracked down hard on the protests, there were plenty of people in the West hoping to see him overthrown, but nobody really willing to risk getting into Iraq 2.0 to make it happen. Most of our regional allies already considered the Syrian government to be an enemy, going back decades, so when the FSA formed and had some initial success, they immediately picked up support from other Sunni-governed countries. Contrary to what you say, there were plenty of non-Jihadists fighting Assad. Initially it was mostly Sunni military defectors fighting their Alawite former leaders. Jihadis got stronger with outside support, but the big turning point was when the ISI spilled over into Syria in 2013.

    The Russians simply backed the Syrian government who they had been allied with for 50 years. Easy choice for them.

    Also, since when is Assad the "right" side? When compared to the Islamic State, we've come to think of him as the lesser of two evils. But the guy was a hardcore military dictator who ruled through martial law just like his father. He used chemical weapons on his cities and citizens. Nobody should be defending him. If he wasn't such a bastard, maybe his people wouldn't have been so quick to let the jihadis roll in.

  10. #10410
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    US and the West bad, Assad and Russia good, everyone opposed to Assad a terrorist.
    That's absolutely not what I said.
    I said that the narrative was that the "rebels were good, Assad bad". And that was not right. Assad wasn't good. He is a dictator. And a scummy one. But the west has not had any problems with the Assad family being in power as long as I can remember. If you want to remove a dictator, there are many ways to do it. My example is always South-Africa. Apartheid is wrong. Everyone understands this. But it was hard to get rid of it (because of UK and US assholes supporing the whites in SA). I'm sure a lot has happened in SA to get rid of Apartheid. But one thing that did not happen was a full-blown civil war. IMHO that is *always* wrong. Always. It's also pure evil to start a civil war, just because of "geo-political reason". And that is exactly what happen in Syria. Saudi-Arabia and Qatar started it. I'm sure with 100% approval from the US. ("Not much going on there, without the Potus being aware"). What happened in Syria was pure evil. Maybe I think that way because Syria happened in our time, and I was following the news and reading background stories on the net. I was certainly aware that my own country's papers and news-stories kept defending the war in Syria, until it was undeniable that the rebels were actually at worse than the nazis.

    If the rebels who started the war were almost all jihadists, why did they demand more freedoms for the Syrian people? Why did people who were labelled as terrorists campaign for human rights? In the first place, why was the Ba'th party ruling Syria under emergency law (that gave them nearly unlimited authority to restrict freedoms and detain suspects) for 48 years?
    As I said, Syria was and is no pleasant country. And if you can find a peaceful way to remove Assad and bring democracy, fine by me. There might have been rebels that wanted "freedom and democracy and human rights". But most did not. Most rebel groups wanted Islamic rule. And they wanted Shias/Alavites out, and Sunnies to rule the Middle East. That was their prime concern. And how do we know that ? Because at the first opportunity they got, they formed an Islamic State. With no room for non-Sunnies. With slavery re-introduced. With violence and beheadings and cruelty. What why we know those rebels weren't from Alderaan.

    I would propose a different idea that rather it was Assad's brutal regime that inspired protests
    Dude, we were alive when this happened. We watched it happen with our own eyes. Proposing "different ideas" is just ret-conning.
    Dozens and dozens of people from my country went to Syria to fight. They didn't go to bring freedom from Assad. They went to bring Islamic rule. How more clear do you want it to be ?

    The US (CIA) and its Western allies did support some groups they considered to be more secular
    Years after the fact, news came out how our government gave a lot of support (financial and practical stuff, like expensive pickup-trucks etc, but not weapons) to 22 different rebel-groups. 30 Million euros. It turned out that these groups used the money and material for weapons. E.g. you can easily mount machineguns on the back of pickup-trucks. Our pickup-trucks were used in combat. We were still giving money and stuff to them when all this leaked out. Our government tried to keep it silent, and refused to give out the names of the groups to which we gave money. (They leaked it to the press, by accident. Our military people are stupid. Like most military people around the world). In the end it blew over. And nobody got punished. But goddamn, our government really picked the wrong side.

    Yes, of course halfway the war the US and the EU had to admit that ISIS were the real bad guys. And in the end they had to stop trying to get rid of Assad. But because our politicians wanted that. Because of public pressure. (Just like the US politicians would still be slaughtering vietnamese people today in 2019, if not for the public pressure to end that was).

    And don't get me started on Libya. Of course Khadaffi was a dictator and an arsehole. Of course someone should have tried to get rid of him. But under banner of "arabic spring", that whole country turned into a hellhole. No matter what your goal is, you should never ever allow a cival war to happen. Let alone stimulate one. It's like setting fire to a million people, when all you had to do was burn down the Red Castle.


