Matt Munson wrote to All <=-
This FBI:
* Pushed Russia collusion hoax
* Spied on law-abiding Americans
* Lied to FISA court
* Ignored Hillary's server escapades
* Ignored Biden Family criminal activity
* Persecutes journalists at Project Veritas
* Treats J6 trespassers like terrorists
* Goes after PTA moms/
This FBI:
* Pushed Russia collusion hoax
* Spied on law-abiding Americans
* Lied to FISA court
* Ignored Hillary's server escapades
* Ignored Biden Family criminal activity
* Persecutes journalists at Project Veritas
* Treats J6 trespassers like terrorists
* Goes after PTA moms/
Mike Powell wrote to MATT MUNSON <=-
If the FBI had come out and said that Trump had been contacted about turning over additional info and had refused, getting a warrant to
search his home makes sense. That is what the warrant was for... to recover any additional classified documents that should have been sent
to the archives.
The Biden Administration is claiming they knew nothing about the raid.
If that is true, the FBI sure messed the timing up as it will only fire
up the GOP for the midterms.
The only way it can help the Democrats is if they find something,
The Biden Administration is claiming they knew nothing about the raid
Which is a lie. But this is what the Narrative is so that the FBI can take the fall instead of the Elitists.
If the FBI had come out and said that Trump had been contacted about turning over additional info and had refused, getting a warrant to search his home makes sense. That is what the warrant was for... to recover any additional classified documents that should have been sent to the archives.
But Trump was already working with the Archives on this. There was no refusal
because there was no ask. The process of going through the documentation to see what needed to be archived was in process.
The Biden Administration is claiming they knew nothing about the raid.
Which is a lie. But this is what the Narrative is so that the FBI can take th
fall instead of the Elitists.
If that is true, the FBI sure messed the timing up as it will only fire up the GOP for the midterms.
The GOP is already fired up. But this will turn the Independants away from th
Dems - who have been looking like the Stasi for a while now.
The only way it can help the Democrats is if they find something,
They will find something in the way that they found evidence for the Russian Collusion Hoax and the Jan. 6 Kangaroo "Trial". Still waiting to see any evidence for those.
IHMO: This is just a desperate attempt at smearing Trump so prevent him from running again.
Mike Powell wrote to RON L. <=-
So long as they don't find anything, I believe you are correct. If
they do find something but it is determined that they went out of the bounds of the warrant to get the information, it will still turn some Independents away from Biden.
IHMO: This is just a desperate attempt at smearing Trump so prevent himfrom
running again.
It could turn out to be that... especially when it could turn out to be another "Russian Collusion Hoax"... but I don't think it will deter
Trump from doing whatever he wants unless it leads to a conviction of
some sort.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
We're supposed to assume that the Obama-donor judge who signed the
warrant probably doesn't care about politics too much.
IHMO: This is just a desperate attempt at smearing Trump so prevent himfrom
running again.
The Jan 6 comittee has already put up the goods on their investigation.
That is what I heard in the news reports on Tuesday. This morning, on the same local news broadcast, they also mentioned that there were meetings between Trump and the DOJ regarding additional documents and that those "broke down."
If that really is true, it sounds like he was thumbing his nose at them and maybe even hoping they'd over-react.
Donald Trump has always and will always do what he wants. He pleaded the 5th
in court today.
I didn't say that, Ron did.
Welcome back.
Glad to see you still cannot figure out who said what
and, as usual, skipped over something I did say that was not
pro-Trump:
Donald Trump has always and will always do what he wants. He
pleaded the 5th in court today.
Link?
At least he didn't claim not to know about the server he stored confidential federal government business emails on, or that he didn't
know what Bleach-Bit was, or claim (while wearing dark sunglasses in court) to have forgotten what happened to confidential
emails/documents because he got hit on the head recently.
Ironically, or not, the person who did do all three of those things,
while testifying under oath, was never raided by the (Obama-era) FBI.
We keep asking for political party affiliation for judges on the ballot, but we keep getting told that judges are non-partisian. I wonder how
long they will keep pushing that lie.
On 08-11-22 07:55, Ron L. <=-
spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: fbi <=-
We're supposed to assume that the Obama-donor judge who signed the
warrant probably doesn't care about politics too much.
When I heard about the judge's connections, I knew how they got the warrent signed.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
From what I understand, federal magistrate judges don't have campaigns; they're just appointed by the majority of the other federal judges in their district. To me that sounds flawed (if it's true) but to the leftists it probably sounds perfectly legit.
Mike Powell wrote to ALAN IANSON <=-
Welcome back. Glad to see you still cannot figure out who said what
and, as usual, skipped over something I did say that was not pro-Trump:
It gives some credence to the idea that these "people" are actually one person.
We're supposed to assume that the Obama-donor judge who signed the warrant probably doesn't care about politics too much.
When I heard about the judge's connections, I knew how they got the warrent signed.
What do you know about the judge's connections, other than that he was appointed by Trump?
What do you know about the judge's connections, other than that he wa appointed by Trump?He was appointed while Trump was president, but not by President Trump. Federal magistrate judges aren't appointed by the president. https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-trump-appoint-judge-who-approved-f -lago-raid-1732495
We keep asking for political party affiliation for judges on theballot,
but we keep getting told that judges are non-partisian. I wonder how
long they will keep pushing that lie.
From what I understand, federal magistrate judges don't have campaigns; they're
just appointed by the majority of the other federal judges in their district.
To me that sounds flawed (if it's true) but to the leftists it probably sounds
perfectly legit.
We're supposed to assume that the Obama-donor judge who signed the
warrant probably doesn't care about politics too much.
When I heard about the judge's connections, I knew how they got the
warrent signed.
What do you know about the judge's connections, other than that he was appointed by Trump?
DALE SHIPP(1:261/1466) wrote to Ron L. <=-I think the judge was a BFF of Epstien and his girlfriend. Another reply does explain that he was not appointed by Trump.
On 08-11-22 07:55, Ron L. <=-
spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: fbi <=-
When I heard about the judge's connections, I knew how they got the warrent signed.
What do you know about the judge's connections, other than that he was appointed by Trump?
I always find it interesting that when some Elitists shills go quiet that old Elitist shills perk back up.erson
It gives some credence to the idea that these "people" are actually one
It's hard to tell because they all are part of the hivemind.
On 12 Aug 2022, Ron L. said the following...
It gives some credence to the idea that these "people" are actually one person.
I'm still around, just focusing on other things right now.
Alan Ianson wrote to Mike Powell <=-
I didn't say that, Ron did.
Yes, he did. You snipped the part that you did say.
Glad to see you still cannot figure out who said what
and, as usual, skipped over something I did say that was not
pro-Trump:
I know very well who said what, and I'm pretty sure you do too but
maybe not.
There was nothing I said in the quote in question. You answered something Ron said in a reply to me, as if I wrote it.
I know very well who said what, and I'm pretty sure you do too but maybe not.
You apparently don't.
From what I understand, federal magistrate judges don't have campaig they're
just appointed by the majority of the other federal judges in their district.
To me that sounds flawed (if it's true) but to the leftists it probab sounds
perfectly legit.
Florida Governor Rick Scott (now a US Senator) was a leftist when he appointed US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart to the bench???
They are probably coming back now because they are all happy that the FBI has raided Trump's home and are hoping they find something so they can say "we told you so," ... or trying to get their spin in just in case it doesn't work out the way they hope.
On 08-12-22 21:11, Lee Lofaso <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about fbi <=-
What do you know about the judge's connections, other than that he was appointed by Trump?
Hahahahahahaha!
Magistrate judges are not appointed by the president
but instead are appointed by district judges.
But he was appointed to the bench by a Republican. Governor Rick
Scott, of Florida, who is now a US Senator.
On 08-12-22 03:51, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Ron L. about Re: fbi <=-
We keep asking for political party affiliation for judges on the ballot, but we keep getting told that judges are non-partisian. I wonder how
long they will keep pushing that lie.
From what I understand, federal magistrate judges don't
have campaigns; they're
just appointed by the majority of the other federal judges in their district. To me that sounds flawed (if it's true) but to the leftists
it probably sounds perfectly legit.
I know very well who said what, and I'm pretty sure you do too but maybe not.
You apparently don't.
Sorry you what you said along with a bit of context.
just appointed by the majority of the other federal judges in their district. To me that sounds flawed (if it's true) but to the leftists it probably sounds perfectly legit.
I am of the opinion that judges should obtain office only as a result of
a peer review, and not based on any sort of popular opinion.
Sorry you what you said along with a bit of context.
????? Did your teleprompter glitch?
On 08-13-22 12:37, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: fbi <=-
I am of the opinion that judges should obtain office only as a result of
a peer review, and not based on any sort of popular opinion.
What's good about that system?
Mike Powell wrote to Dr. What <=-
I am guessing they went quiet because trying to defend Biden, his
economy, and whatever stupid thing he says or does each day got to be
too much, especially for the one that told us that we'd be so much
better off with Biden in charge...
They are probably coming back now because they are all happy that the
FBI has raided Trump's home and are hoping they find something so they
can say "we told you so," ... or trying to get their spin in just in
case it doesn't work out the way they hope.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dale Shipp <=-
I am of the opinion that judges should obtain office only as a result of
a peer review, and not based on any sort of popular opinion.
What's good about that system?
rrrright... Are you forgetting that Hillary deleted thirty thousand emails and used bleach-bit and destroyed cell phones with hammers.On 08-13-22 12:37, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: fbi <=-
I am of the opinion that judges should obtain office only as a result a peer review, and not based on any sort of popular opinion.
What's good about that system?
With that system you get judges who know the law and apply it fairly.
With that system you get judges who know the law and apply it fairly.
If judges are subject to popular vote, they have to spend much time campaigning instead of judging -- plus they get voted on by people who
have little understanding of the law.
a peer review, and not based on any sort of popular opinion.
What's good about that system?
With that system you get judges who know the law and apply it fairly.
If judges are subject to popular vote, they have to spend much time campaigning instead of judging -- plus they get voted on by people who have little understanding of the law.
On 08-14-22 11:15, Ron L. <=-
spoke to Aaron Thomas about Re: fbi <=-
I am of the opinion that judges should obtain office only as a result of
a peer review, and not based on any sort of popular opinion.
What's good about that system?
Here in the Grand Rapids, MI, area, we used to have
something called Art Prize.
It started as "artists display the works around the city and people
vote on what they like. The art piece that gets the most votes wins." Which was a wonderful way to get people downdown, in businesses,
looking at the artists' works.
But then the Elitists stepped in. The "right" art wasn't
winning. The protest
"art" installations were getting voted down. They needed to do
something.
Their solution: a peer review system that "took into consideration"
the public vote - but in reality just ignored the people's votes and
made sure that the "right" art won.
Fast forward a couple years and Art Prize is no more.
A "peer review" system is nothing more than the Elitists' attempt at taking away control from the people.
On 08-14-22 11:19, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: fbi <=-
I am of the opinion that judges should obtain
office only as a result
a peer review, and not based on any sort of popular opinion.
What's good about that system?
With that system you get judges who know the law and apply it fairly.
rrrright... Are you forgetting that Hillary deleted thirty thousand
emails and used bleach-bit and destroyed cell phones with hammers.
Sandy Berger removed classified: CNN reported within his pants and
socks. wither where he placed them are True or False, the facts remain
he still removed classified documents. No one raided his home, or the
home of Hillary Clinton.
Biden Crime Family - seems untouchable.
All of this he did
with a flagrant disregard for the handling of classified documents.
I am of the opinion that judges should obtain office only as a result of
a peer review, and not based on any sort of popular opinion.
What do you know about the judge's connections, other than that he was
appointed by Trump?
Hahahahahahaha!
Magistrate judges are not appointed by the president
but instead are appointed by district judges.
I now know that is correct.
But he was appointed to the bench by a Republican. Governor Rick
Scott, of Florida, who is now a US Senator.
So which is it? He was appointed by the district judges or he was appointed by the governor?
You are right. I saw that he was a federal judge who took office in
2018 and thought that meant he was appointed by Trump. I was wrong.
As a magistrate judge, he was appointed by the federal district
judges.
campaigFrom what I understand, federal magistrate judges don't have
theirthey're
just appointed by the majority of the other federal judges in
probabdistrict.
To me that sounds flawed (if it's true) but to the leftists it
sounds
perfectly legit.
Florida Governor Rick Scott (now a US Senator) was a leftist when he
appointed US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart to the bench???
Rick Scott's not a judge nor a governor, but he should be!
Their solution: a peer review system that "took into consideration" the public vote - but in reality just ignored the people's votes and made
sure that the "right" art won.
Fast forward a couple years and Art Prize is no more.
A "peer review" system is nothing more than the Elitists' attempt at taking away control from the people.
Florida Governor Rick Scott (now a US Senator) was a leftist when he
appointed US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart to the bench???
Rick Scott's not a judge nor a governor, but he should be!
Dude, Rick Scott was the previous governor of Florida, who is
now an elected US Senator from Florida. You do understand how he
got the job?
Making a comparison between Berger's offenses and those of Trump is like comparing a small cottage to Trump tower. Trump had very highly
classified documents. He lied about having them, and denied a subpoena
to deliver them. He kept them in a storage locker which was not capable
of storing such documents safely, and in an area accessible to multiple people who should not have access to such documents. All of this he did
with a flagrant disregard for the handling of classified documents.
Biden Crime Family - seems untouchable.
What crime family. It is possible that Hunter Biden has done some questionable things, but nothing has yet been proven. In any case, that
has no bearing on the President. It would not be the first time that a President's relatives were a "skeleton in the closet".
On 08-15-22 16:23, Mike Powell <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: fbi <=-
It did also note that some documents were on the list that were not classified and/or may be covered by lawyer/client priveledge. If that
is the case, they should know better. The search warrant only covered classified documents and not personal, unclassified ones.
On 08-14-22 13:36, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: fbi <=-
a peer review, and not based on any sort of popular opinion.
What's good about that system?
With that system you get judges who know the law and apply it fairly.
If judges are subject to popular vote, they have to spend much time campaigning instead of judging -- plus they get voted on by people who have little understanding of the law.
To trust a bunch of ex lawyers more than you trust the voters seems
like a mistake.
It did also note that some documents were on the list that were not classified and/or may be covered by lawyer/client priveledge. If that is the case, they should know better. The search warrant only covered classified documents and not personal, unclassified ones.
The warrant was not restricted to classified documents. For example, it included government and/or presidential records.
To trust a bunch of ex lawyers more than you trust the voters seems like a mistake.
Would you trust voters to decide what medical doctor you could see when you are sick?
On 08-16-22 14:43, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: fbi <=-
To trust a bunch of ex lawyers more than you trust the voters seems like a mistake.
Would you trust voters to decide what medical doctor you could see when you are sick?
I'm sorry if I'm missing the point, but yes I would trust voters for
that.
If that were the situation, then I hope that you never get sick. Voters in large do not vote based on technical qualifications that they do not understand -- but on personality, charisma, etc. As such they could easily vote a person who gratuated from a community college with a two year degree to be your doctor. Such a person could easily kill you because of lack of medical knowledge.
On 08-17-22 14:47, Aaron Thomas <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: fbi <=-
If that were the situation, then I hope that you never get sick. Voters in large do not vote based on technical qualifications that they do not understand -- but on personality, charisma, etc. As such they could easily vote a person who gratuated from a community college with a two year degree to be your doctor. Such a person could easily kill you because of lack of medical knowledge.
I get what you mean, but in other courts, judges are elected. Just not federal magistrate judges. If that were to change, and voters elected them, how bad could it be?
Naturally, you would not know because there was no scrutiny on the subject matter to hold her accountable. Proof of this is that there was no committee on this. Such as the committee the events on the Jan 6th which is a complete media circus; as it comes complete with it's very own television producer.. & there No Invasion upon her home.With that system you get judges who know the law and apply it fairly.
rrrright... Are you forgetting that Hillary deleted thirty thousand emails and used bleach-bit and destroyed cell phones with hammers.
Not at all. I do not know all of the facts in that case, only the
public facing ones.
Trump had very highly classified documents."PUSU" - As you like to say what documents?
to deliver them. He kept them in a storage locker which was not capable of storing such documents safely, and in an area accessible to multiple people who should not have access to such documents. All of this he did with a flagrant disregard for the handling of classified documents.What proof is there of these so called classified documents?
Walking out Ukraine and China with Millions? when your nothing more then a President's son is a bit more then having a skeleton in ones closet.Biden Crime Family - seems untouchable.
What crime family. It is possible that Hunter Biden has done some questionable things, but nothing has yet been proven. In any case, that has no bearing on the President. It would not be the first time that a President's relatives were a "skeleton in the closet".
What proof is there of these so called classified documents?
All you seem to be doing here is repeat the same tired "Gotcha" speculations from places MSNBC, CNN and other left-wing lunatic networks.
when it is NOT known what so called documents were alleged to exist.
What proof is there of these so called classified documents?Even foxnews.com has reported in the past week that various levels of classified documents were found. Early on anyway, even Trump was not denying that, claiming that he was working with Archives to get them turned over. That might be the crux of any potential case... whether or not he was cooperating and they raided his home anyway.
All you seem to be doing here is repeat the same tired "Gotcha" speculat from places MSNBC, CNN and other left-wing lunatic networks.
when it is NOT known what so called documents were alleged to exist.
On 08-23-22 21:38, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: fbi <=-
With that system you get judges who know the law
and apply it fairly.
rrrright... Are you forgetting that Hillary deleted thirty thousand
emails and used bleach-bit and destroyed cell phones with hammers.
Not at all. I do not know all of the facts in that case, only the
public facing ones.
Naturally, you would not know because there was no scrutiny on the
subject matter to hold her accountable. Proof of this is that there
was no committee on
this. Such as the committee the events on the Jan 6th which
is a complete media
circus; as it comes complete with it's very own television producer..
& there No Invasion upon her home.
One thing seems to be very clear, There is a clear double standard.
Trump had very highly classified documents.
"PUSU" - As you like to say what documents?
to deliver them. He kept them in a storage locker which was not capable of storing such documents safely, and in an area accessible to multiple people who should not have access to such documents. All of this he did with a flagrant disregard for the handling of classified documents.
What proof is there of these so called classified documents?
All you seem to be doing here is repeat the same tired "Gotcha" speculations from places MSNBC, CNN and other left-wing lunatic
networks. when it is NOT known what so called documents were alleged
to exist.
Biden Crime Family - seems untouchable.
What crime family. It is possible that Hunter Biden has done some questionable things, but nothing has yet been proven. In any case, that has no bearing on the President. It would not be the first time that a President's relatives were a "skeleton in the closet".
Walking out Ukraine and China with Millions? when your nothing more
then a President's son is a bit more then having a skeleton in ones closet.
-!- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/64)
! Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org *
(1:267/150)
What proof is there of these so called classified documents?
All you seem to be doing here is repeat the same tired "Gotcha" speculat from places MSNBC, CNN and other left-wing lunatic networks.
when it is NOT known what so called documents were alleged to exist.
Even foxnews.com has reported in the past week that various levels of classified documents were found. Early on anyway, even Trump was not denying that, claiming that he was working with Archives to get them turned over. That might be the crux of any potential case... whether or not he was cooperating and they raided his home anyway.