    Heywood, of course it's not just the US. The UK and France are big arseholes too. ("We don't like our civilians protesting our nuclear testing. Let's bomb and sink their ship. We don't care if people die"). That's why I wrote "US and EU". Even the government of my own little country has some blame in this.

    And it's not always about what countries do. It's also about what they don't do. Or what they do behind the screens. Or what they (silently) support or allow. E.g. it is my opinion that Saudi-Arabia and Qatar wanted to get rid of Assad. And the "arabic spring" was a good opportunity to start doing this with a lower risk of getting caught. Lots has been written about this. And imho I don't think Saudi-Arabia does a lot with either a) having the US's permission, or b) at least consult with the US. And the EU just followed the US, because we always do. So yes, I still stand by my words that SA + Qatar + US + EU are at some level responsible for the needless deaths of 600k Syrians. Maybe the Russians too, but they happened to be on the good side at the start. Not because the Russians are good. Just coincidence. They were at the side that didn't want a civil war. That's how simple it is, imho.


    Starker, Heywood, please tell me. If the US picked the sides of the rebels in Syria, because they hate dictatorships, they love democracy and freedom, then why did they support (and maybe push) the Syrian uprising ? And not do the same against the Saudies ? Because in all honesty, the situation in Saudi-Arabia is even worse than it was in Syria. (Do I need to mention the name "Jamal Khashoggi" ?) Assad is arsehole, but at least his rule is a little bit secularist. While SA is a pure Islamic kingdom. Why ?
    Last edited by Gryzemuis; 16th May 2019 at 20:04.

  11. #10411
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Excuse me but... FUCK ASSAD, FUCK THE SAUDIS, FUCK ISIS, FUCK BIDEN, FUCK HILLARY...

    All Trump apologists here gathered - get your heads out of your collective asses. Stop jingling your fucking keys.

    Trump's lawyers, White House counsel and William Barr are arguing that Trump cannot commit a crime and therefore cannot be investigated for any crime.

    Was that in plain enough English for you? Do you require me to repeat that? Would you like a fucking clarification? Do you need to look up any of those words in a dictionary? Would it help to have it printed on heavy card stock, rolled into a tight cylinder around a lead pipe and pounded on your thick-as-a-brick heads?

    Trump, along with his own lawyers and public employees who are definitely not Trump's lawyers but are behaving exactly as if they are Trump's lawyers, are telling the USA that Congress has no business investigating a president who has been named as co-conspirator and beneficiary, in criminal proceeding for which another of his lawyers is serving time. That Congress has no right to act on the clear revelations (see the redacted Mueller Report) that Trump deliberately and repeatedly engaged in obstruction of justice. That Congress may not perform it's duties under the US Constitution.

    According to them, Trump can make good on his brag that he could stand on Fifth Avenue, shoot someone in the face and suffer no consequences.

    GOOD or BAD?






    Barr ensures Congress can't stop Trump now.



    Check on E-Bay. I think they have some used but working moral-compasses for sale.

  12. #10412
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Well, it's all setting precedence. If congress can't touch Trump, and the reasoning for such is established due to this, that means congress can't touch any sitting president. They no longer holds a co-equal share of power with the executive branch.

    This will backfire on everyone.

    Remember when the previous Democrat congress used the nuclear option to force a vote on a slim majority? Remember when the Republicans used that same tactic to get their way as well? What we're seeing now is like that, but considerably worse.

  13. #10413
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    It also means Nixon was innocent and Bill Clinton never fucked an intern in the Oval Office or lied about it.

    War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery...

  14. #10414
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    @Gryzemuis

    The rebels were worse than the Nazis? Why did they fight ISIL, then? Why did radical islamist groups assassinate FSA leaders, if they were all a big happy family? Why have Syrian Democratic Forces been fighting ISIL? How convenient for you to brand all opposition to Assad as islamist rebel groups and ignore that the islamist groups like Al-Nusra and ISIL only poured into the country later, after the war started, and largely comprised of foreign fighters. Also, your country may have supported the jihadists in the war, but the US did not. The US, the UN, and many individual countries branded the salafist islamists who founded the Islamic State as a terrorist group and actively fought them. Nobody "came around" to the idea that they were the bad guys. Rather they were considered to be bad guys right from the very start. You don't conduct air raids against people you are sympathetic with.

    I'm sorry, I shouldn't have minced words. Rather than "suggesting a different idea to you", I was telling you what happened. You're the one doing the ret-conning. Assad violently cracking down on protesters is documented. Defectors from his army going over to the side of protesters is documented. If you just want to invent another reason for the war, that the US somehow started it by being supportive of the Arab Spring, I'm not sure there can be any discussion about this.


    Anyway, moving on...

    https://www.politico.eu/article/dona...shipped-to-uk/

    The mass protests planned for Donald Trump's visit to the U.K. in June could feature a new star attraction — a giant robot version of the U.S. president on the toilet.

    According to the Guardian, a 4.9-meter “Dumping Trump” robot is being shipped from Sichuan in China to London in time for the president's state visit on June 3-5.

    The robot depicts Trump with his trousers down, on the toilet and tweeting. It makes fart noises and plays recordings of common Trump phrases such as “a witch-hunt,” “you are fake news,” and “I’m a very stable genius.”

    It's the brainchild of Don Lessem, a Philadelphia-based anti-Trump campaigner, who paid around €22,000 to have it made it China.
    Last edited by Starker; 17th May 2019 at 01:19.

  15. #10415
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    At least Trump is finally getting some of those "best people" he promised, on the job!



    As the frontman of KISS, Gene Simmons occupies rarefied air — a rock star who entertains arenas filled with adoring fans. On Thursday, Simmons joined another exclusive club, conducting only the second on-camera press briefing at the Department of Defense in the last year.

    The only other person to stand at the Pentagon Briefing Room podium over the past year? The movie star Gerard Butler, who was there last October to promote a new movie.

    The last time a press secretary briefed reporters on camera at the Pentagon was May 31, 2018. The White House press briefing, meanwhile, is in the midst of an unprecedented drought. Come Friday, it will have been 67 days since White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has held a press briefing.
    Meanwhile, Dennis Rodman, Ambassador to North Korea, having secured world peace, opens a Moving and Resale company.

    After stealing a 400 lb crystal, dropping and destroying it, in the process doing $5,000 in damage to the studio floor, Rodman and his investors took thousands of dollars of clothing as compensation for their labor.

    Rodman and one of his female accomplices came back the very next day to add some more clothes to the haul (she was wearing the clothes she had gotten at the studio the day before). In the security footage, you can see her choosing items carefully, a bit of Rodman stretching, and the pair chatting amiably with the employee manning the desk before walking out without paying for the clothes.

    How's that for key-jingling?
    Last edited by Nicker; 17th May 2019 at 08:45.

  16. #10416
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Watch out, Captain Harlock!

    https://news.yahoo.com/ted-cruz-warn...180216131.html

    Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, issued a dire warning about space pirates Wednesday in support of appropriations to fund Space Force, President Trump’s proposed off-planet expansion of the U.S. military.

    “Since the ancient Greeks first put to sea, nations have recognized the necessity of naval forces and maintaining a superior capability to protect waterborne travel and commerce from bad actors,” said Cruz, the chairman of the subcommittee on aviation and space, adding, “Pirates threaten the open seas, and the same is possible in space. In this same way, I believe we too must now recognize the necessity of a Space Force to defend the nation and to protect space commerce and civil space exploration.”

    For starters, the Trump administration is seeking $2 billion in new funding from Congress for the creation of Space Force. The new military branch is projected to number about 15,000, most of whom will be transferred from existing positions. In future years its annual budget could amount to an additional $500 million over the $10 billion already being spent on unclassified space programs, Defense News reported.

    Although armed Somali pirates terrorized the waters off the horn of Africa a decade ago, their activity has diminished in recent years thanks to a robust military response from several nations, including the United States. Venezuela’s descent into political chaos is partly blamed for a rise in Caribbean piracy. Yet none of those threats possess the resources to — as yet — mount a credible threat beyond the confines of Earth’s atmosphere.

    Nor is there any interplanetary commerce to present a lucrative target for pirates.
    [...]
    Predictably, this idea had a great reception not just among NASA engineers:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48301348

    [...]
    After he was mocked online about galactic buccaneers, he took to Twitter to swipe at "snarky leftists making fun of my comments".

    Mr Cruz also argued that nations such as China "have already developed & tested weapons to destroy satellites".

    "May Space Pirates devour your liver," he tweeted to one sceptical MSNBC journalist.
    [...]
    Last edited by Starker; 17th May 2019 at 23:32.

  17. #10417
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Christie has nothin' but buckinspace between his buccaneers.

  18. #10418
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Starker. Yes, violently cracking down on protesters is bad. As I wrote, Assad is a dictator. And nobody should support him. But he's been there for decades. And nobody did something about it. I don't want to discuss exactly what which group did, which groups opposed other groups, etc. My whole point is:

    Some people wanted to get rid of Assad.
    Some people planned to start a rebellion against Assad.
    Rebellion is just another word for civil war.
    Some people started a civil war in Syria.
    Some people actively supported this civil war. With people, with money, with weapons, with political support.
    Some people passively or covertly supported this civil war. They did nothing to stop it. They were cheering on one of the parties. Openly or silently.
    Meanwhile, a civil war happened.
    600k people died.