57
On 08-23-22 21:38, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: fbi <=-
With that system you get judges who know the law
and apply it fairly.
rrrright... Are you forgetting that Hillary deleted thirty thousand emails and used bleach-bit and destroyed cell phones with hammers.
BTW -- your original response was a 90 degree turn from the topic under discussion -- but so what.
Not at all. I do not know all of the facts in that case, only the public facing ones.
Naturally, you would not know because there was no scrutiny on the subject matter to hold her accountable. Proof of this is that there
There was scrutiny -- but neither you or I were privy to it.
was no committee on
this. Such as the committee the events on the Jan 6th which
is a complete media
circus; as it comes complete with it's very own television producer.. & there No Invasion upon her home.
You are not only comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing a
raison to an elephant or a blue whale. Jan 6 invasion was several
orders of magnitude greater severity than the existence of emails on a private server.
Gregory Deyss wrote to Mike Powell <=-
If you recall, it was also fox news that hoped on and joined the
fakenews media bandwagon on election night with questionable analysis
and reporting.
This whole entire fiasco concerning the raid is designed
for one thing and one thing only, it is to create doubt and
speculation, so that the needle of trust can be moved in the negative direction against Trump.
It's time to take out the garbage!
Even foxnews.com has reported in the past week that various levels of classified documents were found. Early on anyway, even Trump was not denying that, claiming that he was working with Archives to get them turned over. That might be the crux of any potential case... whether or not he was cooperating and they raided his home anyway.
If you recall, it was also fox news that hoped on and joined the fakenews media bandwagon on election night with questionable analysis and reporting. This whole entire fiasco concerning the raid is designed for one thing and one
thing only, it is to create doubt and speculation, so that the needle of trust
can be moved in the negative direction against Trump.
The Democratic Party and most of the media all share the same bed, but they ar
not getting much sleep these days. Indeed they are terrified.
Trump will be triumphant and victorious as he will overcome this, just as he has done with the previous attempts from the sycophants within the liberal trash media. It's time to take out the garbage!
This whole entire fiasco concerning the raid is designedYup. It's all about optics. It's one of the way you can spot an
for one thing and one thing only, it is to create doubt and speculation, so that the needle of trust can be moved in the negative direction against Trump.
Elitist: They are concerned about the optics of something, not the reality.
Even foxnews.com has reported in the past week that various levels classified documents were found. Early on anyway, even Trump was n denying that, claiming that he was working with Archives to get the turned over. That might be the crux of any potential case... wheth not he was cooperating and they raided his home anyway.
If you recall, it was also fox news that hoped on and joined the fakenew media bandwagon on election night with questionable analysis and reporti This whole entire fiasco concerning the raid is designed for one thing aone
thing only, it is to create doubt and speculation, so that the needle oftrust
can be moved in the negative direction against Trump.ar
The Democratic Party and most of the media all share the same bed, but t
not getting much sleep these days. Indeed they are terrified.
Trump will be triumphant and victorious as he will overcome this, just a has done with the previous attempts from the sycophants within the liber trash media. It's time to take out the garbage!
While I have no doubt there has been some "planned timing" of these
recent events, if Trump really has/had possession of classified
documents of a class that he should not have taken home with him, then I put that in the same bucket with Hillary's private email server. It was something I thought should disqualify her as being President, and the timing of these events don't make him any less guilty.
You would think, after going off about Hillary and her server, he'd have more sense than to take such documents with him.
On 27 Aug 2022, Ron L. said the following...
This whole entire fiasco concerning the raid is designedYup. It's all about optics. It's one of the way you can spot an Elitist: They are concerned about the optics of something, not the reality.
for one thing and one thing only, it is to create doubt and speculation, so that the needle of trust can be moved in the neg direction against Trump.
Is that why you two are so concerned about how it makes Trump look,
rather than what Trump actually did?
Not concerned whatsoever, because of my immunity to delusionalYup. It's all about optics. It's one of the way you can spot a Elitist: They are concerned about the optics of something, not t reality.Is that why you two are so concerned about how it makes Trump look, rather than what Trump actually did?
liberalism and I guarantee you that this immunity extends to my Brothers and Sisters.
DJT was cooperating with the authorities with these alleged documents that he was alleged to have at Mar-A-Logo. This raid is bigger than these alleged documents. Analysis of the real facts indicates that there are many moving gears and cogs working to drive a false narrative.
This could be about the ego and the revenge of Merrick Garland.
Mainly, I do believe the center focus should be on the FBI who I believe is guilty as sin with interfering with the control of information to social media calling it "Russian dis-information." However when the layers of lies are peeled back the real truth is reveled that there was never any Russian dis-information concerning these particulars as the FBI censored the story about Hunter Biden's Laptop, because they had possession the Hunter Biden laptop since 2019.
If the truth ever comes out, I think we are going to find that there were many parties who were involved in "Russian dis-information" that were not Russians.
On 08-27-22 09:31, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: fbi <=-
You are not only comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing a
raison to an elephant or a blue whale. Jan 6 invasion was several
orders of magnitude greater severity than the existence of emails on a private server.
You just stepped in it... (check the bottom of those shoes) a private server? Was this data ever permitted to be on a private server and was
it additionally her personal property to do as she wished? I think not
in both cases. Apples and Oranges aside, it's time for the harvest.
On 08-28-22 09:28, Gregory Deyss <=-
spoke to Mike Powell about Re: fbi <=-
DJT was cooperating with the authorities with these alleged documents
that he was alleged to have at Mar-A-Logo. This raid is bigger than
these alleged documents. Analysis of the real facts indicates that
there are many moving gears and cogs working to drive a false
narrative.
This could be about the ego and the revenge of Merrick Garland.
Mainly, I do believe the center focus should be on the FBI who I
believe is guilty as sin with interfering with the control of
information to social media calling it "Russian dis-information."
If you recall, it was also fox news that hoped on and joined the fakenews media bandwagon on election night with questionable analysis and reporting. This whole entire fiasco concerning the raid is designed for
Good luck with that. Trump has essentially admitted that he broke the
law. And then he ran his mouth, egging the DOJ on to do things he didn't think they would do, but they called his bluff.
Good luck with that. Trump has essentially admitted that he broke the law. And then he ran his mouth, egging the DOJ on to do things he did think they would do, but they called his bluff.Who cares if Trump broke the law though? Only leftists! What's a leftist though? A leftist is one of those things that the media creates. Why
would they want to create leftists? The media creates em so that they
can reinforce leftist power and better guard and control all squandered loot.
I still don't have my lead pipes fixed yet, but we can all be happy now that the Democrats have fixed our global warming problem. Never again shall global warming be an issue, because Democrats just fixed it by running off with all the cash.
If you recall, it was also fox news that hoped on and joined the fake media bandwagon on election night with questionable analysis and reporting. This whole entire fiasco concerning the raid is designed fI'm going off the subject, but I'd like to point out that this makes 3
of us, at least, conservatives who are aware of Fox News' deceptive reporting. Shame on them! They're trying to gain our trust so that they manipulate us like the leftists get manipulated by the leftist news.
On 28 Aug 2022, Mike Powell said the following...
If the truth ever comes out, I think we are going to find that there were
many parties who were involved in "Russian dis-information" that were not
Russians.
Are you saying now, in 2022, that there was no Russian interference in the 2016 election?
Are you saying that it was in fact the American government
disseminating obviously pro-Trump disinformation?
Trump demanded that the DOJ release the affidavit justifying the search warrant, because if they refused he could inject doubt into the situation. But they did release the affitavit, at his request. And it was incriminating.
Who cares if Trump broke the law though? Only leftists!
Are you saying that it was in fact the American governmentNot necessarily the government, but certainly members of one of the two major political parties involved in our government.
disseminating obviously pro-Trump disinformation?
I specifically mentioned Hillary Clinton. In the leadup to the 2020 election, Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard said some things during a debate that got her a lot of attention but that also made HRC look bad. Soon, there was a rumor that one of the Democratic candidates "with a military background" was involved with Russia. No names, but pretty obviously Gabbard.
Now, an example where it becomes apparent a government entity was
involved in hiding something... "the Biden laptop is Russian misinformation" and does not exist, even though we are already in possession of it.
So, we already know that some of the "Russian disinformation/collussion" came from parties that are not Russian.
How many times are the Democrats/FBI going to cry "Wolf!" (or maybe, "Bear!") with "Russian misinformation/collussion" before people realize
it is not always true? When that happens (as it already has for many of us), when is it going to be true, in a way we really do need to worry about, and the majority of people are going to be desensitized to it?
Trump demanded that the DOJ release the affidavit justifying the search warrant, because if they refused he could inject doubt into the situatio But they did release the affitavit, at his request. And it was incriminaIt was also heavily redacted.
You are not only comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing a
raison to an elephant or a blue whale. Jan 6 invasion was several
orders of magnitude greater severity than the existence of emails on a
private server.
You just stepped in it... (check the bottom of those shoes) a private
server? Was this data ever permitted to be on a private server and was
it additionally her personal property to do as she wished? I think not
in both cases. Apples and Oranges aside, it's time for the harvest.
You completely avoided the comparison. What sort of data did she put on that server? How was it classified? Who had access to the data?
Compare that to the hundreds of classified documents that Trump had in
an insecure locker, with classifications from Confidential to Top Secret SCI. All of what he had there belonged in the National Archives. He
lied about the presence of the material to authorities and told them
that there was no more classified material -- and then the FBI found 15+ boxes with a lot of classified material. Some of the material found
could have comprimized assets and cost them their life.
800
If you recall, it was also fox news that hoped on and joined the fake media bandwagon on election night with questionable analysis and reporting. This whole entire fiasco concerning the raid is designed f
I'm going off the subject, but I'd like to point out that this makes 3
of us, at least, conservatives who are aware of Fox News' deceptive reporting. Shame on them! They're trying to gain our trust so that they manipulate us like the leftists get manipulated by the leftist news.
You're absolutely right and spot on concerning the deceptive
reporting on election night. My thoughts at this moment was, WTF is
this? "This IS the same network as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham as
well as |The Great One| Mark Levin?"
Trump demanded that the DOJ release the affidavit justifying the search
warrant, because if they refused he could inject doubt into the situation.
But they did release the affitavit, at his request. And it was
incriminating.
It was also heavily redacted.
Who cares if Trump broke the law though? Only leftists!
I would say more people than that. To win in 2016, Trump needed Independents to vote for him, and for Democrats to also cross parties and vote for him. Not as many did in 2020 so he lost.
I would suspect that many of those Independents include people who are skeptical of our established government and that want people who obey the law.
If I were a betting man, I would bet that they care whether or not
Trump broke the law,
just like I would bet that several want to know if he was really cooperating
or not, and also want to know what the government really has on him.
I believe even more so that any potentially wayward Democrat voters are going to need to know that he was not breaking the law.
Mike Powell wrote to JEFF THIELE <=-
How many times are the Democrats/FBI going to cry "Wolf!" (or maybe, "Bear!") with "Russian misinformation/collussion" before people realize
it is not always true? When that happens (as it already has for many
of us), when is it going to be true, in a way we really do need to
worry about, and the majority of people are going to be desensitized to it?
Ron L. wrote to Gregory Deyss <=-
Trump was very close to implementing something that would effectively eliminate the fireproof-ness of many in the Bureaucracy. The Elitists have been staffing the Burueaucracy with their operatives for a long
time now. Then when they get power, they have been pushing (unconstitutionally) power over to them. If Trump gets a second term, that whole mess will be dismantled.
Gregory Deyss wrote to Mike Powell <=-
However when the layers of lies are peeled back the real truth is
reveled that there was never any Russian dis-information concerning
these particulars as the FBI censored the story about Hunter Biden's Laptop, because they had possession the Hunter Biden laptop since 2019. The FBI lied to the American people to protect this shit-stain of a President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
Gregory Deyss wrote to Jeff Thiele <=-
Is that why you two are so concerned about how it makes Trump look,
rather than what Trump actually did?
Not concerned whatsoever, because of my immunity to delusional
liberalism and I guarantee you that this immunity extends to my
Brothers and Sisters.
Only leftists care if Trump broke the law? That's an interesting, and telling, bit of fiction. And what is the Mar-a-Lago scandal about, if not squandered loot? Trump took government property that wasn't his to take, after all. Nice bit of projection, though.
At some point, Fox "News" stopped telling you only what you wanted to
hear and couldn't ignore the truth any longer. They're still deceptive,
incredibly biased, and very conservative -- just not enough for your tastes anymore. Fox News hasn't changed; some of its audience has. Look
at you -- you're perfectly ok with an ex-president breaking the law without consequences, as long as said ex-president is a Republican.
"On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our
government. In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws
concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be
above the law." -- Donald Trump
Who cares if Trump broke the law though? Only leftists!
I would say more people than that. To win in 2016, Trump needed Independents to vote for him, and for Democrats to also cross parties and vote for him. Not as many did in 2020 so he lost.
I believe even more so that any potentially wayward Democrat voters are going to need to know that he was not breaking the law.
Only leftists care if Trump broke the law? That's an interesting, and telling, bit of fiction. And what is the Mar-a-Lago scandal about, if squandered loot? Trump took government property that wasn't his to ta after all. Nice bit of projection, though.Taxpayers should be concerned about how "Democrats are wasting hundreds
of billions of dollars," but instead, the left is programming them to think about how "Trump took hundreds of billions of documents!"
At some point, Fox "News" stopped telling you only what you wanted to hear and couldn't ignore the truth any longer. They're still deceptivHow do you know this? The same way that you know everything? Nobody
would have ever guessed that you've been studying the evolution of Fox News all this time.
incredibly biased, and very conservative -- just not enough for your tastes anymore. Fox News hasn't changed; some of its audience has. LoThe Fox News audience has changed?? That's news to me. How has it
changed?
at you -- you're perfectly ok with an ex-president breaking the law without consequences, as long as said ex-president is a Republican.I don't care what ex presidents do. This is meant as a distraction from all the terrible stuff that Democrats (who are still in office) are
doing.
"On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our government. In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law." -- Donald TrumpAren't you glad that he didn't fulfill that promise? Hillary would be in jail.
But now you think they have buyer's remorse? Why would they care so much that they voted for a document-thief? There's nothing they can do to reverse the damage. Maybe they'll start voting Democrat again? (But then they'll have other stuff turn up missing!)
eye. You're absolutely right and spot on concerning the deceptive reporting on election night. My thoughts at this moment was, WTF is
this? "This IS the same network as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham as
well as |The Great One| Mark Levin?"
On 29 Aug 2022, Gregory Deyss said the following...
You're absolutely right and spot on concerning the deceptive reporting on election night. My thoughts at this moment was, WTF is this? "This IS the same network as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham as well as |The Great One| Mark Levin?"
Fox News' reporting on election night was not deceptive. They reported that Biden won Arizona, and Biden did in fact win Arizona.
You seem to have a fundamental issue with determining cause and effect. Biden did not win Arizona because Fox News reported that he did; Fox
News reported that he won Arizona because the chances of him not winning it became extremely small, small enough for them to confidently call it. Correctly.
That the reporting did not match your expected outcome in Arizona was not deceptive reporting. It was a result of your expected outcome being
wrong. Reporting that tells you something different from what you want
to hear is not deceptive. It's only deceptive if it's leading you to believe something is true that isn't.
Gregory Deyss wrote to Mike Powell <=-
However when the layers of lies are peeled back the real truth is reveled that there was never any Russian dis-information concerning these particulars as the FBI censored the story about Hunter Biden's Laptop, because they had possession the Hunter Biden laptop since 201 The FBI lied to the American people to protect this shit-stain of a President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.
How in the world did you not mention President Obama and the Clintons in your conspiracy theorist rant there? And maybe the military releasing UFO information? And the new world order? You missed so many chances there!
at you -- you're perfectly ok with an ex-president breaking the law
without consequences, as long as said ex-president is a Republican.
I don't care what ex presidents do.
This is meant as a distraction from all the terrible stuff that Democrats (who are still in office) are doing.
"On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our
government. In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws
concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be
above the law." -- Donald Trump
Aren't you glad that he didn't fulfill that promise? Hillary would be in jail.
There is plenty that can be done to prevent further damage, and many of the
documents have been recovered. Also, Trump needs to serve as an example to future presidents that they are not above the law.
Do you think murderers should go free because "there's nothing they can do to reverse the damage?"
Aaron Thomas wrote to Jeff Thiele <=-
Taxpayers should be concerned about how "Democrats are wasting hundreds
of billions of dollars," but instead, the left is programming them to think about how "Trump took hundreds of billions of documents!"
The real question is are you happy with a Biden Win and are you happyYou're absolutely right and spot on concerning the deceptive reporting on election night. My thoughts at this moment was, WTF this? "This IS the same network as Sean Hannity and Laura Ingrah well as |The Great One| Mark Levin?"Fox News' reporting on election night was not deceptive. They reporte that Biden won Arizona, and Biden did in fact win Arizona.
with the outcome of the Presidential election?
As far as little green men are concerned you would be looking to Men
like me to protect you, because you and your liberal friends don't have any means protect yourselves.
Do you think murderers should go free because "there's nothing they c to reverse the damage?"How is that a reason, or even an excuse, to murdering them in our
name by execution (regardless of means)? Revenge is not justice.
Just an excuse, and a sorry one at that, to see someone dead.
Today we no longer bother with state of federal executions.
Whenever there is a mass shooting, whether at a school or a
shopping mall, the alleged shooter is never taken alive.
All the victims are dead, aside from perhaps a small handful
of survivors who never dispute what happened. And the alleged
shooter being dead as a doornail, either by his/her own hand
or those sent to carry out the execution.
There are some rare exceptions to this. But those folks are always
found to be mental cases and are sent to places where they can be
given the help for their condition they so desperately need.
The real question is are you happy with a Biden Win and are you happy with the outcome of the Presidential election?
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether Fox News' reporting on election night was deceptive or not.What would you know of deceptive actions or tendencies?
On 30 Aug 2022, Gregory Deyss said the following...How typical... more labels applied, all because you can not understand.
As far as little green men are concerned you would be looking to Men like me to protect you, because you and your liberal friends don't ha any means protect yourselves.
And out comes the misogyny.
I specifically mentioned Hillary Clinton. In the leadup to the 2020 election, Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard said some things during a debate that got her a lot of attention but that also made HRC look bad. Soon, there was a rumor that one of the Democratic candidates "with a military background" was involved with Russia. No names, but pretty obviously Gabbard.
Clinton said that Russia was "grooming" Gabbard for a third-party run, specifically mentioning not collusion but the same kind of foreign social media support that Trump received in 2016. Gabbard had notably split with her party over policy on Russia, taking several pro-Putin stances.
Now, an example where it becomes apparent a government entity was involved in hiding something... "the Biden laptop is Russian misinformation" and does not exist, even though we are already in possession of it.
The laptop itself is not Russian misinformation; it exists. The rumors of what it contains, though... that is speculation that the Russians tried to exploit.
So, we already know that some of the "Russian disinformation/collussion" came from parties that are not Russian.
The disinformation itself? It sounds more like you're saying that the accusations of disinformation/collusion came from parties that are not Russian, not the disinformation itself.
How many times are the Democrats/FBI going to cry "Wolf!" (or maybe, "Bear!") with "Russian misinformation/collussion" before people realize it is not always true? When that happens (as it already has for many of us), when is it going to be true, in a way we really do need to worry about, and the majority of people are going to be desensitized to it?
The Russians are constantly trying to meddle in our politics, just as we meddle in the politics of other nations. Assuming they aren't is never a good idea.
How many times are the Democrats/FBI going to cry "Wolf!" (or maybe, "Bear!") with "Russian misinformation/collussion" before people realize it is not always true? When that happens (as it already has for many
of us), when is it going to be true, in a way we really do need to
worry about, and the majority of people are going to be desensitized to it?
I think that most people (well, the ones who can think, anyway) have already tuned out the Democrat Russia hoaxes. It's only the "vote blue no matter who"
crowd that still listens to this BS.
I would say more people than that. To win in 2016, Trump needed Independents to vote for him, and for Democrats to also cross parties and
vote for him. Not as many did in 2020 so he lost.
I don't know anyone like that (Independents and/or liberals who voted for Trump) but I understand what you're saying, and surely they exist.
But now you think they have buyer's remorse? Why would they care so much that they voted for a document-thief? There's nothing they can do to reverse the damage. Maybe they'll start voting Democrat again? (But then they'll have othe
stuff turn up missing!)
I believe even more so that any potentially wayward Democrat voters are going to need to know that he was not breaking the law.
But that's only if we want him back again, right?
Gregory Deyss wrote to Jeff Thiele <=-
Not concerned whatsoever, because of my immunity to delusional
liberalism and I guarantee you that this immunity extends to my
Brothers and Sisters.
Hillary was investigated and found not to have done anything prosecutable.
Trump is still being investigated. There are a number of important differences in their situations, chief among them whether they sought to obstruct justice by misleading investigators.
As far as little green men are concerned you would be looking to Men like me to protect you, because you and your liberal friends don't have any means protect yourselves.
And out comes the misogyny.
What would you know of deceptive actions or tendencies?The real question is are you happy with a Biden Win and are you h with the outcome of the Presidential election?That has absolutely nothing to do with whether Fox News' reporting on election night was deceptive or not.
What I have gathered from these past few months is that everything that this administration is doing or will do in the future is totally normal.
How typical... more labels applied, all because you can not understand.As far as little green men are concerned you would be looking to like me to protect you, because you and your liberal friends don any means protect yourselves.And out comes the misogyny.
Clinton said that Russia was "grooming" Gabbard for a third-party run, specifically mentioning not collusion but the same kind of foreign socia media support that Trump received in 2016. Gabbard had notably split wit party over policy on Russia, taking several pro-Putin stances.HRC went farther than that with her second (or more?) go at Gabbard. Gabbard had publicly split from the HRC wing of the party on many things that put her at odds with HRC.
The existence of the laptop itself was passed off as "russian misinformation" by some, and simple "misinformation" by others, in both cases by persons/groups who knew otherwise.Now, an example where it becomes apparent a government entity was involved in hiding something... "the Biden laptop is Russian misinformation" and does not exist, even though we are already in possession of it.The laptop itself is not Russian misinformation; it exists. The rumors o what it contains, though... that is speculation that the Russians tried exploit.
If the accusations are themselves disinformation, and the accusations are of "Russian disinformation," then the "Russian disinformation" came from parties that are not Russian.So, we already know that some of the "Russian disinformation/collus came from parties that are not Russian.The disinformation itself? It sounds more like you're saying that the accusations of disinformation/collusion came from parties that are not Russian, not the disinformation itself.
Maybe I should call it "'Russian disinformation' disinformation," but, either way, it is still disinformation.
I would agree, but assuming that every call if it is true is also horrible.How many times are the Democrats/FBI going to cry "Wolf!" (or maybe "Bear!") with "Russian misinformation/collussion" before people rea it is not always true? When that happens (as it already has for ma us), when is it going to be true, in a way we really do need to wor about, and the majority of people are going to be desensitized to iThe Russians are constantly trying to meddle in our politics, just as we meddle in the politics of other nations. Assuming they aren't is never a idea.
Hillary was investigated and found not to have done anything prosecutablBecause the evidence was destroyed.
Trump is still being investigated. There are a number of important differences in their situations, chief among them whether they sought to obstruct justice by misleading investigators.... and whether or not they destroyed the evidence of their justice obstruction.
HRC 1, Trump 0
you left off the part where he says his brothers *and sisters* will be protecting us.As far as little green men are concerned you would be looking to Me like me to protect you, because you and your liberal friends don't any means protect yourselves.And out comes the misogyny.
you left off the part where he says his brothers *and sisters* will be protecting us.As far as little green men are concerned you would be looking to Me like me to protect you, because you and your liberal friends don't any means protect yourselves.And out comes the misogyny.
cDo you think murderers should go free because "there's nothing they
to reverse the damage?"
How is that a reason, or even an excuse, to murdering them in our
name by execution (regardless of means)? Revenge is not justice.
Just an excuse, and a sorry one at that, to see someone dead.
I did not mention the death penalty, with which I also disagree. Death is not the only possible punishment for murder.
Today we no longer bother with state of federal executions.
Whenever there is a mass shooting, whether at a school or a
shopping mall, the alleged shooter is never taken alive.
All the victims are dead, aside from perhaps a small handful
of survivors who never dispute what happened. And the alleged
shooter being dead as a doornail, either by his/her own hand
or those sent to carry out the execution.
Hmm. Recent events would seem to disprove this.
A number of mass shooters have been taken alive.
There are some rare exceptions to this. But those folks are always
found to be mental cases and are sent to places where they can be
given the help for their condition they so desperately need.
There are quite a few exceptions, with many being sentenced to prison or death.
As far as little green men are concerned you would be looking GD>to Menlike me to protect you, because you and your liberal friends GD>don't have any means protect yourselves.
And out comes the misogyny.
Gregory Deyss wrote to Jeff Thiele <=-
And out comes the misogyny.
How typical... more labels applied, all because you can not understand.
They can vent their emotions, question
other people's motives, make bold assertion, repeat slogans -- anything except reason.
The existence of the laptop itself was passed off as "russian misinformation" by some, and simple "misinformation" by others, in both cases by persons/groups who knew otherwise.
There is a laptop, that is certain. Whether it belonged to Hunter Biden some years ago and contains incriminating information of some vague nature is speculation.
On 31 Aug 2022, Mike Powell said the following...
you left off the part where he says his brothers *and sisters* will be protecting us.As far as little green men are concerned you would be looking to MAnd out comes the misogyny.
like me to protect you, because you and your liberal friends don't
any means protect yourselves.
He also capitalized "Men."
On 31 Aug 2022, Mike Powell said the following...
you left off the part where he says his brothers *and sisters* will be protecting us.As far as little green men are concerned you would be looking to MAnd out comes the misogyny.
like me to protect you, because you and your liberal friends don't
any means protect yourselves.
Also, he seems to assume that liberals are unarmed and helpless in order to make himself feel more Manly-Man. That's not misogynistic, but somewhere between ignorant and stupid.
Its existence, i.e. that there was a laptop, was originally portrayed in the media as "misinformation."The existence of the laptop itself was passed off as "russian misinformation" by some, and simple "misinformation" by others, in cases by persons/groups who knew otherwise.There is a laptop, that is certain. Whether it belonged to Hunter Biden years ago and contains incriminating information of some vague nature is speculation.
He also capitalized "Men."He also capitalized "Sisters." He capitalizes a lot of words where I would not so I don't read much into that.
Also, he seems to assume that liberals are unarmed and helpless in order make himself feel more Manly-Man. That's not misogynistic, but somewhere between ignorant and stupid.I don't know why he assumed it, but it is certainly not a 100% fool-proof assumption.
On 31 Aug 2022, Gregory Deyss said the following...
What would you know of deceptive actions or tendencies?The real question is are you happy with a Biden Win and are with the outcome of the Presidential election?That has absolutely nothing to do with whether Fox News' reporti election night was deceptive or not.
Enough to know that Fox News' reporting on election night 2020 wasn't deceptive, that's for sure.
What I have gathered from these past few months is that everything th this administration is doing or will do in the future is totally norm
Ok, whatever that means. What is "normal?"
On 31 Aug 2022, Gregory Deyss said the following...Liberal labels are just like liberal tears, they dry quickly and are just as irrelevant.
How typical... more labels applied, all because you can not understanAs far as little green men are concerned you would be looki like me to protect you, because you and your liberal friend any means protect yourselves.And out comes the misogyny.
I understand perfectly. And your statement was misogynistic.
Oh c'mon man, even I know you better then that.Enough to know that Fox News' reporting on election night 2020 wasn't deceptive, that's for sure.What would you know of deceptive actions or tendencies?The real question is are you happy with a Biden Win and with the outcome of the Presidential election?That has absolutely nothing to do with whether Fox News' re election night was deceptive or not.
What I have gathered from these past few months is that everythi this administration is doing or will do in the future is totallyOk, whatever that means. What is "normal?"
You bleed freely for everything that this bonehead biden has ever stuttered. Your also in denial, just as much as the Whitehouse or that pathetic Karine Jean-Pierre, who claims that illegals are not walking
into the U.S. when there is video evidence to state otherwise.
It's absurd and completely out
of touch, specially when there is video evidence for foreign nationals walking into the U.S. like they own the place.
I understand perfectly. And your statement was misogynistic.Liberal labels are just like liberal tears, they dry quickly and are
just as irrelevant.
You are and have been of the mindset that you did not appreciate or find any value in America First, Building a Wall along the Southern Border between the U.S. and Mexico or any of many accomplishments of the Trump Administration of which I have posted here previously.
Mike Powell said to Gregory Deyss: <=-
DJT was cooperating with the authorities with these alleged documentsthat he
If he was cooperating and had not broken off talks, like the DoJ claims, then that should come out and would be in his favor.
Aaron Thomas said to Jeff Thiele: <=-
Who cares if Trump broke the law though? Only leftists! What's a leftist though? A leftist is one of those things that the media creates. Why
would they want to create leftists? The media creates em so that they
can reinforce leftist power and better guard and control all squandered loot.
Mike Powell said to Aaron Thomas: <=-
I would say more people than that. To win in 2016, Trump needed Independents to vote for him, and for Democrats to also cross parties
and vote for him. Not as many did in 2020 so he lost.
Ron L. said to Mike Powell: <=-
I think that most people (well, the ones who can think, anyway) have already tuned out the Democrat Russia hoaxes. It's only the "vote blue
no matter who" crowd that still listens to this BS.
Aaron Thomas said to Gregory Deyss: <=-
I'm going off the subject, but I'd like to point out that this makes 3
of us, at least, conservatives who are aware of Fox News' deceptive reporting. Shame on them! They're trying to gain our trust so that they manipulate us like the leftists get manipulated by the leftist news.
Gregory Deyss said to Aaron Thomas: <=-
Oh it is more then just ok my friend, no need to speak to "issues being
off subject." (such a thing is what lefties say) to claim intellectual superiority, but fail to see the insanity and the calamity of who they
say "They are doing an awesome job." It is agreeable that we see eye to
DJT was cooperating with the authorities with these alleged documentsthat he
If he was cooperating and had not broken off talks, like the DoJ claims, then that should come out and would be in his favor.
"Mr DOJ guy, I handed over five Top-Secret documents! That should make up
for the 20 Top Secret documents that I'm trying to either hide or destroy, right?"
I would say more people than that. To win in 2016, Trump needed Independents to vote for him, and for Democrats to also cross parties
and vote for him. Not as many did in 2020 so he lost.
Trump's biggest voting bloc in 2016 were people who did not trust Hillary Clinton. When someone says the same thing over and over for 30 years, it eventually becomes part of the public consciousness. Leaders of the Republican party had been saying for decades that Hillary could not be trusted.
Voters were already biased to see Hillary as untrustworthy. Once her emails came to light, feeding right into the narrative that Hillary was crooked,
the election was basically finished.
On 01 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...
He also capitalized "Men."He also capitalized "Sisters." He capitalizes a lot of words where I would not so I don't read much into that.
I take it as an emphasis. A weird one, but an emphasis.
Gregory Deyss said to Aaron Thomas: <=-
Oh it is more then just ok my friend, no need to speak to "issues being off subject." (such a thing is what lefties say) to claim intellectual superiority, but fail to see the insanity and the calamity of who they say "They are doing an awesome job." It is agreeable that we see eye to
I am like 90% certain that you two are different accounts for the same person.
So you noticed he emphasized "Men" but not "Sisters." Interesting.I take it as an emphasis. A weird one, but an emphasis.He also capitalized "Men."He also capitalized "Sisters." He capitalizes a lot of words where would not so I don't read much into that.
DJT was cooperating with the authorities with these alleged documents
that he
If he was cooperating and had not broken off talks, like the DoJclaims,
then that should come out and would be in his favor.
"Mr DOJ guy, I handed over five Top-Secret documents! That should make up for the 20 Top Secret documents that I'm trying to either hide or destroy, right?"
Who cares if Trump broke the law though? Only leftists! What's aleftist
though? A leftist is one of those things that the media creates. Why
would they want to create leftists? The media creates em so that they
can reinforce leftist power and better guard and control all squandered
loot.
You really should read your posts before sending them, that might help you realize just how non-sensical the things that you write are.
Or wait.... Was your post satire?
Voters were already biased to see Hillary as untrustworthy. Once her emails
came to light, feeding right into the narrative that Hillary was crooked, the election was basically finished.
Oh it is more then just ok my friend, no need to speak to "issues bein off subject." (such a thing is what lefties say) to claim intellectual superiority, but fail to see the insanity and the calamity of who they say "They are doing an awesome job." It is agreeable that we see eye tI am like 90% certain that you two are different accounts for the same person.
Hillary Clinton received 3 million votes more than Donald Trump.
Joe Biden received 7 million votes more than Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton received 3 million votes more than Donald Trump.
Joe Biden received 7 million votes more than Donald Trump.
Popular vote does not matter, electoral college is the rules of the game. Popular vote may give a mandate to a president, but it does not elect them.
Hillary Clinton received 3 million votes more than Donald Trump.Popular vote does not matter, electoral college is the rules of the game. Popular vote may give a mandate to a president, but it does not elect them.
Joe Biden received 7 million votes more than Donald Trump.
Taxpayers should be concerned about how "Democrats are wasting hundre of billions of dollars," but instead, the left is programming them to think about how "Trump took hundreds of billions of documents!"
The money is not being wasted. Trump broke the law.
Are you certain that you aren't being "programmed" to think about Biden's legislative successes instead of Trump's crimes?
How do you know this? The same way that you know everything? Nobody would have ever guessed that you've been studying the evolution of Fo News all this time.
Because you called them "deceptive" for reporting that Biden won Arizona. Biden did win Arizona, that's obviously not what you wanted to hear, and you decided they must be deceptive. It's not too hard to figure out.
Also, you used to defend Fox News, but don't so much anymore.
The Fox News audience has changed?? That's news to me. How has it changed?
Some of Fox News' audience became more radically right-wing during
Trump's presidency. There were always a far-right, of course, but Trump bringing them into the fold moved the GOP more toward the far-right. Fox News did not make that move.
Those are the 2 most important narratives for the leftists. Nevermind anything else.Taxpayers should be concerned about how "Democrats are wasting h of billions of dollars," but instead, the left is programming th think about how "Trump took hundreds of billions of documents!"The money is not being wasted. Trump broke the law.
Are you certain that you aren't being "programmed" to think about Bid legislative successes instead of Trump's crimes?A president's success would benefit the American people, so Biden don't have any of those yet.
You have too much confidence in yourself. I hardly care what Fox says about the elections, because they've been full of it all along. Their "polls" are fake (or faulty.) They've been trying to controlHow do you know this? The same way that you know everything? Nob would have ever guessed that you've been studying the evolution News all this time.Because you called them "deceptive" for reporting that Biden won Ariz Biden did win Arizona, that's obviously not what you wanted to hear, you decided they must be deceptive. It's not too hard to figure out.
conservatives but they suck at it; it's some kind of lousy Fauci experiment and the conservative viewers are the beagle pups.
Also, you used to defend Fox News, but don't so much anymore.I'll always defend Mark Levin & Dan Bongino but the rest of those people are undercover leftists.
Thanks for the BS explanation! (I knew I was asking for BS.)The Fox News audience has changed?? That's news to me. How has i changed?Some of Fox News' audience became more radically right-wing during Trump's presidency. There were always a far-right, of course, but Tru bringing them into the fold moved the GOP more toward the far-right. News did not make that move.
What have "fox news viewers" done recently that was "so radical?"
Gregory Deyss said to Rebecca Marie: <=-
How in the world did you not mention President Obama and the Clintons in your conspiracy theorist rant there? And maybe the military releasing UFO information? And the new world order? You missed so many chances there!
What I mentioned is not conspiracy theory - at all, it so happens to be
the truth.
As far as little green men are concerned you would be looking to Men
like me to protect you,
Gregory Deyss said to Jeff Thiele: <=-
Liberal labels are just like liberal tears, they dry quickly and are
just as irrelevant.
You are and have been of the mindset that you did not appreciate or
find any value in America First, Building a Wall along the Southern
I am like 90% certain that you two are different accounts for the same
person.
So are Lee Lofaso and Bjorn Felten. If Aaron and Gregory are the same person, then they are the same person running two different boards, and they have also not made the mistake of accidentally being logged on as "Aaron" but responding as "Gregory," or vise versa. :)
You bleed freely for everything that this bonehead biden has ever stuttered. Your also in denial, just as much as the Whitehouse or tha pathetic Karine Jean-Pierre, who claims that illegals are not walking into the U.S. when there is video evidence to state otherwise.
Refugees seeking asylum are walking into the U.S. Refugees seeking
asylum are not "illegals." And this has nothing to do with whether Fox News' reporting on election night were deceptive or not. You are frantically trying to change the subject.
On 01 Sep 2022, Gregory Deyss said the following...America First is not racist, unfair and is not wrong.
I understand perfectly. And your statement was misogynistic.Liberal labels are just like liberal tears, they dry quickly and are just as irrelevant.
Whatever, man. Your statement was misogynistic.
You are and have been of the mindset that you did not appreciate or f any value in America First, Building a Wall along the Southern Border between the U.S. and Mexico or any of many accomplishments of the Tru Administration of which I have posted here previously.
America is a melting pot, open to all who are suffering. "Americe First" is a blasphemy.
If you only knew, but I am so much more than "an account".Gregory Deyss said to Aaron Thomas: <=-
Oh it is more then just ok my friend, no need to speak to "issues bein off subject." (such a thing is what lefties say) to claim intellectual superiority, but fail to see the insanity and the calamity of who they say "They are doing an awesome job." It is agreeable that we see eye t
I am like 90% certain that you two are different accounts for the same person.
On 01 Sep 2022, Rebecca Marie said the following...
Oh it is more then just ok my friend, no need to speak to "issues beiI am like 90% certain that you two are different accounts for the same person.
off subject." (such a thing is what lefties say) to claim intellectua
superiority, but fail to see the insanity and the calamity of who the
say "They are doing an awesome job." It is agreeable that we see eye
Al and I have been accused of being the same person, but we both can neither confirm nor deny it.
Absolutely no value in America First, and we'll be dealing with the
It had to do with pundits - so called experts, that were giving their analysis
on the vote count on election night and some of those, sounded a bit too much supporters of the Democratic party.
A few points to made here.You bleed freely for everything that this bonehead biden has eve stuttered. Your also in denial, just as much as the Whitehouse o pathetic Karine Jean-Pierre, who claims that illegals are not wa into the U.S. when there is video evidence to state otherwise.Refugees seeking asylum are walking into the U.S. Refugees seeking asylum are not "illegals." And this has nothing to do with whether Fo News' reporting on election night were deceptive or not. You are frantically trying to change the subject.
The deceptiveness that "WE" on the Right, are talking about had nothing
to do with the ever growing immigration problem.
It had to do with pundits - so called experts, that were giving their analysis on the vote count on election night and some of those, sounded
a bit too much supporters of the Democratic party.
What is the difference between refugees seeking asylum from corrupt countries with no opportunity for their families - which is why "they"
are coming here to the U.S. but the "Land of the Free" does not mean
that everything is free, but democrats sure do try their best to make
that a reality. Why would that be Jeff?
Are they hoping that these people become new democrats themselves?
No one does nothing for nobody unless there is something in it for them.
beinOh it is more then just ok my friend, no need to speak to "issues
intellectualoff subject." (such a thing is what lefties say) to claim
theysuperiority, but fail to see the insanity and the calamity of who
eye tsay "They are doing an awesome job." It is agreeable that we see
I am like 90% certain that you two are different accounts for thesame
person.
Al and I have been accused of being the same person, but we both can neither
confirm nor deny it.
That said, I think Gregory and Aaron are two different people.
Gregory's posts are very wordy and condescending, using stilted English and
capitalization rules known only to Gregory himself. My personal opinion is that he's trying to imitate the highfalutin' blather of his hero, Rush Limbaugh, but is failing on the finer points.
Aaron's posts are more sane-sounding, but just as delusional. He alternates
between caring for the fate of "his" country and only being concerned about
what he sees in his own neighborhood, depending on how cornered he is. He has
a low grasp of number theory, probability theory, and statistics, which leads
him to inherently distrust anything with a number in it as well as use numbers in ways that are unconventional, to put it mildly. He also has difficulty with set theory.
Hillary Clinton received 3 million votes more than Donald Trump.
Joe Biden received 7 million votes more than Donald Trump.
Popular vote does not matter, electoral college is the rules of the game. Popular vote may give a mandate to a president, but it does not elect them.
America First is not racist, unfair and is not wrong.
here is a bit of corrective education for you and the other libtards. https://tinyurl.com/33pr2tmc
Yup she sure is a Melting Pot, my family way back in late 1880's came to America from Germany. As did many others.
There is a clear distinction to be made.
My family as so many others came here to the U.S. to work hard to support their families and their new communities. They did not come here as freeloaders to get free housing, free health care, free education or a cash handout.
Liberals (Democratic communists) are increasingly in favor of open
borders to anyone who wants to enter the United States and national sovereignty be damned. But not that long ago they all wanted border security.
Schumer 2009: Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple. He was all for spending $25 billion to secure the southern border until January of 2018.
Hillary 2015: I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.
Obama 2005: We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked.
Bill Clinton 1996: His State of the Union address that year showed a striking comparison to what President Trump has said about the subject. We are a nation of laws.
Dianne Feinstein 2006: Democrats are solidly behind controlling the border, and we support the border fence with the Secure Fence Act of
2006.
Nancy Pelosi 2013: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi referred to border "security as a basic principle" and urged congress to support
legislation that she claimed would secure the U.S. border.
I am like 90% certain that you two are different accounts for the sam person.If you only knew, but I am so much more than "an account".
More like 90% wrong.
Al and I have been accused of being the same person, but we both can nei confirm nor deny it.That was in jest, but I forget you don't understand humor.
It had to do with pundits - so called experts, that were giving their analysisThey soon forget the number of Democrats and others who went to bed on election night 2016 thinking that Hillary had won because the talking heads on TV said she was going to, only to wake up the next morning and find out she had not.
on the vote count on election night and some of those, sounded a bit too supporters of the Democratic party.
We then had four years of "not my President" BS to listen to, and some of the ones I knew honestly thought that Trump didn't win. Others came up with some less far-out, but still far-out, reasons why Hillary didn't
win.
Four years later, folks from the same side as those disillusioned Democrats cannot understand why Gregory claims that Biden is not his President. I am certain that they didn't give their fellow Democrats
the same level of grief.
I'd like to point out that Fox has not changed at all, and they are still one of the most conservative leaning of all "News" outlets this side of OAN. The problem is that there are some lies that even Fox won't get behind, but you've bought into the lies hook, line and sinker. Rather
than accept that the narrative might not be completely true, you'll turn on the people and organizations that challenges those.
I'm going off the subject, but I'd like to point out that this makes 3 of us, at least, conservatives who are aware of Fox News' deceptive reporting. Shame on them! They're trying to gain our trust so that the manipulate us like the leftists get manipulated by the leftist news.
"Undercover leftists" would hardly be the general consensus of Fox News, and particularly of Tucker Carlson. They only appear to be "leftist"
from the point of view of someone even further to the right than they
are.
What have "fox news viewers" done recently that was "so radical?"
Accused Fox News of being "leftist."
"Undercover leftists" would hardly be the general consensus of Fox Ne and particularly of Tucker Carlson. They only appear to be "leftist" from the point of view of someone even further to the right than they are.They're "undercover leftists" because they are manipulating conservatives under the guise of being "the conservative channel."
And who are these "radicalized fox news viewers" that you're talking about? I'm the only person here who's accusing them of being "leftist." You can't go around saying "Fox news viewers are radicalized and theWhat have "fox news viewers" done recently that was "so radical?Accused Fox News of being "leftist."
proof is in a message posted by Aaron on fidonet."
It's not a radical change; I used to watch CNN & MSNBC. They irritated
me with the Trump stuff, so I stopped watching. Now Fox News has
irritated me with all their reverse psychology, so I stopped watching
that too.
I'd like to point out that Fox has not changed at all, and they are s one of the most conservative leaning of all "News" outlets this side OAN. The problem is that there are some lies that even Fox won't get behind, but you've bought into the lies hook, line and sinker. Rather than accept that the narrative might not be completely true, you'll t on the people and organizations that challenges those.For you to say "Fox has not changed at all," you'd have to have been a loyal Fox viewer for several years. You don't seem like a Fox news type
of person.
Looking back at what I said, I never said "Fox changed." I'm saying that they are deceptive, just like the rest. Fox News is a tool for leftists, but disguised as a conservative's BFF.I'm going off the subject, but I'd like to point out that this ma of us, at least, conservatives who are aware of Fox News' decepti reporting. Shame on them! They're trying to gain our trust so tha manipulate us like the leftists get manipulated by the leftist ne
"Undercover leftists" would hardly be the general consensus of FoxNews,
and particularly of Tucker Carlson. They only appear to be "leftist"
from the point of view of someone even further to the right than they
are.
They're "undercover leftists" because they are manipulating conservatives under the guise of being "the conservative channel."
What have "fox news viewers" done recently that was "so radical?"
Accused Fox News of being "leftist."
And who are these "radicalized fox news viewers" that you're talking about?
I'm the only person here who's accusing them of being "leftist." You can't go around saying "Fox news viewers are radicalized and the proof is in a message posted by Aaron on fidonet."
It's not a radical change; I used to watch CNN & MSNBC. They irritated me with the Trump stuff, so I stopped watching. Now Fox News has irritated me with all their reverse psychology, so I stopped watching that too.
theirIt had to do with pundits - so called experts, that were giving
bit tooanalysis
on the vote count on election night and some of those, sounded a
supporters of the Democratic party.
They soon forget the number of Democrats and others who went to bedon
election night 2016 thinking that Hillary had won because the talkingand
heads on TV said she was going to, only to wake up the next morning
find out she had not.
And in the morning they accepted that. The talking heads on TV were just following the numbers in real-time.
We then had four years of "not my President" BS to listen to, andsome of
the ones I knew honestly thought that Trump didn't win. Others cameup
with some less far-out, but still far-out, reasons why Hillary didn't
win.
I don't know anyone who thought that Trump didn't win. Hillary lost, and of
course there are reasons she lost. One of them might even have been the announcement of an FBI investigation right before the election.
Four years later, folks from the same side as those disillusioned
Democrats cannot understand why Gregory claims that Biden is not his
President. I am certain that they didn't give their fellow Democrats
the same level of grief.
It's different because to the Democrats, at least the ones I know, "not my president" means "Yes, he's president, but I didn't vote for him and wash my
hands of anything he does," whereas to people like Gregory, "not my president" means "He was fraudulently elected and is an illegitimate president." The difference is subtle, but see if you can spot it.
According to you yourself, at least two other people in here agree with you. And now you're the only one?
There's no reverse psychology. There's a "news" section that tries to at least maintain an appearance of journalistic integrity, and then there's
least maintain an appearance of journalistic integrity, and then there's
loyal Fox viewer for several years. You don't seem like a Fox news ty of person.
No, one wouldn't. Can you imagine any other way that a person could be exposed to Fox News without being a loyal viewer? Any other way that someone could get the gist of what Fox News is reporting without
actually watching it?
Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Are you claiming that Rupert
Murdoch is a closet leftist? Or is it possible that you see everything
to your left on the political spectrum, even other conservatives and centrists, as "leftist" because they don't agree with you?
Also above is where you said that there were at least three of you aware of Fox News' "deceptive reporting." And now you're claiming elsewhere
that you're the only one.
According to you yourself, at least two other people in here agree wi you. And now you're the only one?If we were "radicalized," then we'd be supporting Democrats, and we're not.
There's no reverse psychology. There's a "news" section that tries to least maintain an appearance of journalistic integrity, and then therYou are not a person who's been paying close attention to Fox News.
least maintain an appearance of journalistic integrity, and then therThere's no journalistic integrity. Their news stories are cherry-picked, some of them seem fake, and their opinion stories don't match the
opinions of real conservatives. Peter Doocy is the only one acting like
a real conservative.
You can get the gist but you won't see the twist.loyal Fox viewer for several years. You don't seem like a Fox ne of person.No, one wouldn't. Can you imagine any other way that a person could b exposed to Fox News without being a loyal viewer? Any other way that someone could get the gist of what Fox News is reporting without actually watching it?
Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Are you claiming that Rupert Murdoch is a closet leftist? Or is it possible that you see everythin to your left on the political spectrum, even other conservatives and centrists, as "leftist" because they don't agree with you?I assume that Rupert Murdoch is a leftist. Somebody has got to own the conservatives' attention. His son donates to liberal causes. Murdoch doesn't write the scripts for the puppets.
Also above is where you said that there were at least three of you aw of Fox News' "deceptive reporting." And now you're claiming elsewhere that you're the only one.Three people from Fidonet doesn't equal "fox news viewers are becoming radicalized." (You've got to come out from under the trailer!)
1. Because math.
They're "undercover leftists" because they are manipulating conservat under the guise of being "the conservative channel."
Sean Hannity and James Carville have gone on tour debating before
live audiences. So why not Tucker Carlson doing the same?
And who are these "radicalized fox news viewers" that you're talking about?
Unindicted co-conspirators of the January 6 uprising ...
They soon forget the number of Democrats and others who went to bed on election night 2016 thinking that Hillary had won because the talking heads on TV said she was going to, only to wake up the next morning and find out she had not.
We then had four years of "not my President" BS to listen to, and some of the ones I knew honestly thought that Trump didn't win. Others came up with some less far-out, but still far-out, reasons why Hillary didn't
win.
Four years later, folks from the same side as those disillusioned Democrats cannot understand why Gregory claims that Biden is not his President. I am certain that they didn't give their fellow Democrats
the same level of grief.
Usually when one starts a sentence with "What is the difference
between," two different things follow, usually separated by "and." I cannot figure out what those two things are in this sentence.
Wow, that's quite a statement. There are a lot of examples to counter
it, but I'll go with Jimmy Carter, who donates time and money to Habitat for Humanity and expects nothing in return.
If we were "radicalized," then we'd be supporting Democrats, and we'r not.
Not true. Conservatives can also be radicalized. Hence the events of 1/6/21.
You can get the gist but you won't see the twist.loyal Fox viewer for several years. You don't seem like a F of person.No, one wouldn't. Can you imagine any other way that a person co exposed to Fox News without being a loyal viewer? Any other way someone could get the gist of what Fox News is reporting without actually watching it?
There is no twist. Aaron doesn't agree with Fox News' reporting;
therefore Fox News' reporting must be deceptive is what you're saying.
In what way is Fox News being anti-conservative? Is it that they
abandoned Trump? Is support of Trump necessary to be a "real conservative?"
Aaron Thomas wrote to Rebecca Marie <=-
Looking back at what I said, I never said "Fox changed." I'm saying
that they are deceptive, just like the rest. Fox News is a tool for leftists, but disguised as a conservative's BFF.
Gregory Deyss wrote to Mike Powell <=-
It is alright, these lefties don't know any better.
I know that they consider themselves to be highly educated and of
course that they know better. How irritating it must be to realize all that is a lie.
Usually when one starts a sentence with "What is the difference between," two different things follow, usually separated by "and." I cannot figure out what those two things are in this sentence.You missed the point that the
"Land of the Free" does not mean that everything is free.
Wow, that's quite a statement. There are a lot of examples to counter it, but I'll go with Jimmy Carter, who donates time and money to Habi for Humanity and expects nothing in return.That is way with Philanthropy, there is nothing mysterious about that.
The Democratic Party's interest in these poor and downtrodden hordes of illegals violating U.S. sovereignty has nothing to do with philanthropy.
Indeed, they are nothing more then pawns and are expected to be
tomorrow's Democrats.
I wonder if the Democratic Party will be continuing their supportive nature in the future, now that a large number of Hispanics are turning away from what they see as Democratic lies.
You said we were "radical" because we don't like Fox anymore, but if we were to have a radical response, the radical response would be to begin watching something far different from Fox, something like MSNBC.If we were "radicalized," then we'd be supporting Democrats, and not.Not true. Conservatives can also be radicalized. Hence the events of 1/6/21.
There is no twist. Aaron doesn't agree with Fox News' reporting; therefore Fox News' reporting must be deceptive is what you're sayingI feel like I said this before, but my dissatisfaction with Fox News has little to do with Trump, and it has everything to do with misleading reporting.
In what way is Fox News being anti-conservative? Is it that they abandoned Trump? Is support of Trump necessary to be a "real conservative?"It's the subtle tricks. Helping Biden win an election isn't
conservative. Fox News reported a lot of misleading information around
the week of Election Day. You shouldn't argue that it wasn't misleading, because a couple years back it was you who was telling me that some of that information was misleading or wrong. But now, in your quest to be right about everything, you're acting like those conversations never happened.
It's ok to be wrong once in a while, but it's not ok to double-down after being proven wrong.
Then I heard about grown-ass adults who were within grieving centers or areas known as a "Safe Spaces" with one such activity known as a therapy wall, In addition to this, there were Cry-In's sessions at Cornell and puppies and coloring books at Penn State.
All True by the way.
Looking back at what I said, I never said "Fox changed." I'm saying that they are deceptive, just like the rest. Fox News is a tool for leftists, but disguised as a conservative's BFF.
Hence the Elitist Narrative that Fox is "convervative". Have you ever noticed how hard they push a false Narrative when people start to
discover that the Narrative is false?
You said we were "radical" because we don't like Fox anymore, but if were to have a radical response, the radical response would be to beg watching something far different from Fox, something like MSNBC.
No, I said that many on the right don't like Fox News anymore *because* they've become more radical, not the other way around. You asked what
radical things these ex-viewers had done recently, and I cited your
action of claiming that Fox News was some sort of liberal reverse-psychology operation, which is bizarre and untrue.
If you've given up on Fox News because of their deceptive conservative reporting, I could agree with you. But you're accusing them of deceptive liberal reporting, which isn't true.
Please give an example.
We had 8 years of "Not my president" before that. Accusations that Obama wasn't born in this country, etc. etc.It had to do with pundits - so called experts, that were givingWe then had four years of "not my President" BS to listen to, and
their analysis on the vote count on election night and some of
those, sounded a bit too much supporters of the Democratic party.
some of the ones I knew honestly thought that Trump didn't win.
Others came up with some less far-out, but still far-out, reasons
why Hillary didn't win.
radical things these ex-viewers had done recently, and I cited your action of claiming that Fox News was some sort of liberal reverse-psychology operation, which is bizarre and untrue.They've been talking about the "Red Wave," but there's not gonna be one. It's a distraction. Leftists aren't ditching their party. Fox's angle is for us to hear that and then let our guard down. "A Fox News poll indictates Biden's approval rating to be lower than any other president
in the history of approval ratings." <- Sure thing. He'll be re-elected
in a landslide victory.
If you've given up on Fox News because of their deceptive conservativ reporting, I could agree with you. But you're accusing them of decept liberal reporting, which isn't true.On an almost daily basis, they're posting articles about black-on-white homicides on their website. That's cherry-picking police reports.
Please give an example.
They tease us with stuff like "Hunter's laptop," but then nothing
becomes of it. You don't see that as "leftist propaganda," but it is, because they're tricking conservatives into parroting BS, which will
come back to haunt them.
The owner is a billionaire; billionaires aren't conservatives, and
they're not to be trusted. Conservatives make up a significant portion
of the USA, but leftists don't want anyone acknowleging that. They would rather cut their losses by investing in a smidge of power over the conservative population, and use it carefully and wisely for strategic success. Maybe for an election, for example, try to make conservatives think that they've got nothing to lose.
They don't cover the most pressing issues for GOP supporters, which are: We need our party to be fine tuned, we need media infrastructure, we
need way more money, and we need labor unions to ditch the DNC in favor
of us. If Rupert cared so much about conservatives, he'd get right on
that stuff. He's not looking for political change though, he's just running a business covering a niche market.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-
Legislation of the latest money-grab comes to mind. When Joe Manchin questioned the urgency for all this money, other confederates threw him under the bus. That's pushing the narrative hard. "Joe Manchin wants to defund FEMA."
Legislation of the latest money-grab comes to mind. When Joe Manchin questioned the urgency for all this money, other confederates threw h under the bus. That's pushing the narrative hard. "Joe Manchin wants defund FEMA."I've learned that when a salesman pushes harder, it's because he wants
the sale - not because it's best for you.
There's a great deal of similiarity between a Democrat and a sleezy used car salesman.
I've learned that when a salesman pushes harder, it's because he wants the sal
- not because it's best for you.
in the history of approval ratings." <- Sure thing. He'll be re-elect in a landslide victory.
They're reporting what they think conservatives want to hear.
Please give an example.On an almost daily basis, they're posting articles about black-on-whi homicides on their website. That's cherry-picking police reports.
True, but how is that pro-Biden/anti-Trump?
Now you're catching on! They want to control conservatives, similar toin the history of approval ratings." <- Sure thing. He'll be re- in a landslide victory.They're reporting what they think conservatives want to hear.
the way that George Soros controls you.
Exhibit A:True, but how is that pro-Biden/anti-Trump?Please give an example.On an almost daily basis, they're posting articles about black-o homicides on their website. That's cherry-picking police reports
Fox News' target audience is whites. By cherry-picking these articles, they're fomenting resentment of blacks and non-whites.
Exhibit B:
foxnews.com, unlike 99% of other news websites, continues to allow comments on their site, and people post very racist stuff every time.
The openly-leftist media controls liberals, and the shadow-leftist Fox News controls conservatives. Not only controls them, but also creates
the perfect place (comments section on their website) to create a
"whites are racist" narrative.
Question: What's at the end of this rainbow? Answer: More desperate situations for the American people that predatory politicians can tantilize them with later. "Re-elect me and your crime problems will be solved."
Now you're catching on! They want to control conservatives, similar to the way that George Soros controls you.
Soros doesn't control liberals; that's an anti-semitic conspiracy theory and, while you may not consider yourself anti-semitic, espousal of said conspiracy theory would suggest otherwise.
You implied that Fox News has changed in some way prior to the last election, but Fox News has always been about telling conservatives what they want to hear.
So when the Israeli government, or Israeli citizens, claim that Soros is also attempting to influence their citizens and interfere with their government, is that considered anti-themselves?Now you're catching on! They want to control conservatives, similar the way that George Soros controls you.Soros doesn't control liberals; that's an anti-semitic conspiracy theory while you may not consider yourself anti-semitic, espousal of said consp theory would suggest otherwise.
If it was only a bunch of American right-wing radicals questioning his influence, I could see the anti-semitic argument having merit. Since other countries make similar claims, I question it.
There is a lot of smoke from multiple places for there to be no fire anywhere.
You implied that Fox News has changed in some way prior to the last elec but Fox News has always been about telling conservatives what they want hear.They were also, at times before the 2016 election was over, anti-Trump. Maybe FOX never fully got over that, either.
Soros doesn't control liberals; that's an anti-semitic conspiracy theory and, while you may not consider yourself anti-semitic, espousal of said conspiracy theory would suggest otherwise.
And, just for logic's sake, if Fox News is secretly liberal, then are you saying that George Soros is secretly conservative?
comments on their site, and people post very racist stuff every time.
I can see how that could be a problem. Perhaps conservatives need to disavow themselves of their racist comrades, although they will risk losing their votes as well, which I suspect is why they have not done so.
Perhaps Fox News is inadvertently opening your eyes to something you'd really rather not have to acknowledge.
Not all whites are racist, but racists tend to be white in this country.
Not all media is leftist, either, unless Fox News is considered centrist (which it isn't).
Where are you getting your news now that you've abandoned Fox News?
Soros doesn't control liberals; that's an anti-semitic conspiracy the and, while you may not consider yourself anti-semitic, espousal of sa conspiracy theory would suggest otherwise.George pushes propanganda on his news channels,
and funds non-prosecuting
prosecutor campaigns.
He also funds Democrats, who will later campaign on
"re-elect us to solve the crime problem."
And, just for logic's sake, if Fox News is secretly liberal, then are saying that George Soros is secretly conservative?It doesn't matter what George's political beliefs are, but what matters
is that he's colluding with Democrats to wreck our country, so that they can pander to idiots later on.
There's no "racist comrades." foxnews.com just needs to remove the comments section like every other news site has already done.comments on their site, and people post very racist stuff everyI can see how that could be a problem. Perhaps conservatives need to disavow themselves of their racist comrades, although they will risk losing their votes as well, which I suspect is why they have not done
Perhaps Fox News is inadvertently opening your eyes to something you' really rather not have to acknowledge.They're not opening my eyes to anything. They're leftist propagandists.
Not all whites are racist, but racists tend to be white in this countRacists don't "tend" to be white. It's racist to say that.
Not all media is leftist, either, unless Fox News is considered centr (which it isn't).It's all leftist. If the leftists had a problem with stuff that Fox News is doing, then all it would take is a phonecall to solve it.
Leftists are fine with Fox News. They love the Hunter's Laptop story, because it's a dead-end. They also love all the "election was stolen" stuff, because that helps them look good too.
Where are you getting your news now that you've abandoned Fox News?I still browse foxnews.com but I don't take them seriously. Local news
at 12 and 6 are good enough.
So when the Israeli government, or Israeli citizens, claim that Soros is also attempting to influence their citizens and interfere with their government, is that considered anti-themselves?Now you're catching on! They want to control conservatives, similaSoros doesn't control liberals; that's an anti-semitic conspiracy theor
the way that George Soros controls you.
while you may not consider yourself anti-semitic, espousal of said cons
theory would suggest otherwise.
Do they complain that George Soros "controls" them?
It's a claim that's been around for a long, long time. For what it's worth, Soros also donates to conservative causes.
There is a lot of smoke from multiple places for there to be no fire anywhere.
Did you know that the idea of a scapegoat originated with the ancient Hebrews?
They were also, at times before the 2016 election was over, anti-Trump. Maybe FOX never fully got over that, either.
I think that would depend on whether the reporters in question were in the news department or the entertainment department.
I believe that Soros, or one of his companies, owns some local broadcast tv channels.
However, I can't be wrong that
he colluded with Biden to import latinos
and now he's purchased 18
(formerly) conservative latino radio stations
so he could propagate
Joe's border buddies.
I take it this means he contributes to the campaings of prosecutors don't prosecute things that you think should be prosecuted, rather th to the campaigns of prosecutors who don't prosecute at all.He contributes to the campaigns of bad prosecutors. It's his way of Defunding the Police.
The Joe Biden Crime Crisis is just that; a Joe Biden inspired crime crisis.He also funds Democrats, who will later campaign onDidn't Trump campaign on "law & order," tough-on-crime promises?
"re-elect us to solve the crime problem."
Propaganda appeals to weak minded voters. Republicans can't afford propaganda anyway. They are broke. Propaganda costs a ton.It doesn't matter what George's political beliefs are, but what is that he's colluding with Democrats to wreck our country, so t can pander to idiots later on.Sure it matters. If Rupert Murdoch has Fox News being 'deceptive' in order to control conservatives because he's a secret leftist, and Sor has "his" news channels publishing "propaganda" in order to control t left, isn't there at least a possibility that he's a secret conservat who is colluding with Republicans?
They have no
TV outlets, especially not broadcast TV outlets.
All Republicans have
for propaganda is AM radio, and that's pathetic, because nobody listens
to that except for people who are already conservatives,
and Sean
Hannity just makes us look stupid anyway.
How do you know that? The racists who read CNN & MSNBC don't have a comments section.There's no "racist comrades." foxnews.com just needs to remove t comments section like every other news site has already done.To hide the racism of the racist comrades who don't exist. Have you thought that through? Racists share the same preference in news sites that you do.
They are definitely not leftist propagandists. They approach just abo everything with a conservative bent. But now that that's becoming inconvenient and/or embarassing to you, suddenly they're "leftists."Racism isn't conservative. Conservatives don't ask for cherry-picked police reports or for a racist comment section.
You're full of it. You're the one who's racist. "Most of the racists.."It's not racist to point out actual demographics, and most of the racists in the US are white. It's interesting that you would take exception to that fact.Not all whites are racist, but racists tend to be white inRacists don't "tend" to be white. It's racist to say that.
Do you realize how full of it you are? You have no proof; using a big
word like "demographics" doesn't vindicate you. There's no study,
survey, statistic, or fact to prove you right.
"Most white people enjoyed the George Floyd video."
"Most conservatives were at the January 6 riot."
Phrases with the word "most" hold no water in 9 out of 10 of your leftist sentences.
"Leftists" have had a problem with what Fox News is doing for decades Just check out all of the "leftist" fact-checks calling out Fox News their lies.But at least they have people like Peter Doocy asking questions at the White House. That's all they're good for.
The Hunter Biden laptop story is a dead end? Are you sure it's not be covered up by the FBI? Trump is generating most of the "election was stolen" stuff; does that make him a secret "leftist," too?The laptop isn't Hunter's. Republicans have had long enough to do something about it if it was real, and they haven't. It doesn't mean
that I trust Joe or anything, but I trust that the laptop story was Democrat disinformation. (Make it look like idiot conservatives tried to frame Hunter when really they did it themselves to make conservatives
look bad in the long run.)
Democrats are super organized. They know what they're doing, unlike Republicans.
You do know that the natural progression of this delusional thinking result in you believing that everyone except you is a "leftist," righ All it takes is for someone to say something you disagree with or shi a bad light on your beliefs, and suddenly they're playing for the oth team. Eventually there will be no one left but you.I know that it's fun to diagnose each other's mental issues, but no, that's not a true diagnosis of me. Outside the BBS world, I don't care about anyone's political beliefs. I only come here for that.
That's not an accurate perception of reality; that's paranoia. You mi want to seek help.Nope, it's just Fox News that I think is the leftists. Dan Bongino seems like he wants to talk about elephants in the room, but he barely
scratches the surface. I don't think it's his choice though, he's got to do what King Soros desires if he likes having a job.
Do they complain that George Soros "controls" them?I take complaints of "interference" to mean that the Israeli government believes he is controlling something.
That sounds anti-semetic, i.e. that they blame Soros because they are Jewish and believe in scapegoats. Is that how you meant it?There is a lot of smoke from multiple places for there to be no fir anywhere.Did you know that the idea of a scapegoat originated with the ancient Hebrews?
I don't know which department they were in, but FOX did not seem to warm to him until sometime after he became the nominee.They were also, at times before the 2016 election was over, anti-Tr Maybe FOX never fully got over that, either.I think that would depend on whether the reporters in question were in t news department or the entertainment department.
Local broadcast TV channels... I see. Not unlike the local channels from which you purport to get your news. Was Soros' ownership of these local broadcast TV channels a news item on your local news?
However, I can't be wrong that
he colluded with Biden to import latinos
How so? (Also, sounds kinda racist.)
As far as I can tell, a company associated with Soros helped finance a third party's acquisition of these stations. That's hardly a Soros "purchase."
so he could propagate
Joe's border buddies.
That doesn't even make sense. How does one "propagate buddies?"
He contributes to the campaigns of bad prosecutors. It's his way of Defunding the Police.
What sort of prosecutors? Prosecutors aren't in charge of police budgets.
The Joe Biden Crime Crisis is just that; a Joe Biden inspired crime crisis.
And what exactly has Biden done to increase crime?
So Republican propaganda is a thing? And if propaganda appeals to weak-minded voters, as you've said, then people who are already conservatives must be weak-minded voters, no?
Hannity just makes us look stupid anyway.
No argument there. And Tucker Carlson does the same. But they're yours.
How do you know that? The racists who read CNN & MSNBC don't have a comments section.
Because racism is a conservative phenomenon. One of the core tenets of conservatives is preserving the traditional power structure, and the traditional power structure is racist.
Or do they? The conservatives posting racist comments in the comment section sure do seem to appreciate it.
Peter Doocy's questions are idiotic. Also, remember Jim Acosta getting
his press credentials revoked for asking tough questions? Peter Doocy's still there. That says everything about the difference between these two administrations.
That sounds anti-semetic, i.e. that they blame Soros because they are Jewish and believe in scapegoats. Is that how you meant it?There is a lot of smoke from multiple places for there to be no fiDid you know that the idea of a scapegoat originated with the ancient Hebrews?
anywhere.
Nobody "believes" in scapegoats. Scapegoats are what they are: innocent being sacrificed in the place of actual guilty parties.
Mike Powell wrote to Rebecca Marie <=-
"Mr DOJ guy, I handed over five Top-Secret documents! That should make up for the 20 Top Secret documents that I'm trying to either hide or destroy, right?"
If that is what comes out, then he was not cooperating, right?
Mike Powell wrote to REBECCA MARIE <=-
Trump's biggest voting bloc in 2016 were people who did not trust Hillary Clinton. When someone says the same thing over and over for 30 years, it eventually becomes part of the public consciousness. Leaders of the
In my case, it has nothing to do with what others said. It would be
the things that Hillary said, did, and took credit for during those 30 years that let me know she cannot be trusted.
If you paid attention to other Democrats during the 2008 and 2016 primaries, you would know that it is not only Republican party leaders
Using a private email server for government correspondence was only another example, feeding right into the fact that she is not
trustworthy.
Mike Powell wrote to REBECCA MARIE <=-
So are Lee Lofaso and Bjorn Felten. If Aaron and Gregory are the same person, then they are the same person running two different boards, and they have also not made the mistake of accidentally being logged on as "Aaron" but responding as "Gregory," or vise versa. :)
Jeff Thiele wrote to Rebecca Marie <=-
Al and I have been accused of being the same person, but we both can neither confirm nor deny it.
That said, I think Gregory and Aaron are two different people.
Gregory's posts are very wordy and condescending, using stilted English and capitalization rules known only to Gregory himself. My personal
Gregory Deyss wrote to Rebecca Marie <=-
I am like 90% certain that you two are different accounts for the same person.
If you only knew, but I am so much more than "an account".
More like 90% wrong.
. ______ .---------. .--------. .--------------..-----------------.
_[]_||--|| | Fidonet | |FSX Net| | T R U M P | | Another Msg|
{ NET 267 | |1:267/150| |21:1/127| | 2 0 2 4 | | by Gregory|
/00----00'-¿Ç`-00---00-'¿Ç`-00--00-'¿Ç`-00--------00-'¿Ç`--00--------00--
Aaron Thomas wrote to Rebecca Marie <=-
I'd like to point out that Fox has not changed at all, and they are still one of the most conservative leaning of all "News" outlets this side of
For you to say "Fox has not changed at all," you'd have to have been a loyal Fox viewer for several years. You don't seem like a Fox news type
of person.
I'm going off the subject, but I'd like to point out that this makes 3 of us, at least, conservatives who are aware of Fox News' deceptive
Looking back at what I said, I never said "Fox changed." I'm saying
that they are deceptive, just like the rest. Fox News is a tool for leftists, but disguised as a conservative's BFF.
So are Lee Lofaso and Bjorn Felten. If Aaron and Gregory are the same
person, then they are the same person running two different boards, and
they have also not made the mistake of accidentally being logged on as
"Aaron" but responding as "Gregory," or vise versa. :)
It's possible, for certain, but Lee has such a unique writing style that I think the chances are he's an individual. Perhaps Lee is the primary account and Bjorn is the alt?
Mike Powell wrote to Rebecca Marie <=-
"Mr DOJ guy, I handed over five Top-Secret documents! That should make up for the 20 Top Secret documents that I'm trying to either hide or destroy, right?"
If that is what comes out, then he was not cooperating, right?
It's a classic case of distraction - distract the cops so they won't notice that you're destroying the evidence. If you call that co-operating, I would disagree with your definition.
If you weren't within earshot of what Hillary said, or an eyewitness to
what Hillary "did", then you are definitely listening to what others said.
My guess is that you heard what Hllary "said, did and took credit for" straight from conservative-leaning media. Rush Limbaugh? Fox News?
Using a private email server for government correspondence was only another example, feeding right into the fact that she is not trustworthy.
That is not a fact, that is an opinion. If you can find facts that back up your opinion, then you'd have more credibility.
It still sounds anti-semetic. Aaron doesn't like Soros because of his reputation. Soros happens to be Jewish so, in your mind, Aaron saying he doesn't like Soros is anti-semetic.
Looking back at what I said, I never said "Fox changed." I'm saying that they are deceptive, just like the rest. Fox News is a tool for leftists, but disguised as a conservative's BFF.
I will still disagree with this one. Fox News wouldn't do anything that would help out us liberals, unless they had no other choice. Like if they were reporting on an attempted takeover of our country or something similar.
What's that subtle brainwashing do? It makes conservatives think "It's ok if I
don't vote, the red wave's got me covered."
What's that subtle brainwashing do? It makes conservatives think "It's o I
don't vote, the red wave's got me covered."
I would not take their message and assume that.
Mike Powell wrote to AARON THOMAS <=-I
What's that subtle brainwashing do? It makes conservatives think "It's ok if
don't vote, the red wave's got me covered."
I would not take their message and assume that.
What's that subtle brainwashing do? It makes conservatives think "It's ok iI
don't vote, the red wave's got me covered."
I would not take their message and assume that.
But there are many who would.
The "core tenets of conservatives" is jargon. We don't vote together toHow do you know that? The racists who read CNN & MSNBC don't hav comments section.Because racism is a conservative phenomenon. One of the core tenets o conservatives is preserving the traditional power structure, and the traditional power structure is racist.
do racist stuff, and we don't vote together to swindle America out of
the largest cash grab in the history of the United States.
The leftists are the ones who are constantly talking about skin color. Nobody brought it up besides you.
Or do they? The conservatives posting racist comments in the comment section sure do seem to appreciate it.You can't call them "conservatives." You don't know their political beliefs, because they're just there to say racist stuff.
Peter Doocy's questions are idiotic. Also, remember Jim Acosta gettin his press credentials revoked for asking tough questions? Peter Doocy still there. That says everything about the difference between these administrations.Jim Acosta wasn't "asking tough questions." Jim Acosta was harrassing the president. Peter Doocy's questions don't seem idiotic to me. He's
helping us log white house inconsistencies so that later we can reflect
on all the dishonesty. That's gonna be a fun day.
Nobody "believes" in scapegoats. Scapegoats are what they are: innocent sacrificed in the place of actual guilty parties.It still sounds anti-semetic. Aaron doesn't like Soros because of his reputation. Soros happens to be Jewish so, in your mind, Aaron saying he doesn't like Soros is anti-semetic.
Meanwhile, you used the supposed fact that the idea of scapegoats originated with the Hebrews as a way to cast doubt on the opinion the Israeli government also has of Soros because they are Hebrews.
That sounds more anti-semetic to me.
Al and I have been accused of being the same person, but we both can neither confirm nor deny it.Wow! I think it's pretty amazing that you turned my short post into an opportunity to slag others. Bravo!
That said, I think Gregory and Aaron are two different people.
Gregory's posts are very wordy and condescending, using stilted Engli and capitalization rules known only to Gregory himself. My personalI don't know why, but that made me giggle!
Mike Powell wrote to REBECCA MARIE <=-
Apparently he did not destroy the evidence. There are boxes of
documents and they still apparently exist. It is not like he was
running a personal server that housed government correspondence that he then destroyed with Bleach Bit.
Mike Powell wrote to REBECCA MARIE <=-
If you weren't within earshot of what Hillary said, or an eyewitness to
what Hillary "did", then you are definitely listening to what others said.
My guess is that you heard what Hllary "said, did and took credit for" straight from conservative-leaning media. Rush Limbaugh? Fox News?
The Huffington Post is a good example that I have cited here multiple times. They cite her own memoirs which, as a autobiographical book, was
Using a private email server for government correspondence was only another example, feeding right into the fact that she is not trustworthy.
That is not a fact, that is an opinion. If you can find facts that back up your opinion, then you'd have more credibility.
"feeding right into the *fact* that she is not trustworthy."
I am certain that breaching trust is, by definition, untrustworthy.
The documents I sign are pretty black and white. The definition of untrustworthy is readily available in any dictionary. I don't see an opinion there.
So now I will wait for your message telling me that, as a former First Lady and SoS, she should be held to a lesser standard than Jeff or I
when it comes to mishandling government information.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Rebecca Marie <=-
conservative sheep in a subtle way. They aren't telling us "Vote
against all Democrats because they're all monsters!" but they're
telling us stuff like "There's gonna be a red wave. Democrats are
expected to lose really bad."
What's that subtle brainwashing do? It makes conservatives think "It's
ok if I don't vote, the red wave's got me covered."
Nobody "believes" in scapegoats. Scapegoats are what they are: innocentIt still sounds anti-semetic. Aaron doesn't like Soros because of his reputation. Soros happens to be Jewish so, in your mind, Aaron saying he
sacrificed in the place of actual guilty parties.
doesn't like Soros is anti-semetic.
The question is, why does Soros have the reputation that he does? Is he actually guilty of everything he's been accused of, or is he the victim of an anti-semitic smear campaign?
Meanwhile, you used the supposed fact that the idea of scapegoats originated with the Hebrews as a way to cast doubt on the opinion the Israeli government also has of Soros because they are Hebrews.
Perhaps he is their scapegoat.
Apparently he did not destroy the evidence. There are boxes of documents and they still apparently exist. It is not like he was
That is actually much worse. Destroyed documents don't divulge information, documents that are stored in boxes somewhere can be stolen and read by
people that are not cleared to do so.
running a personal server that housed government correspondence that he then destroyed with Bleach Bit.
"Person X might've done this, but Person Y did something worse!" is a
logical fallacy. As I tell my kiddos, "we aren't talking about what your sibling did, we are talking about what you did."
You are trying to answer what I said with something that is completely different. I said that you were listening/reading someone else's account of what happened since you said that you weren't listening to anyone else. You cited a source (Roque Planas), so you are listening to what *he* says is
the most important parts of those pages in Hillary's memoir. But was planas said were most important *actually* the most important? You'd only know by reading the memoir itself.
Perfect, you directly refuted my statement and presented citations that reinforce your rebuttal. That is exactly how logical debates are supposed
to be handled. Good job!
And, again, since the people who believe he is mucking about in IsraelThe question is, why does Soros have the reputation that he does? Is he actually guilty of everything he's been accused of, or is he the victim anti-semitic smear campaign?Nobody "believes" in scapegoats. Scapegoats are what they are: innocentIt still sounds anti-semetic. Aaron doesn't like Soros because of reputation. Soros happens to be Jewish so, in your mind, Aaron say he
sacrificed in the place of actual guilty parties.
doesn't like Soros is anti-semetic.
are "semitic," I don't think that could be the case. I didn't even know he was Jewish, and I bet Aaron didn't either, until you told us so. I cannot speak for Aaron, but his religion and ethnicity are not a factor
in any opinion I have of him.
He could be an ultra-conservative Christian from the Southern US, for all I would know or care. I somehow suspect one of us would care, though.
Could be, and could also be that his religion and ethnicity are an easy excuse for those who want to defend him.Meanwhile, you used the supposed fact that the idea of scapegoats originated with the Hebrews as a way to cast doubt on the opinion t Israeli government also has of Soros because they are Hebrews.Perhaps he is their scapegoat.
Exactly. I have mentioned that as a reason that the government should have been moving much faster to get them back but, for some reason, did not. If he is as irresponsible as is claimed, he certainly cannot be trusted to not show those documents to others during the several monthsApparently he did not destroy the evidence. There are boxes of documents and they still apparently exist. It is not like he wasThat is actually much worse. Destroyed documents don't divulge informati documents that are stored in boxes somewhere can be stolen and read by people that are not cleared to do so.
he has had them. Especially Russian someones.
Thanks to you, we were discussing the destruction of evidence in therunning a personal server that housed government correspondence tha then destroyed with Bleach Bit."Person X might've done this, but Person Y did something worse!" is a logical fallacy. As I tell my kiddos, "we aren't talking about what your sibling did, we are talking about what you did."
form of government documents and information, which makes it on topic.
Do you not also tell your kiddos, "If you don't want to talk about it don't bring it up?" Pretty sure my parents did.
I have not noticed you presenting many citations. Like Jeff and others, we are expected to take your word for it.
Perfect, you directly refuted my statement and presented citations that
reinforce your rebuttal. That is exactly how logical debates are supposed
to be handled. Good job!
I have not noticed you presenting many citations. Like Jeff and others, we
are expected to take your word for it.
The government was moving to get them back, but they were dealing with an ex-President. Politics required them to do so with kid gloves. Look what happened when they *did* move to take back the documents without Trump's consent.
Where I work, government records have retention poilicies, based on the type of record that it is. My understanding is that the deleted documents should have been deleted the previous year but weren't, and then were deleted independent of the subpoena.
Hillary was investigated and found to have been irresponsible, but other than that to have done nothing wrong.
I have not noticed you presenting many citations. Like Jeff and others, we are expected to take your word for it.
I present citations when necessary. When I don't, the issue in question is either common knowledge or a matter of the public record.
The government was moving to get them back, but they were dealing with a ex-President. Politics required them to do so with kid gloves. Look what happened when they *did* move to take back the documents without Trump's consent.Some people complained but nothing major has happened.
Where I work, government records have retention poilicies, based on the of record that it is. My understanding is that the deleted documents sho have been deleted the previous year but weren't, and then were deleted independent of the subpoena.Are you allowed to keep them on a private server, where there is no "retention period" because they should not be there to begin with?
Hillary was investigated and found to have been irresponsible, but other that to have done nothing wrong.That there was any evidence remaining of.
In past, you have told us that there is no such thing as "common sense," because of the "common" part of the phrase. If that is the case, I would argue that "common knowledge" is also non-existent.I have not noticed you presenting many citations. Like Jeff and ot we are expected to take your word for it.I present citations when necessary. When I don't, the issue in question either common knowledge or a matter of the public record.
and otI have not noticed you presenting many citations. Like Jeff
we are expected to take your word for it.
questionI present citations when necessary. When I don't, the issue in
either common knowledge or a matter of the public record.
In past, you have told us that there is no such thing as "commonsense,"
because of the "common" part of the phrase. If that is the case, Iwould
argue that "common knowledge" is also non-existent.
Common knowledge would encompass things like "Trump was the 45th President of
the United States," etc. Things that no sane person would dispute.
Some people complained but nothing major has happened.
People, yourself included, have intimated that the search was politically motivated. However, they gave Trump multiple chances to come clean before they resorted to that. Had they gone straight to the search & seizure, I believe that the outcry would have been much greater and something major may very well have happened.
Trump is right now threatening that very bad things will happen if he is indicted.
No. But with the post-COVID work from home policies, some lines have become a bit more blurred. Am I allowed to keep such records on my work-issued laptop in my home? Yes. Are people who deal with paper-based records and work from home allowed to keep those records in their home? Yes, under lock and key. Are these records in our homes subject to records retention rules? Absolutely.
Hillary was investigated and found to have been irresponsible, but otheThat there was any evidence remaining of.
that to have done nothing wrong.
Correct. And there is no evidence that the "missing" evidence to which you're alluding ever existed.
Yes, "some people (including me) complained."Some people complained but nothing major has happened.People, yourself included, have intimated that the search was politicall motivated. However, they gave Trump multiple chances to come clean befor they resorted to that. Had they gone straight to the search & seizure, I believe that the outcry would have been much greater and something major very well have happened.
Trump is right now threatening that very bad things will happen if he is indicted.You said that things had already happened.
No. But with the post-COVID work from home policies, some lines have bec bit more blurred. Am I allowed to keep such records on my work-issued la in my home? Yes. Are people who deal with paper-based records and work f home allowed to keep those records in their home? Yes, under lock and ke Are these records in our homes subject to records retention rules? Absolutely.We are not allowed to keep Federal records in places such as work-issued laptops or in our homes. They have to stay on government owned servers and in goverment-owned (and marked!) file cabinets, and only certain servers and certain file cabinets. There have to be X number of levels
of security one must pass through in order to physically access these servers and file-cabinets. Even when everyone was work-from-home full time, that was still the case.
As the office of the SoS is a Federal office, I doubt the security on those articles was as loose as it apparently is in Texas with state data.
Secure deleting things from a server, using a product such as Bleach Bit, will not leave any such evidence.Correct. And there is no evidence that the "missing" evidence to which y alluding ever existed.Hillary was investigated and found to have been irresponsible, bu otheThat there was any evidence remaining of.
that to have done nothing wrong.
The question is, why does Soros have the reputation that he does? Is he actually guilty of everything he's been accused of, or is he the victim anti-semitic smear campaign?And, again, since the people who believe he is mucking about in Israel
are "semitic," I don't think that could be the case. I didn't even know he was Jewish, and I bet Aaron didn't either, until you told us so. I cannot speak for Aaron, but his religion and ethnicity are not a factor
in any opinion I have of him.
He could be an ultra-conservative Christian from the Southern US, for all I would know or care. I somehow suspect one of us would care, though.
Could be, and could also be that his religion and ethnicity are an easy excuse for those who want to defend him.Meanwhile, you used the supposed fact that the idea of scapegoats originated with the Hebrews as a way to cast doubt on the opinion t Israeli government also has of Soros because they are Hebrews.Perhaps he is their scapegoat.
The question is, why does Soros have the reputation that he does? Is he actually guilty of everything he's been accused of, or is he the victim anti-semitic smear campaign?
And, again, since the people who believe he is mucking about in Israel
are "semitic," I don't think that could be the case. I didn't even know he was Jewish, and I bet Aaron didn't either, until you told us so. I cannot speak for Aaron, but his religion and ethnicity are not a factor
in any opinion I have of him.
For the American people we want peace, safety, equality, andThe "core tenets of conservatives" is jargon. We don't vote toge do racist stuff, and we don't vote together to swindle America o the largest cash grab in the history of the United States.What brings you together, then?
sovereignty. But I can only assume that other conservatives would agree with that statement.
When you say "Preserve the traditional power structure," that sounds
good to me. What is meant by that? Why does it seem racist to you? To me it sounds like "we're gonna remain a Democratic nation with a free market." But to you it means something different. What does it mean to you?
That's racist! You're good at being a leftist because you've masteredWho else watches Fox News?Or do they? The conservatives posting racist comments in th section sure do seem to appreciate it.You can't call them "conservatives." You don't know their politi beliefs, because they're just there to say racist stuff.
that trick where you accuse someone of something while you're the one committing the crime! ;) Good job!
The question is, why does Soros have the reputation that he does? Is actually guilty of everything he's been accused of, or is he the vict of an anti-semitic smear campaign?Some jews are actually guilty of the stuff that nazis accuse them of.
Some black people are guilty of the stuff that white supremacists accuse them of.
Some white people are guilty of the stuff that Mexicansaccuse
them of.
But just because George is "trying to use his wealth to rule the world" doesn't mean that Ben Stein is guilty of it too.
Some people need to
go straight to hell, and it doesn't matter what color or religion they are. Those are just crutches for (insane) people to cry about.
Republicans are not organized enough to pull stunts like that. They know nothing about psychology, or about getting up off their butts.What's that subtle brainwashing do? It makes conservatives think ok if I don't vote, the red wave's got me covered."So that leads to an obvious question: during the Blue wave, was that conservative leaders trying to trick progressives to think "It's ok i don't vote, the blue wave's got me covered?"
That's racist! You're good at being a leftist because you've mastered that trick where you accuse someone of something while you're the one committing the crime! ;) Good job!You can't call them "conservatives." You don't know their p beliefs, because they're just there to say racist stuff.Who else watches Fox News?
Some jews are actually guilty of the stuff that nazis accuse them of.
Is that so? Examples, Nazi?
So... we're down to the "Republicans are stupid" argument?
You want and need white conservatives to be racists, because a narrative like that scares colored people into voting Democrat, but the actionsThat's racist! You're good at being a leftist because you've mas that trick where you accuse someone of something while you're th committing the crime! ;) Good job!You can't call them "conservatives." You don't know th beliefs, because they're just there to say racist stufWho else watches Fox News?
that Democrats take to exploit and manipulate people by color are very obvious to intelligent people. Don't doubt that many colored people are intelligent too and that they're figuring this all out.
I'm glad you ruined the conversation with name calling, because I'm a conservative upstate New Yorker and we don't care for color talk.Some jews are actually guilty of the stuff that nazis accuse theIs that so? Examples, Nazi?
So... we're down to the "Republicans are stupid" argument?The leftists are propagating the notion that the election is in the bag.
Republicans don't have any defense for propaganda; all they do is stand around with their thumbs up their asses. Leftists obviously have some
sort of propaganda processing center; a place where they organize all of their efforts.
Republicans lack that type of organization. They think it's old times, where you can just be an honest person and do an honest job. Democrats know better.
You want and need white conservatives to be racists, because a narrative like that scares colored people into voting Democrat, but the actions that Democrats take to exploit and manipulate people by color are very obvious to intelligent people. Don't doubt that many colored people are intelligent too and that they're figuring this all out.
You yourself said that the comments sections of the Fox News website were filled with racist comments and that, in your opinion, the ability to comment should be removed.
On 18 Sep 2022, Aaron Thomas said the following...
I'm glad you ruined the conversation with name calling, because I'm a conservative upstate New Yorker and we don't care for color talk.Some jews are actually guilty of the stuff that nazis accuse thIs that so? Examples, Nazi?
Do you not have any examples?
What are some jews actually guilty of, as accused by Nazis?
Republicans lack that type of organization. They think it's old times, where you can just be an honest person and do an honest job. Democrats know better.
Republican politicians, and especially Trump, are not honest people. They're desperately trying to find a way to unify the Trumper MAGA base with the traditional non-MAGA base, and are having difficulty doing so.
Considering that it is a comment section, and those are often filled with at least a few trolls, it is not a safe assumption that they are white or conservative or anything else.You want and need white conservatives to be racists, because a narr like that scares colored people into voting Democrat, but the actio that Democrats take to exploit and manipulate people by color are v obvious to intelligent people. Don't doubt that many colored people intelligent too and that they're figuring this all out.You yourself said that the comments sections of the Fox News website wer filled with racist comments and that, in your opinion, the ability to co should be removed.
On 18 Sep 2022, Aaron Thomas said the following...One of the things that Hitler claimed they were involved with is Communism. That is a very general belief to have about all members of
Do you not have any examples?I'm glad you ruined the conversation with name calling, because I'm conservative upstate New Yorker and we don't care for color talk.Some jews are actually guilty of the stuff that nazis acc thIs that so? Examples, Nazi?
What are some jews actually guilty of, as accused by Nazis?
the Jewish community. That said, back before WWI, there was indeed involvement by Jewish Germans in Communist activities. Some of them
were also Zionists, who moved to Israel and settled there, setting up their communes in places which, in their mind, were "unclaimed lands."
So, some German Jews did indeed have Communist beliefs, which the Nazis incorrectly accused them all of having. So, the Nazis took a small truth and made a large falsehood out of it.
Back to the Zionists who left for Israel before WWI...
These settlements caused a lot of friction with the native Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Back several years ago, there was a show on PBS about this period in history. The German (and other European) Jews took over lands that those natives had been using as their nomadic hearding lands and, of course, the Zionists also wanted the most fertile lands for themselves, leaving less desirable land for the natives. The Zionists
also brought in muscle, sometimes in the form of Russian criminals, to keep the natives off of "their" land. This lead to some violent
incidents between said muscle and the natives.
At the time, that area was a part of the Ottoman Empire. As their power was waning, they had some difficulty keeping law and order in that area. There was eventually a movement to come to some peaceful resolution between the Zionists, the natives, and the government. WWI broke out
and, with the Ottomans losing control of that area, this never happened.
One things I took away from that special was that, despite being of different religions, the natives apparently got along pretty well up
until the Zionist Europeans starting showing up in numbers.
And I called it...Republicans lack that type of organization. They think it's old tim where you can just be an honest person and do an honest job. Democr know better.Republican politicians, and especially Trump, are not honest people. The desperately trying to find a way to unify the Trumper MAGA base with the traditional non-MAGA base, and are having difficulty doing so.
The other day, you were claiming that politicians on the whole were
honest people who were not in it for the power, the money, or
themselves. I pointed out that your views were naive and also would be different if we were qualifying "politician" with "Republican."
So here we are.
I'm glad you ruined the conversation with name calling, because I'm a conservative upstate New Yorker and we don't care for color talk.Some jews are actually guilty of the stuff that nazis accusIs that so? Examples, Nazi?
Do you not have any examples?
What are some jews actually guilty of, as accused by Nazis?
Hahaha, no. Rightists have propaganda, too; it's just that you buy into
it hook, line, and sinker. To you, it's not propaganda. However, you are correct in that it is not working very well right now. Post 2015, it has been increasingly aimed at Trump's far-right MAGA base and any conservatives caught between that and the center are not buying it. Hahaha, no. Rightists have propaganda, too; it's just that you buy into
it hook, line, and sinker. To you, it's not propaganda. However, you are correct in that it is not working very well right now. Post 2015, it has been increasingly aimed at Trump's far-right MAGA base and any conservatives caught between that and the center are not buying it.
I don't know of any leftist propaganda clearing centers; as far as I can tell that's your paranoia speaking. There is reality, though, which you may have confused for a leftist propaganda machine.
Republican politicians, and especially Trump, are not honest people. They're desperately trying to find a way to unify the Trumper MAGA base with the traditional non-MAGA base, and are having difficulty doing so.
Are the statistics about all of Trump's successes just a pile of propaganda?
I feel like conservatives are unified. Nobody cares if it's Trump or Romney; Joe's got to go. That's all.
No more rights for women to make their own choice.
No more democracy.
The list goes on.
No more rights for women to make their own choice.
Al, that's ridiculous.
We don't have that issue here. We have a federal gov and a state gov (don't you have a national gov plus a provincial gov?) Our national (federal we
call it) gov has decided to back off the issue of abortion and let the
states handle it as they please.
No more democracy.
It's much more democratic this way. Americans are diverse.
People from California & Virginia are extreme *leftists* so they prefer to presereve a woman's right to murder her baby up until the day of birth.
However, we've got our *rightest* (love that word) Americans in other areas who (democratically so) wish to restrict abortions. If you don't like it, then move to Virginia, and they'll let you murder it even after it's been born for a day.
The propagation continues.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Jeff Thiele <=-
Are the statistics about all of Trump's successes just a pile of propaganda?
How do you know that? I feel like conservatives are unified. Nobody
cares if it's Trump or Romney; Joe's got to go. That's all.
Trying to rule the world. George Soros is trying it, and he's jewish.Do you not have any examples?I'm glad you ruined the conversation with name calling, because conservative upstate New Yorker and we don't care for color talkSome jews are actually guilty of the stuff that nazisIs that so? Examples, Nazi?
What are some jews actually guilty of, as accused by Nazis?
Hahaha, no. Rightists have propaganda, too; it's just that you buy in it hook, line, and sinker. To you, it's not propaganda. However, you correct in that it is not working very well right now. Post 2015, it been increasingly aimed at Trump's far-right MAGA base and any conservatives caught between that and the center are not buying it. Hahaha, no. Rightists have propaganda, too; it's just that you buy in it hook, line, and sinker. To you, it's not propaganda. However, you correct in that it is not working very well right now. Post 2015, it been increasingly aimed at Trump's far-right MAGA base and any conservatives caught between that and the center are not buying it.
Are the statistics about all of Trump's successes just a pile of propaganda?
I don't know of any leftist propaganda clearing centers; as far as I tell that's your paranoia speaking. There is reality, though, which y may have confused for a leftist propaganda machine.They left you out in the cold, but surely the top dawgs like George and Oprah have clearance to enter the facility.
Republican politicians, and especially Trump, are not honest people. They're desperately trying to find a way to unify the Trumper MAGA ba with the traditional non-MAGA base, and are having difficulty doing sHow do you know that?
I feel like conservatives are unified.
Nobody
cares if it's Trump or Romney; Joe's got to go. That's all.
We don't have that issue here. We have a federal gov and a state gov (don't you have a national gov plus a provincial gov?) Our national (federal we call it) gov has decided to back off the issue of abortion and let the states handle it as they please.
Sure, it's much the same here but we haven't tried to push the views of a mino
ty on the majority. Such a thing is doomed to failure.
It's much more democratic what way? But yes, Americans and Canadians and peoplNo more democracy.It's much more democratic this way. Americans are diverse.
of the world are very diverse.
However, we've got our *rightest* (love that word) Americans in other areas who (democratically so) wish to restrict abortions. If you don't like it, then move to Virginia, and they'll let you murder it even after it's been born for a day.
It's not about murder, it never was. It's about a woman's right to choose for rself what to do in such a situation.
The propagation continues.
A woman in the US had this right up until an extremist SCOTUS over turned Roe Wade a few short months ago. Today they do not (many of them). That's not prop
anda. That is a fact.
Roe V Wade was spoken of as settled law, a precedent. This issue alone could s
k any party since it is wanted by a majority of the people.
I see. And what evidence do you have that Soros is "trying to rule the world?" Plenty of wealthy people make both political donations and business acquisitions. iHeartMedia (formerly Clear Channel Media) owns over 850 radio stations and was the primary carrier for the shows of
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
They left you out in the cold, but surely the top dawgs like George a Oprah have clearance to enter the facility.
I see. And what evidence do you have that such a facility exists? There
is none.
They're desperately trying to find a way to unify the Trumper MA with the traditional non-MAGA base, and are having difficulty doHow do you know that?
It's playing out right in front of you. MTG is actively encouraging the ouster of McConnell, for one thing.
I feel like conservatives are unified.
That's not an opinion supported by the facts at hand.
Just wait until it comes down to Trump or Romney (if that happens, which
I doubt).
I see. And what evidence do you have that Soros is "trying to rule th world?" Plenty of wealthy people make both political donations and business acquisitions. iHeartMedia (formerly Clear Channel Media) own over 850 radio stations and was the primary carrier for the shows of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.I agree that "Plenty of wealthy people make both political donations and business acquisitions,"
but George played a huge role in Joe's campaign,
joe began the importation service for 2 million hispanic illegals, millions more hispanic refugees from vacation countries, an entire prisonload of hispanic Honduran releasees.
Ruling the free world, is what George is doing.
The facility doesn't have to exist, there are other ways to communicate besides in-person meetings.They left you out in the cold, but surely the top dawgs like Geo Oprah have clearance to enter the facility.I see. And what evidence do you have that such a facility exists? The is none.
Real conservatives know that MTG is a real problemIt's playing out right in front of you. MTG is actively encouraging t ouster of McConnell, for one thing.They're desperately trying to find a way to unify the Trump with the traditional non-MAGA base, and are having difficulHow do you know that?
Mitch
Mcconnell being a problem is a leftist narrative.
But that doesn't mean
that we're not unified. Why is it important to leftists for
conservatives to be divided?
So that Fox News can brainwash us into
voting against Trump in the primary?
What facts? You don't have "facts" about "division of conservatives."I feel like conservatives are unified.That's not an opinion supported by the facts at hand.
Just wait until it comes down to Trump or Romney (if that happens, wh I doubt).That's all that matters to the leftists; "anything but Trump."
Although
I can ask any leftist "Why anybody but Trump?" and the best answer they can give is "because he was impeached!" or "because he said dead
soldiers are losers!" or "because he beats his wife!"
There were several years between Roe v Wade and now where the Democrats had both a President and majority in congress yet chose not to codify it into national law. That would have been a much better solution, if they wanted one, vs. a "spoken of" SCOTUS ruling.
Mike Powell wrote to REBECCA MARIE <=-
That is actually much worse. Destroyed documents don't divulge information, documents that are stored in boxes somewhere can be stolen and read by people that are not cleared to do so.
Exactly. I have mentioned that as a reason that the government should have been moving much faster to get them back but, for some reason, did
not. If he is as irresponsible as is claimed, he certainly cannot be trusted to not show those documents to others during the several months
he has had them. Especially Russian someones.
Thanks to you, we were discussing the destruction of evidence in the
form of government documents and information, which makes it on topic.
Aaron Thomas wrote to Rebecca Marie <=-
So that leads to an obvious question: during the Blue wave, was that conservative leaders trying to trick progressives to think "It's ok if I don't vote, the blue wave's got me covered?"
Republicans are not organized enough to pull stunts like that. They
know nothing about psychology, or about getting up off their butts.
As Aaron pointed out, it is still readily available in places where the majority wants it to be so, and not in places where the majority does not.
There were several years between the Roe v Wade decision and now where the Democrats had both a President and majority in congress yet chose not to codify it into national law.
Last I checked, we still have a greater freedom of speech, expression, and especially to assemble than you do in Canada. When we assemble, our Prime Minister does not freeze our assets, for example.
It is murder if they can do it after birth. I have not confirmed Aaron's suggestion that they can in Virginia, but California was considering
allowing babies carried to term to be terminiated after birth. I did not keep track of how far that got.
Being spoken of something does not make it so.
Aaron speaks of Trump being good, but that does not make it so.
You speak of all sorts of things that are not so, and sometimes you laterclaim > not to have spoken them when you realize as much.
There were several years between Roe v Wade and now where the Democrats had both a President and majority in congress yet chose not to codify it into national law. That would have been a much better solution, if they wanted one, vs. a "spoken of" SCOTUS ruling.
(If Al ever visits the USA, we'd better steer him away from any used car dealerships along the way!)
Yes, roe v wade is settled law and precedent for 40 or 50 years. https://youtu.be/Bjs-qO0N2ZI
The issue is not about democrats codifying law. It was the law until a radical
upreme court stepped all over it a few months ago.
Last I checked, we still have a greater freedom of speech, expression, and especially to assemble than you do in Canada. When we assemble, our Prime Minister does not freeze our assets, for example.
We are not talking about freedom but I have plenty of freedom in Canada and my
ssets have not been frozen.
It is murder if they can do it after birth. I have not confirmed Aaron's suggestion that they can in Virginia, but California was considering allowing babies carried to term to be terminiated after birth. I did not keep track of how far that got.
This is not what the pro-choice side is doing, it is another right wing talkin
point.
Being spoken of something does not make it so.
Are you suggesting that Roe V Wade was not considered to be precedent, or sett
d law?
https://youtu.be/ks1skEKwlrk
You speak of all sorts of things that are not so, and sometimes you laterclaim > not to have spoken them when you realize as much.
Can you give me an example?
There were several years between Roe v Wade and now where the Democrats had both a President and majority in congress yet chose not to codify it into national law. That would have been a much better solution, if they wanted one, vs. a "spoken of" SCOTUS ruling.
It would have been better but why would they do that?
It seems today the republican party wants to (and is working on) a national ab
tion ban of some sort.
And yet, that's what you've been complaining about with regard to Soros.
but George played a huge role in Joe's campaign,
How big of a role, beyond funding?
prisonload of hispanic Honduran releasees.
What is your evidence for this breakdown?
Ruling the free world, is what George is doing.
I'm not seeing it. He helped a guy get elected, and that guy did some things you didn't like. That's not ruling the world.
Here are the top contributors to Trump's 2016 campaign: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contributors?id=n00023864
Sure, Democrats have strategy meetings, but so do Republicans. And just about every other group that relies on a strategy or set of strategies
to get their job done.
The issue is not about democrats codifying law. It was the law until a
radical upreme court stepped all over it a few months ago.
We learned all about that in US History classes. I don't think you have a firm grasp on how things become law in the United States, or how court rulings work.
The problem with such "laws" that you don't seem to understand was that it was decided by a court ruling. It was not EVER written into official law. "Laws" that are actually interpretation of law by court ruling can very
much be overturned by later court rulings. This is not an unusual thing to happen.
It does not matter how long ago the original ruling was decided, it is
never, ever on solid ground until it is passed into LAW by Congress, and
then until it passes the test of being Constitutional (something that would happen in the courts).
The Democrats knew this could happen... they bring up how abortion could be overturned if they are not elected during EVERY election cycle. They never do anything when they can because then they could not keep using that
threat to abortion rights during their campaigns.
Last I checked, we still have a greater freedom of speech, expression, and >> > especially to assemble than you do in Canada. When we assemble, our Prime >> > Minister does not freeze our assets, for example.
We are not talking about freedom but I have plenty of freedom in Canada and >> my assets have not been frozen.
BS, Al.
You brought up the errosion of US democracy and freedom (specifically, to have an abortion). You then cut up the quotes above to make it look like we were "not talking about" it.
This is not what the pro-choice side is doing, it is another right wing
talkin point.
No, it actually isn't. I looked it up. The problem comes from how the bill was originally written. It was written to remove all penalties for the outcome of a pregnacy, i.e. one that was terminated or where a baby is
stillborn. However, as originally written, the language also removed all civi
and criminal penalty and liability for "perinatal" death. "Perinatal" is defined as the period around childbirth -- 5 months before and 1 month after.
That last bit is the important part. They meant to absolve anyone whose child dies of natural causes within the preinatal period. Because the language was vague, and did not specifically state what they meant by "perinatal" period, it left the door open for a court to interpret the law
as including children that died from other non-natural causes during the first month after birth.
Once the "California wants to make post-birth abortion legal" news started spreading, the legal team for the legislator who introduced the bill introduced amendments to close those potential loopholes/legal misinterpretations.
Being spoken of something does not make it so.
Are you suggesting that Roe V Wade was not considered to be precedent, or
settled law?
https://youtu.be/ks1skEKwlrk
Not at all, but being court precedent does not mean that the court cannot overturn it later. Making it LAW would have solved that issue, so long as the LAW was written in a manner that would allow it to stand up to the test of being Constitutional.
"Settled laws" that are the result of court interpretations are only settled until they get overturned, which is not unusual.
You speak of all sorts of things that are not so, and sometimes you later
claim not to have spoken them when you realize as much.
Can you give me an example?
I just did above, where you said "we are not talking about freedom..."
It would have been better but why would they do that?
To make it official so that a later court ruling could not overturn it... which, guess what, happened! Plus, they always promise to, if elected, during EVERY election cycle.
It seems today the republican party wants to (and is working on) a national >> abortion ban of some sort.
Could be, but it will have to stand the test of being Constitutional. If
the Democrats had not wasted several opportunites to make it LAW, the Republican task of creating a ban would be much more difficult.
And yet, that's what you've been complaining about with regard to SorThat's because Soros' purchases are inline with Joe's border policies.
Coordinated funding; using gold to elect multiple bad actors to work in collusion with one another.but George played a huge role in Joe's campaign,How big of a role, beyond funding?
That's the latest I got from Fox News.prisonload of hispanic Honduran releasees.What is your evidence for this breakdown?
George had lots of business plans that depended on Joe's success, and because now he will control and exploit a gigantic group of hispanic refugees (Not the world, but he's getting there!)Ruling the free world, is what George is doing.I'm not seeing it. He helped a guy get elected, and that guy did some things you didn't like. That's not ruling the world.
Here are the top contributors to Trump's 2016 campaign: https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contributors?id=n00023864They all sound like American companies. What do you think they asked
Trump to do in return?
Sure, Democrats have strategy meetings, but so do Republicans. And ju about every other group that relies on a strategy or set of strategie to get their job done.No, GOP officials do not strategize.
No, GOP officials do not strategize. They let tons of elections go unchallenged.
They aren't doing jack to get our candidates elected other than
squander few bucks from Home Depot.
They don't have terror attacks or a
virus to unleash in case of a dangerous leftie president.
They don't
have a backup plan for re-election.
The GOP is basically not in service
unless it's election day.
And yet, that's what you've been complaining about with regard tThat's because Soros' purchases are inline with Joe's border policies
Are they? What is being broadcast on these stations?
How big of a role, beyond funding?Coordinated funding; using gold to elect multiple bad actors to work collusion with one another.
Bad actors in whose opinion? Have crimes been committed?
That's the latest I got from Fox News.prisonload of hispanic Honduran releasees.What is your evidence for this breakdown?
Ah. The same Fox News that "doesn't count" because it's only available to cable subscribers? The same Fox News that is secretly trying to brainwash conservatives? Do you have a link or anything?
George had lots of business plans that depended on Joe's success, and because now he will control and exploit a gigantic group of hispanic refugees (Not the world, but he's getting there!)
How does he plan to exploit these refugees rather than just, say, helping them?
They all sound like American companies. What do you think they asked Trump to do in return?
Perhaps they had business plans that depended on Trump's success?
No, GOP officials do not strategize. They let tons of elections go unchallenged.
So do Democrats. In some districts they are such underdogs that it's not worth running anyone. So they focus their efforts elsewhere. That's a strategy.
They have some crappy, indefensible candidates thanks to Trump's influence. The fact that they're not openly helping these candidates is more evidence of disunity in the GOP.
I don't listen to those stations, but how dumb can we be?Are they? What is being broadcast on these stations?And yet, that's what you've been complaining about with regThat's because Soros' purchases are inline with Joe's border pol
If George had bought 18 hispanic restaurants, then I wouldn't be complaining.
I'm not taking anyone to court. The bad actors are Joe Biden & theBad actors in whose opinion? Have crimes been committed?How big of a role, beyond funding?Coordinated funding; using gold to elect multiple bad actors to collusion with one another.
liberal DAs like George Gascon. George Soros has yet to fund the
campaign of a candidate who will help the American people. George ain't
no philanthropist!
I was wrong about the nationality; it's a prison in Venezuela.Ah. The same Fox News that "doesn't count" because it's only availabl cable subscribers? The same Fox News that is secretly trying to brain conservatives? Do you have a link or anything?That's the latest I got from Fox News.prisonload of hispanic Honduran releasees.What is your evidence for this breakdown?
It's not just "refugees," it's also millions of illegals and millions of legal hispanic speaking Americans.George had lots of business plans that depended on Joe's success because now he will control and exploit a gigantic group of hisp refugees (Not the world, but he's getting there!)How does he plan to exploit these refugees rather than just, say, hel them?
Unlike you, I don't know everything.
So I speculate that he's going to use them like puppets in the race war that he's already started here. I predict that he'll encourage them to hate whites and blacks (that won't take much effort) and that the
violence that ensues will help him elect more Democrats. "Re-elect Biden so he can fix the crime problem he created."
Yea, "perhaps" is the key word. There's nothing obvious like there isThey all sound like American companies. What do you think they a Trump to do in return?Perhaps they had business plans that depended on Trump's success?
with the Joe/George radio/migrant manipulation deal.
While the NY GOP pats itself on the back, we've got 25+ upstate/conservative districts with Democrat state assembly & senate members running unopposed. The election chairs say dumb stuff like "We recruit in quality, not in quantity."No, GOP officials do not strategize. They let tons of elections unchallenged.So do Democrats. In some districts they are such underdogs that it's worth running anyone. So they focus their efforts elsewhere. That's a strategy.
The GOP strategy is: Help the Democrats retain power.
They have some crappy, indefensible candidates thanks to Trump's influence. The fact that they're not openly helping these candidates more evidence of disunity in the GOP.The party may be split on nominees, but whichever pos Republican they
put on our ballot, we're gonna vote for it.
I don't listen to those stations, but how dumb can we be?
Dumb enough to assume what they're broadcasting without actually
listening to it?
If George had bought 18 hispanic restaurants, then I wouldn't be complaining.
You are assuming that all Spanish-speakers are illegal immigrants.
That's a matter of opinion. Democrat electees do help the American
people, just not in the way that conservatives approve of.
I was wrong about the nationality; it's a prison in Venezuela.
Evidence?
While the NY GOP pats itself on the back, we've got 25+ upstate/conservative districts with Democrat state assembly & senate members running unopposed. The election chairs say dumb stuff like "W recruit in quality, not in quantity."
That's a strategy.
The GOP strategy is: Help the Democrats retain power.
The GOP strategy is: Win where we can and don't waste resources
elsewhere.
Coordinated funding; using gold to elect multiple bad actors to work in collusion with one another.but George played a huge role in Joe's campaign,How big of a role, beyond funding?
Bad actors in whose opinion? Have crimes been committed?
Bad actors in whose opinion? Have crimes been committed?
Since we are talking about Soros, he is a convicted insider trader (France, 2006, in a ruling later upheld by the EU). I would be
Bad actors in whose opinion? Have crimes been committed?Since we are talking about Soros, he is a convicted insider trader (France, 2006, in a ruling later upheld by the EU). I would be
skeptical of anyone convicted of securities violations, or that has been known to manipulate currency markets, donating large sums to any US political campaigns, Democrat or Republican, for fear that they would be hoping the politician in question would look the other way while they
did the same here.
George has an agenda. At the top of that agenda is: Destroy the USA.I don't listen to those stations, but how dumb can we be?Dumb enough to assume what they're broadcasting without actually listening to it?
So maybe he'll use his radio stations to encourage racial harmony?
(Nope!)
I don't know what you mean, but what I'm saying here is that purchasing restaurants doesn't help a person rule the world, but purchasing radio stations *does* help with that.If George had bought 18 hispanic restaurants, then I wouldn't be complaining.You are assuming that all Spanish-speakers are illegal immigrants.
That's a matter of opinion. Democrat electees do help the American people, just not in the way that conservatives approve of.What are the Democrats helping us with lately?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-republicans-sound-alarm-report-vene sending-violent-criminals-us-borderI was wrong about the nationality; it's a prison in Venezuela.Evidence?
Since 2 of the (former) prisoners are American citizens, the openly leftist news outlets describe this as "2 American citizens were freed
from a Venezuelan prison."
It's a lie. Ask any conservative if they're concerned about theWhile the NY GOP pats itself on the back, we've got 25+ upstate/conservative districts with Democrat state assembly & se members running unopposed. The election chairs say dumb stuff li recruit in quality, not in quantity."That's a strategy.
"quality" of their Republican state officials. (So concerned that
they're willing to elect a Democrat instead, because the quality of the Republican was just so low.)
That's exactly what the RINO committee chairs say. But they say that toThe GOP strategy is: Help the Democrats retain power.The GOP strategy is: Win where we can and don't waste resources elsewhere.
us because they think we're stupid. We're not. We know that upstate NY
is a conservative region. We know this because we have Republican
mayors, county executives, and US house members. You won't find many Democrat yard signs throughout upstate.
The committee chairs are abusing their power to keep the state government Democrat. I complained to the NY GOP (at least twice) and they never responded. (They hope that I'll just quiet down and go away.)
George has an agenda. At the top of that agenda is: Destroy the USA.
That is your unfounded speculation.
So maybe he'll use his radio stations to encourage racial harmony? (Nope!)
Or maybe his companies have made investments to increase profits?
You don't even know what's being broadcast on these radio stations.
You're just running around screaming like Chicken Little.
What are the Democrats helping us with lately?
Infrastructure improvements and, to be honest, general stability.
Since 2 of the (former) prisoners are American citizens, the openly leftist news outlets describe this as "2 American citizens were freed from a Venezuelan prison."
What were their crimes? Certainly that should play a role. It's
certainly not unheard of for political prisoners to end up in, well, prison.
Any intention of the GOP to retaim Democrat control in areas they could otherwise dominate is ludicrous. Those are Congressional seats, after
all, and they need as many as they can get. I think it much more likely that there is a flaw somewhere in your theory.
This assumption was founded when all these crimes started going un-prosecuted.George has an agenda. At the top of that agenda is: Destroy theThat is your unfounded speculation.
Investing in someone else's misery is a despicable thing to do. GeorgeSo maybe he'll use his radio stations to encourage racial harmon (Nope!)Or maybe his companies have made investments to increase profits?
is a depicable man.
You don't even know what's being broadcast on these radio stations. You're just running around screaming like Chicken Little.Conservative (hispanic) journalist Lourdes Ubieta resigned from her job following the takeover,
and she didn't do that out of insane paranoia,
she did it because she knows that it would be idiotic to expect George
to sign her paychecks while all she does all day is trash leftists.
Do
you think George would like to pay for that rhetoric to air on his stations?
If George Soros purchased Fox News, there would be no re-branding of Tucker Carlson; he'd have to hit the road.
That's sad. Doesn't even sound appealing. Investments aren't being made into the things that humans in this country need. Even after 2 huge spending bills, there's still no virus, migrant, or flood preparedness investments. And the student loan forgiveness is nowhere to be found for student still making payments.What are the Democrats helping us with lately?Infrastructure improvements and, to be honest, general stability.
You're zooming-in on the wrong aspect: The openly leftist media refusesSince 2 of the (former) prisoners are American citizens, the ope leftist news outlets describe this as "2 American citizens were from a Venezuelan prison."What were their crimes? Certainly that should play a role. It's certainly not unheard of for political prisoners to end up in, well, prison.
to tell the American people that a whole prisonful of relasees are en route to the Texas border; instead of telling their dummies about that story, they instead tell them "2 Americans were released from a
Venezuelan prison!" That's the leftist's shortened version of the truth.
On 26 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...
Bad actors in whose opinion? Have crimes been committed?Since we are talking about Soros, he is a convicted insider trader (France, 2006, in a ruling later upheld by the EU). I would be skeptical of anyone convicted of securities violations, or that has been known to manipulate currency markets, donating large sums to any US political campaigns, Democrat or Republican, for fear that they would be hoping the politician in question would look the other way while they did the same here.
The Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, has been under indictment for securities fraud for seven years. He's up for re-election in the midterms and I hope he loses, but doubt he will.
Dumb enough to assume what they're broadcasting without actually listening to it?
George has an agenda. At the top of that agenda is: Destroy the USA.
George has an agenda. At the top of that agenda is: Destroy the USA.
That is your unfounded speculation.
This assumption was founded when all these crimes started going un-prosecuted.
Or maybe his companies have made investments to increase profits?
Investing in someone else's misery is a despicable thing to do. George is a depicable man.
Any intention of the GOP to retaim Democrat control in areas they cou otherwise dominate is ludicrous. Those are Congressional seats, after all, and they need as many as they can get. I think it much more like that there is a flaw somewhere in your theory.I live in Binghamton NY. Trump won both elections here. We have a Republican mayor who recently succeeded another Republican mayor who
left because of the term limit. We have Republican mayors in neighboring cities. We have a Republican state senator. We are represented by a Republican US house member. And we have a Democrat state assemblywoman who's ran unopposed for the past several elections. That doesn't add up.
What are the Democrats helping us with lately?
Infrastructure improvements and, to be honest, general stability.
The Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, has been under indictment for securities fraud for seven years. He's up for re-election in the midterm I hope he loses, but doubt he will.That is not a good look for the state's top lawyer.
A lot of what he is known to have done, and has even admitted to, was apparently not criminal even though it sounds like it should be.
He was found guilty, in a French court, of being an insider trader. He appealed to the EU which upheld the verdict but also lowered the fine.
He still maintains that what he did was not wrong. That part might
should bother people because it makes it more likely that he'd do it again.
Stability? A world where Russia is threatening the US and NATO withWhat are the Democrats helping us with lately?Infrastructure improvements and, to be honest, general stability.
nukes is stable? I don't remember them doing that in quite a while.
This is probably the first time in a while that they've seen the US (or more specifically, their leader) as weak.
This assumption was founded when all these crimes started going un-prosecuted.George has an agenda. At the top of that agenda is: DestroyThat is your unfounded speculation.
What crimes?
Actually, I've looked into this. Soros didn't buy the stations. Lakestar Finance, an investment group associated with Soros, funded the acquisitions by the Latino Media Network, along with a number of Latino investors.
"Latino Media Network is a media company serving the Latino community by helping us make sense of the world and their place in it. We will inspire, inform and celebrate Latinos through an audio focused
multimedia network, owned and operated by members of our community. We will focus on content creation across a variety of culturally relevant subjects and help our community navigate the ocean of information that exists in our society. The network will create cultural pride by
telling our stories, addressing our concerns and talking about opportunities for a better future."
Soros won't own the stations. The Latino Media Network has been funded by Lakestar Finance and many other investors so that they can buy the stations. Far from paying the paychecks of radio station employees,
these venture capitalists expect to be paid back for their investment.
It's still early. Some investments are being made, and more are
scheduled for the future.
I've read about the releasees. Apparently they are being tracked as they head for the US. If they're being tracked, they can be identified.
He has invested in the misery of others for sure. When he broke the Bank of England, he gave reasons that he thought it was justified -- that the BoE needed to be taught a lesson. Never mind any of the citizens of the UK and elsewhere whose wellbeing depended on the value of the Pound not dropping like a rock.
What crimes?"Among the crimes Bragg said his office would not prosecute: marijuana misdemeanors, including selling more than three ounces; not paying public transportation fare; trespassing except a fourth degree stalking charge, resisting arrest, obstructing governmental administration in certain cases, and prostitution." (CNN)
Actually, I've looked into this. Soros didn't buy the stations. Lakes Finance, an investment group associated with Soros, funded the acquisitions by the Latino Media Network, along with a number of Lati investors.You're good at finding alternative facts. So these stories are all fake then: https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/07/21/george-soros-and-the-leftist-takeov 18-spanish-language-radio-stations/
https://calleochonews.com/george-soros-tied-to-latino-media-network/
https://amac.us/why-is-a-soros-backed-conglomerate-snatching-up-latino-med tions/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/group-high-profile-latinos-makes-60m-c al-buy-18-radio-stations-rcna31895
Whatever name the business is operating under, it's affiliated with
George Soros. It would be like having Lara Trump purchase MSNBC and then saying "It's not Donald Trump, it's Lara Trump, so it's all good."
"Latino Media Network is a media company serving the Latino community helping us make sense of the world and their place in it. We will inspire, inform and celebrate Latinos through an audio focused multimedia network, owned and operated by members of our community. will focus on content creation across a variety of culturally relevan subjects and help our community navigate the ocean of information tha exists in our society. The network will create cultural pride by telling our stories, addressing our concerns and talking about opportunities for a better future."Yep, that sounds like a George Soros inspired narrative. Let the propagation begin!
Soros won't own the stations. The Latino Media Network has been funde Lakestar Finance and many other investors so that they can buy the stations. Far from paying the paychecks of radio station employees, these venture capitalists expect to be paid back for their investmentIt's Soros affiliated. Don't expect much conservative talk on a Soros-affiliated talk show.
It's still early. Some investments are being made, and more are scheduled for the future."The check is in the mail."
I've read about the releasees. Apparently they are being tracked as t head for the US. If they're being tracked, they can be identified.Tracked & identified for what? It's not illegal to be a prison releasee.
Global
warming is what caused them to commit their crimes in the first place.
The real crime is that of the white male Americans releasing all those CFCs into the atmosphere.
Has he done it again? Soros does not maintain that what he did was not wrong; he maintains that the French law is vague enough to be confusing. The appeals court agreed that it was confusing, lowering the fine, but said that Soros' experience should have made him aware that it was wrong.
On 27 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...
Stability? A world where Russia is threatening the US and NATO with nukes is stable? I don't remember them doing that in quite a while. This is probably the first time in a while that they've seen the US (or more specifically, their leader) as weak.What are the Democrats helping us with lately?Infrastructure improvements and, to be honest, general stability.
Yeah, but at least we don't have an unpredictable madman at the helm.
He has invested in the misery of others for sure. When he broke the Bank >MP> of England, he gave reasons that he thought it was justified -- that the >MP> BoE needed to be taught a lesson. Never mind any of the citizens of the >MP> UK and elsewhere whose wellbeing depended on the value of the Pound not >MP> dropping like a rock.
Sure, but "technically" he's a great guy ;)
However, said conservative Cuban American exiles appear to have made no effort to buy the stations themselves. They just sort of insist that any new buyer(s) shouldn't change "their" stations.
I've read about the releasees. Apparently they are being tracked as they head for the US. If they're being tracked, they can be identified.
"Among the crimes Bragg said his office would not prosecute: marijuana misdemeanors, including selling more than three ounces; not paying public transportation fare; trespassing except a fourth degree stalking charge, resisting arrest, obstructing governmental administration in certain cases, and prostitution." (CNN)
resisting arrest, obstructing governmental administration in certain cases,
https://amac.us/why-is-a-soros-backed-conglomerate-snatching-up-latino-media-st
tions/
Whatever name the business is operating under, it's affiliated with George Soros. It would be like having Lara Trump purchase MSNBC and then saying "It's
not Donald Trump, it's Lara Trump, so it's all good."
Has he done it again? Soros does not maintain that what he did was not w he maintains that the French law is vague enough to be confusing. The ap court agreed that it was confusing, lowering the fine, but said that Sor experience should have made him aware that it was wrong.But he has said what he did was not wrong, claiming that the takeover was public knowledge. He has claimed it was not insider trading. You are correct, the EU indeed said that he should have known it was wrong and that he did break insider trading laws. They may have lowered the fine due to alleged confusion, but they upheld the conviction.
So, since he claims it was not wrong and that he didn't "do it," why
would you trust that he wouldn't again just because he has not yet?
I would not trust that Trump, who says he didn't do anything wrong when taking documents, would not eventually repeat the same mistake again
given the chance.... and he has not even been convicted yet.
Yeah, but at least we don't have an unpredictable madman at the helm.He was such an unpredicable madman that we got caught up in all sorts of wars and bombings and... oh, wait... no, all he did was send out mean tweets.
This morning on the news they said that the US government is telling all Americans to leave Russia so they won't be conscripted, especially ones with dual citizenship.
However, said conservative Cuban American exiles appear to have made no effort to buy the stations themselves. They just sort of insist that any buyer(s) shouldn't change "their" stations.
I've read about the releasees. Apparently they are being tracked as they for the US. If they're being tracked, they can be identified.Did your source say how they are being tracked?
So, since he claims it was not wrong and that he didn't "do it," why would you trust that he wouldn't again just because he has not yet?
Why would you assume that he would do it again when he hasn't?
I would not trust that Trump, who says he didn't do anything wrong when taking documents, would not eventually repeat the same mistake again given the chance.... and he has not even been convicted yet.
Trump's a whole different story. I wouldn't trust him on any number of things.
However, said conservative Cuban American exiles appear to have made no
effort to buy the stations themselves. They just sort of insist that an
buyer(s) shouldn't change "their" stations.
Somehow the Latino Media Network found out that they were for sale.
I've read about the releasees. Apparently they are being tracked as theDid your source say how they are being tracked?
for the US. If they're being tracked, they can be identified.
No, but I assume it's by satellite, since they're monitoring them moving between countries.
People who maintain that they did nothing wrong, when they clearly did, have not learned their lesson. Only a naive person would trust that they'd never do it again, especially if they can profit from it.So, since he claims it was not wrong and that he didn't "do it," wh would you trust that he wouldn't again just because he has not yet?Why would you assume that he would do it again when he hasn't?
What this boils down to is that you trust people because you like their politics and don't trust others because you don't.I would not trust that Trump, who says he didn't do anything wrong taking documents, would not eventually repeat the same mistake agai given the chance.... and he has not even been convicted yet.Trump's a whole different story. I wouldn't trust him on any number of things.
Why would YOU assume that Trump would do it again when he hasn't? I
know why I would assume it... because he won't admit he did something wrong when he did it the first time.
Somehow the Latino Media Network found out that they were for sale.People in radio would have ways to find out. Unless you are in the business, you probably don't know they are for sale unless that fact somehow makes the local news.
How do you know who you are monitoring if they are not tagged somehow?No, but I assume it's by satellite, since they're monitoring them moving between countries.I've read about the releasees. Apparently they are being tracked theDid your source say how they are being tracked?
for the US. If they're being tracked, they can be identified.
I would not trust that Trump, who says he didn't do anything wrong when
taking documents, would not eventually repeat the same mistake again
given the chance.... and he has not even been convicted yet.
Trump's a whole different story. I wouldn't trust him on any number of things.
This morning on the news they said that the US government is MP>tellingall Americans to leave Russia so they won't be conscripted, MP>especially ones with dual citizenship.
Wise advice.
I wonder how Aaron would feel about refugees showing up at our border begging for asylum because their government is trying to make them
fight in a war they don't want any part of?
And how would that contrast with our own Vietnam-era "draft dodgers?"
So, since he claims it was not wrong and that he didn't "do it," why
would you trust that he wouldn't again just because he has not yet?
Why would you assume that he would do it again when he hasn't?
People who maintain that they did nothing wrong, when they clearly did, have not learned their lesson. Only a naive person would trust that they'd
never do it again, especially if they can profit from it.
I would not trust that Trump, who says he didn't do anything wrong
when taking documents, would not eventually repeat the same mistake
again given the chance.... and he has not even been convicted yet.
Trump's a whole different story. I wouldn't trust him on any number JT>ofthings.
What this boils down to is that you trust people because you like their politics and don't trust others because you don't.
Why would YOU assume that Trump would do it again when he hasn't?
I know why I would assume it...
because he won't admit he did something wrong when he did it the first time.
On 29 Sep 2022, Mike Powell said the following...
People who maintain that they did nothing wrong, when they clearly did, have not learned their lesson. Only a naive person would trust that they'd never do it again, especially if they can profit from it.So, since he claims it was not wrong and that he didn't "do it," wWhy would you assume that he would do it again when he hasn't?
would you trust that he wouldn't again just because he has not yet
If I got a ticket for speeding, but maintained that the traffic signs were confusing, and the court acknowledged that the signs were confusing but said that I was still speeding, and so reduced my fine, I might still claim that I was not speeding but after that experience might be more cautious about my speed in the future.
What this boils down to is that you trust people because you like their politics and don't trust others because you don't.I would not trust that Trump, who says he didn't do anything wrongTrump's a whole different story. I wouldn't trust him on any number of things.
taking documents, would not eventually repeat the same mistake aga
given the chance.... and he has not even been convicted yet.
No, it boils down to intent.
Why would YOU assume that Trump would do it again when he hasn't? I know why I would assume it... because he won't admit he did something wrong when he did it the first time.
Because he *did* do it again. It took multiple judicial actions to get all of the documents from him, if that was indeed all.
How do you know who you are monitoring if they are not tagged somehow?Did your source say how they are being tracked?No, but I assume it's by satellite, since they're monitoring them movin
between countries.
Apparently they've been tracking them since they left Venezuela. My guess is that they're traveling as a group.
But you were speeding, and ignorance of the law is no defense. That is one of the first things they teach you before you get your license.If I got a ticket for speeding, but maintained that the traffic signs we confusing, and the court acknowledged that the signs were confusing but that I was still speeding, and so reduced my fine, I might still claim t was not speeding but after that experience might be more cautious about speed in the future.Why would you assume that he would do it again when he hasn't?People who maintain that they did nothing wrong, when they clearly have not learned their lesson. Only a naive person would trust tha they'd never do it again, especially if they can profit from it.
Soros intended to make money and apparently didn't care if he wasNo, it boils down to intent.What this boils down to is that you trust people because you like t politics and don't trust others because you don't.I would not trust that Trump, who says he didn't do anything wrongTrump's a whole different story. I wouldn't trust him on any numb things.
taking documents, would not eventually repeat the same mista aga
given the chance.... and he has not even been convicted yet.
breaking the law in order to do so. He still believes he didn't break
the law.
He has also stated his intent about the time he became known as the guy who "broke the Bank of England." Do you think that intent is OK even though it had consequences for people that were not involved in overstating the worth of the British Pound? You know, like the everyday British citizen?
He has taken additional documents since this became public? That is news to me. I bet it would be news to Archives and the FBI, too... you'd best report it.Why would YOU assume that Trump would do it again when he hasn't? know why I would assume it... because he won't admit he did somethi wrong when he did it the first time.Because he *did* do it again. It took multiple judicial actions to get a the documents from him, if that was indeed all.
My point being that they are going to be difficult to keep track of, and differentiate from other migrants, if they don't have tracking devicesHow do you know who you are monitoring if they are not tagged somehApparently they've been tracking them since they left Venezuela. My gues that they're traveling as a group.
(or implanted agents) among them. There is probably nothing to force
them to stay together.
Apparently they've been tracking them since they left Venezuela. My gues that they're traveling as a group.
My point being that they are going to be difficult to keep track of, and differentiate from other migrants, if they don't have tracking devices
(or implanted agents) among them. There is probably nothing to force
them to stay together.
Who are YOU to say who has credibility? Specially when your a squatter with the Democratic party?Mike Powell wrote to REBECCA MARIE <=-
Trump's biggest voting bloc in 2016 were people who did not trust Hilla Clinton. When someone says the same thing over and over for 30 years, i eventually becomes part of the public consciousness. Leaders of the
In my case, it has nothing to do with what others said. It would be the things that Hillary said, did, and took credit for during those 3 years that let me know she cannot be trusted.
If you weren't within earshot of what Hillary said, or an eyewitness to what Hillary "did", then you are definitely listening to what others
said. My guess is that you heard what Hllary "said, did and took credit for" straight from conservative-leaning media. Rush Limbaugh? Fox News?
If you paid attention to other Democrats during the 2008 and 2016 primaries, you would know that it is not only Republican party leader
People get nasty during primaries. I will say one thing about the Republican party - at least, the Republican Party when Ronald Reagan was the leader - the Eleventh Commandment helped tone down the rhetoric
during primaries, something that Democratic candidates simply don't understand.
Using a private email server for government correspondence was only another example, feeding right into the fact that she is not trustworthy.
That is not a fact, that is an opinion. If you can find facts that back
up your opinion, then you'd have more credibility.
Jeff Thiele wrote to Rebecca Marie <=-
Al and I have been accused of being the same person, but we both can neither confirm nor deny it.
That said, I think Gregory and Aaron are two different people.
Wow! I think it's pretty amazing that you turned my short post into an opportunity to slag others. Bravo!
Gregory's posts are very wordy and condescending, using stilted Engli and capitalization rules known only to Gregory himself. My personal
I don't know why, but that made me giggle!
Sysop: | deepend |
---|---|
Location: | Calgary, Alberta |
Users: | 240 |
Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
Uptime: | 75:57:38 |
Calls: | 1,456 |
Files: | 3,353 |
Messages: | 358,066 |