    That is my point. That is the tragedy.
    No matter what "geo-political" goals you try to achieve. Having 600k dead people can never be acceptable.
    Even getting rid of a dictator is no reason to have 600k people die. There are other ways.

    Meanwhile, at this very moment, the fascist rulers in the US are dripping with impatience to kill more people. Because reasons. History repeating itself. Thousands of dead Iranians are imminent. For no reason. No reason besides the bloodlust of US republicans. It is a god damn shame.

  19. #10419
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    A fresh turd just dropped out of unsealed court documents about Michale Flynn's decision to withdraw from a joint defense agreement with Trump's team, plead guilty and cooperate with the Mueller probe.

    That night, Flynn's lawyer got a voice mail, described in this way by Vice News.

    “I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't state it in starker terms,” Trump’s lawyer said, according to the Mueller report. If “there's information that implicates the President, then we've got a national security issue,” the lawyer said. He added that “we need some kind of heads up.”

    Trump’s lawyer also told Flynn’s attorney to remember “what we've always said about the president and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains,” according to the report.
    Flynn's lawyers reminded Trump's lawyers that Flynn had withdrawn from the joint defense agreement and they could no longer share any information. Trump's lawyer said that he considered this to be an act of hostility towards Da Big Boss and unless Flynn's lawyers changed their tune, he was going to tell Donny Little Hands precisely that.

    Oh and this is supposedly transcribed from an audio recording of the call, provided to Mueller.



    Rachel Maddow unpacks it quite neatly here.




    But wait, there's MORE!!! You just pay the shipping and handling... Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, ordered the release of transcripts of Flynn's conversations with Russian officials.


    Damn! My popcorn is burning!
    Last edited by Nicker; 19th May 2019 at 00:26. Reason: a special bonus just for people reading this post...

  20. #10420
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Apparently, there's a Republican congressman who publicly supports impeaching of Lord Dampnut. No idea who that guy is, but the chance of one of those existing has to be about as likely as finding a unicorn at this point.

    https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...31618712100864

    Here are my principal conclusions:
    1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.
    2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.
    3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.
    4. Few members of Congress have read the report.
    35,572 replies 76,289 retweets 207,218 likes

    I offer these conclusions only after having read Mueller’s redacted report carefully and completely, having read or watched pertinent statements and testimony, and having discussed this matter with my staff, who thoroughly reviewed materials and provided me with further analysis.

    In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings.

    Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.

    Under our Constitution, the president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined, the context implies conduct that violates the public trust.

    Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment.

    In fact, Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence.

    Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct.

    While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct.

    Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch’s jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution. When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law—the foundation of liberty—crumbles.

    We’ve witnessed members of Congress from both parties shift their views 180 degrees—on the importance of character, on the principles of obstruction of justice—depending on whether they’re discussing Bill Clinton or Donald Trump.

    Few members of Congress even read Mueller’s report; their minds were made up based on partisan affiliation—and it showed, with representatives and senators from both parties issuing definitive statements on the 448-page report’s conclusions within just hours of its release.

    America’s institutions depend on officials to uphold both the rules and spirit of our constitutional system even when to do so is personally inconvenient or yields a politically unfavorable outcome. Our Constitution is brilliant and awesome; it deserves a government to match it.

  21. #10421
    And again we have the left playing into Russia's hands: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/r...kq7Khq7A33ErsU


  22. #10422
    [IMG][/IMG]

  23. #10423
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Nothing compared to the the right playing Russia's hands.

  24. #10424
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    And again we have the left playing into Russia's hands:
    Wait. WUT? The NRA and the GOP are leftists?

    Time to start rearranging the bits of coulored yarn on my conspiracy wall.

  25. #10425
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Hold your nose and watch this.




    The short version. Deutsche Bank, is the only bank in the world still willing to give Trump money (even after he stiffed them sued them). They got busted for laundering billions in dirty Russian Mob money. As a result they were required to hire investigators to police their transactions for suspicious activity.

    These investigators reported to the bank, which would then forward the reports to authorities. Nothing suspect about that, right?

    During the 2016 campaign, a number of suspicious transactions were detected by these experts on financial crime, in some Trump/Kushner business. A report with "bundles" of evidence was presented to Deutsche Bank officials who sat on it. During the campaign.


    Instead of Comey whipping the dead-horse of Hillary's emails on the eve of the election, the story should have been this one.

Page 417 of 422 FirstFirst ... 167317367372377382387392397402407412413414415416417418419420421 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •