Donald Trump 2019

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Secret court overseeing a surveillance program that is based on gross 4th amendment violations says its all OK people. Nothing to see here. The left has moved on. 

The fourth amendment has been dead for some time and it has nothing to do with secret courts, fisa warrants and trumpy bears. 

Are you seriously just now staring to realize that? Well. Ok. Been going on for decades. 

Welcome to the party pal! 

[Anastasis 23717]

4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Yeah, I like Anastasis as a poster for the most part, but I would like to see him clarify this a bit more. Ana - you seem to sort of parlay the fact that you believe that kind of surveillance should not be legal (which I agree with) into a belief that the Democrats ran a corrupt witch hunt on Trump. It's like that episode of South Park with the gnomes that steal underwear.  There's a step missing:

 1) I believe FISA wiretaps and whatnot shouldn't be legal in their current form

2) ???

3) Witch hunt!!

 

What's step 2? I know you're a smart guy so I'm a bit confused by the way you seem to connect two things that aren't really related when it comes to Trump.

I don't think that I have ever framed this as "Democrats ran a corrupt witch hunt on Trump".  I don't think that you will find that formulation in one of my posts, but if you do, I will address it when you bring it to my attention. What I believe is that the surveillance apparatus developed by the intelligence community in this country is unconstitutional, has been abused in the past, and is ripe for future abuse. In particular given the history of the FBI wrt domestic political interference, and the CIA wrt international interference in the democratic process, I think that a heightened level of scrutiny is appropriate when their activities intersect with the political process.  In fact, the actions of the FBI were the single most influential events, outside the direct actions of the campaigns, impacting the outcome of the US election. I think that is problematic. Further I think it likely that abuses in terms of procedures and processes intended to protect American citizens took place.  So yeah, I am going to call that to attention.  Admittedly, ad nauseum. 

[Anastasis 23717]

30 minutes ago, Chooky said:

It's interpretation, my brother.  Bush W's group just ignored FISA warrants and pursued domestic surveillance without a warrant.  They got caught and lied about it.  I'm not making a "both sides" equivocation argument.  You might know more about it.  But to me, FISA courts seem fairly rational, meaning you can begin an investigation, continue without approval, but ultimately be told whether or not your domestic surveillance can be used in court.  Even a disagreement that you're not using it in a legally sound manor doesn't mean you have to abandon the investigation.  In the era of religious extremism I can see how some might find that a rational approach.  I'm not locked into that opinion, though.  I'm open to another interpretation, because there are a thousand ways it can get shady.  Also, it might be effective if used by honorable people, too.  But who decides that?  It seems like it can used to stop something as important as an impending attack and also used as something frivolous to get a leg up on your buddy's next business merger.  I'd use it to find out the most efficient path to banging your wife, so I definitely couldn't be trusted with it.    

Let me clue you in Chooky.  Eat that mother fucking pussy like it is the sustenance of life on this planet. If you can do that part right, the world is your oyster. There are no more inhibitions. 

 

ETA: Oh, and Mexican martinis. I note at this point that I am out of cocktail olives at the moment. 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Anastasis

[BradInATX 9208]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that I have ever framed this as "Democrats ran a corrupt witch hunt on Trump".  I don't think that you will find that formulation in one of my posts, but if you do, I will address it when you bring it to my attention. What I believe is that the surveillance apparatus developed by the intelligence community in this country is unconstitutional, has been abused in the past, and is ripe for future abuse. In particular given the history of the FBI wrt domestic political interference, and the CIA wrt international interference in the democratic process, I think that a heightened level of scrutiny is appropriate when their activities intersect with the political process.  In fact, the actions of the FBI were the single most influential events, outside the direct actions of the campaigns, impacting the outcome of the US election. I think that is problematic. Further I think it likely that abuses in terms of procedures and processes intended to protect American citizens took place.  So yeah, I am going to call that to attention.  Admittedly, ad nauseum. 

So your general outlook is that while what Obama and his DOJ did was within the framework of the law as it stands currently, they acted in bad faith and a bit shady?

But you're perfectly okay with Trump's interaction with Russia, which irregardless of whether or not it's prosecute-able or illegal to beyond a reasonable doubt, was very undeniably, by anybody on any side, in bad faith and shady?

Edited May 4, 2019 by BradInATX

[retread 2951]

Did the US President yuk it up today with the President of Russia about how they collaborated in meddling in the '16 election and how they didn't get caught (yet)? Did the US President also refuse to bring up '16 meddling or future '20 meddling b/c he purportedly believes Putin over our intelligence communities findings? Checking to make sure that really happened.

[Anastasis 23717]

Just now, BradInATX said:

So your general outlook is that while what Obama and his DOJ dad was within the framework of the law as it stands currently, they acted in bad faith and a bit shady?

But you're perfectly okay with Trump's interaction with Russia, which irregardless of whether or not it's prosecute-able, was very undeniably, by anybody on any side, in bad faith and shady?

I think that Trump should be impeached based on the information contained in Vol 2. As far as interactions with Russia, I think that he should have been removed from office after Helsinki. I think that politics is dirty business, and that opposition research is part of the game. I think that smart candidates buffer themselves through a screen of lawyers from the dirty work. I think that buffoons operate like amateurs. I think that I would like to keep a strong barrier between political reindeer games and the surveillance state. 

[BradInATX 9208]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that Trump should be impeached based on the information contained in Vol 2. As far as interactions with Russia, I think that he should have been removed from office after Helsinki. I think that politics is dirty business, and that opposition research is part of the game. I think that smart candidates buffer themselves through a screen of lawyers from the dirty work. I think that buffoons operate like amateurs. I think that I would like to keep a strong barrier between political reindeer games and the surveillance state. 

Got it. I guess I just see you going around frequently giving people a hard time for still f'ing the Mueller report chicken or whatever and just assumed that you're okay with what Trump did. 

[4th&Five 42004]

 

[Anastasis 23717]

Just now, BradInATX said:

Got it. I guess I just see you going around frequently giving people a hard time for still f'ing the Mueller report chicken or whatever and just assumed that you're okay with what Trump did. 

I don't think that I have pushed back much on perspectives here re: Vol 2. I staked out the "Trump campaign was too dysfunctional to coordinate with themselves much less Russia" angle early on, and spent a good deal of time laughing and poking at the various idiocies spun up here along the way. I don't think that Russia is the problem, I think that our political dysfunction is the real problem. A lot of very disappointed posters here with unfulfilled expectations don't like that.  

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

14 minutes ago, retread said:

Did the US President yuk it up today with the President of Russia about how they collaborated in meddling in the '16 election and how they didn't get caught (yet)? Did the US President also refuse to bring up '16 meddling or future '20 meddling b/c he purportedly believes Putin over our intelligence communities findings? Checking to make sure that really happened.

Yes. The collusion and obstruction are ongoing and happening in plain sight. Trump gave Putin a nod and a wink and signaled his tacit approval of further Russian meddling. He's got his stooge of an AG to protect him. The fix is in. 

[retread 2951]

19 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Yes. The collusion and obstruction are ongoing and happening in plain sight. Trump gave Putin a nod and a wink and signaled his tacit approval of further Russian meddling. He's got his stooge of an AG to protect him. The fix is in. 

Maybe there's a better way to describe it, but it seems like most everyone in DC is just playing games these days. No governing.

Ms Lindsey is floating a hook in front of Mueller asking if he wants to send a note over refuting any of Barr's testimony. Nadler is giving Barr *one* more chance to release the supporting info in the report. He's mainly doing that to help his argument when all of this goes to court.

Ignatius Trump sits in the WH watching Fox all day and drinking Diet Cokes. When Congress asks for something, he says NO! When they subpoena for the information, he sues them.

What a way to run a country.

Edited May 4, 2019 by retread

[bolverk 30323]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that I have pushed back much on perspectives here re: Vol 2. I staked out the "Trump campaign was too dysfunctional to coordinate with themselves much less Russia" angle early on, and spent a good deal of time laughing and poking at the various idiocies spun up here along the way. I don't think that Russia is the problem, I think that our political dysfunction is the real problem. A lot of very disappointed posters here with unfulfilled expectations don't like that.  

I think we all recognize that there's a great deal of "political dysfunction" within our two party system. What gets under my skin is your lack of acknowledgement that a) an historical adversary took advantage of that dysfunction and b) ONE SIDE expected, asked for, welcomed, and used that help to win an election.

Moreover, in spite of all the evidence that this actually took place, you called folks trying to suss out the truth "conspiratorial lunatics" because there is insufficient evidence to prove every detail or that some claims didn't pan out.

In other words, you deny the existence of the forest because a few trees are dead and then you mock people for not having 20/20 eyesight.

[jimmyjazz 47179]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

I’m trying to decide whether or not he doesn’t understand the first amendment, is just trolling, or both. 

Fully half this country, if not a solid majority, does not understand what the 1st Amendment says.  By association we know that includes Trump, as his immunity to the truth is only slightly superseded by his belief that he's always the smartest guy in the room.  At least this way we get a few things to laugh at each day.

[4th&Five 42004]

Focused as always. 

 

[jimmyjazz 47179]

36 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think that I have pushed back much on perspectives here re: Vol 2. I staked out the "Trump campaign was too dysfunctional to coordinate with themselves much less Russia" angle early on, and spent a good deal of time laughing and poking at the various idiocies spun up here along the way. I don't think that Russia is the problem, I think that our political dysfunction is the real problem. A lot of very disappointed posters here with unfulfilled expectations don't like that.  

No, we disagree with that.  Russia is a BIG problem and Trump's clear desire to court them so as to increase his power base is a BIG problem.  The fact that you don't see it that way is an indictment of your perspective, and frankly, your intellect (or apparent lack thereof).

[retread 2951]

Quote

George Papadopoulos to @seanhannity

Well that settles it.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

Well, don't turn him in until I get my dinner and picture with President Trump, God bless him and his salty sailor soul!

well then you best get your shit together soon, SEAN...

[Chuckie Finster 23067]

Remember when Trumpkins were saying he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for solving North Korea? Good times, you fucking morons.

 

[Chooky 13340]

49 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

[Chooky 13340]

6 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

Hahaha.  Private prisons are feeling the hit of not being able to incentivize putting Americans in concrete boxes for marijuana convictions and are pivoting to warehousing the browns with the help of high profile connections.  Lock Us Up!  Lock Us Up!  Lock Us Up!  Wait, Lock Them Up!  Hold On A Second, Lock Them Up And Not Us!  Yeah, Lock THEM Up!  Lock THEM Up!

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565318778/big-money-as-private-immigrant-jails-boom

[Post Oak 20564]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Couldn't get Dan Walters?  What kinda operation you running up the Trump?

 

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Why is that old man yelling at me?

[Anastasis 23717]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

I think we all recognize that there's a great deal of "political dysfunction" within our two party system. What gets under my skin is your lack of acknowledgement that a) an historical adversary took advantage of that dysfunction and b) ONE SIDE expected, asked for, welcomed, and used that help to win an election.

Moreover, in spite of all the evidence that this actually took place, you called folks trying to suss out the truth "conspiratorial lunatics" because there is insufficient evidence to prove every detail or that some claims didn't pan out.

In other words, you deny the existence of the forest because a few trees are dead and then you mock people for not having 20/20 eyesight.

I have acknowledged for some time now that Russia took advantage of our dysfunction by posting memes on facebook and revealing the corrupted inner workings of our political apparatus through the fruits of phishing attacks. Your assessment of the impact on the results of the election is of course flawed. I have addressed that previously. The actions of the Director of the FBI was the single greatest external influence on the outcome of the 2016 election. Your inability to recognize the hysterical lunatics over the last few years is perhaps an indictment of your own lack of self awareness.  But please, tell me more about forest and trees.   

[EuroHorn 3295]

I guess we better hope that the economy tanks...

[hobbes2702 13472]

1 minute ago, EuroHorn said:

I guess we better hope that the economy tanks...

Maybe he will just adopt some socialist policies to help if it does. You know like with the farmers he had to bail out because of his own shitty ideas. So socialism good? I haz confused?

[RPM 26625]

3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

His name isn't mentioned in the Constitution so he never read it. 

Very jealous of Hancocks sig and they won't let him add his to it.

[jimmyjazz 47179]

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I have acknowledged for some time now that Russia took advantage of our dysfunction by posting memes on facebook and revealing the corrupted inner workings of our political apparatus through the fruits of phishing attacks. Your assessment of the impact on the results of the election is of course flawed. I have addressed that previously.

Oh, well, that puts a bow on it.  Anastasis has addressed it previously.

Could you be more pompous?

Let's not ignore the facts here, Totes Norms:  Russia hacked state and local election entities as well as companies in the business of developing and manufacturing election software/hardware.

I realize "you addressed this" . . . oh wait, you haven't . . . BUT THE FUCKING MUELLER REPORT DID.

[Anastasis 23717]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh, well, that puts a bow on it.  Anastasis has addressed it previously.

Could you be more pompous?

Let's not ignore the facts here, Totes Norms:  Russia hacked state and local election entities as well as companies in the business of developing and manufacturing election software/hardware.

 I realize "you addressed this" . . . oh wait, you haven't . . . BUT THE FUCKING MUELLER REPORT DID.

24 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Your assessment of the impact on the results of the election is of course flawed. I have addressed that previously. The actions of the Director of the FBI was the single greatest external influence on the outcome of the 2016 election.

Don't believe me, talk to Nate Dogg.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23717]

Oh, and the answer is "yes". 

[jimmyjazz 47179]

You can't even construe two coherent thoughts.  How deep in the bourbon are you?

You literally just summarized Russia's efforts at election meddling as memes and phishing.  Presented with the counterargument that no, they did a helluva lot more (much of which has already made it through the courts) your "counterargument" is your typical trollish posting of (a) an opinion, which certainly could be true in terms of what was the straw that broke the camel's back and (b) a media clip.

You just can't help yourself.  You couldn't #bothsides if I spotted you every Hillary talking point.  

I don't know what it's like to have a completely busted moral compass, but I'd audit your seminar.  It would at least give me a checklist for what to look out for.

[Anastasis 23717]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You literally just summarized Russia's efforts at election meddling as memes and phishing. 

I learned it by reading the Mueller report: 

"First, the Office determined that Russia's two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election-the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations violated U.S. criminal law."

[jimmyjazz 47179]

I don't think that says what you think it says.

[RomaVicta 30579]

2 hours ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

 

well then you best get your shit together soon, SEAN...

 

Jealous that you're not on a first name basis with the great man. I'll meet him at KFC in New Orleans and it'll be all, "Well, hello SEAN." "Nice to see you, Donald."

THEN. A. PICTURE. WITH. HIM.

[Anastasis 23717]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think that says what you think it says.

Maybe try this one?

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents.

[bolverk 30323]

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I have acknowledged for some time now that Russia took advantage of our dysfunction by posting memes on facebook and revealing the corrupted inner workings of our political apparatus through the fruits of phishing attacks. Your assessment of the impact on the results of the election is of course flawed. I have addressed that previously. The actions of the Director of the FBI was the single greatest external influence on the outcome of the 2016 election. Your inability to recognize the hysterical lunatics over the last few years is perhaps an indictment of your own lack of self awareness.  But please, tell me more about forest and trees.   

There you go again with the gaslighting by choosing carefully selected words in an attempt to minimize the Kremlin-sponsored cyberwarfare campaign to turn the election that Mueller described as "sweeping and systematic" comprised of a great deal more than "memes on facebook" and downplaying the effects that it might have had on either swaying a tiny fraction to change their votes or dissuading some from voting altogether, which was all that was needed.

To call those being concerned that this happened, and is still happening, "hysterical lunatics" is an insult to both your and my intelligence, which leads me to believe that you're being entirely disingenuous and are wholly corrupt with intent in making this argument. It is you who lacks the self-awareness that you're lost in the forest. Turn away from diddling Gretel for a moment and look for the breadcrumbs of truth to lead you out of it.

[wildcat09 29579]

11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

There you go again with the gaslighting by choosing carefully selected words in an attempt to minimize the Kremlin-sponsored cyberwarfare campaign to turn the election that Mueller described as "sweeping and systematic" comprised of a great deal more than "memes on facebook" and downplaying the effects that it might have had on either swaying a tiny fraction to change their votes or dissuading some from voting altogether, which was all that was needed.

To call those being concerned that this happened, and is still happening, "hysterical lunatics" is an insult to both your and my intelligence, which leads me to believe that you're being entirely disingenuous and are wholly corrupt with intent in making this argument. It is you who lacks the self-awareness that you're lost in the forest. Turn away from diddling Gretel for a moment and look for the breadcrumbs of truth to lead you out of it.

[atomheartbevo 90642]

Another dozen tweets and retweets in an hour.   Once again, he’s scared of something.  

Maybe he’s worried that he can’t win without Facebook.  

[Anastasis 23717]

46 minutes ago, bolverk said:

To call those being concerned that this happened, and is still happening, "hysterical lunatics" is an insult to both your and my intelligence, which leads me to believe that you're being entirely disingenuous and are wholly corrupt with intent in making this argument.

Go back and read the context that I used the term "conspiracy lunatics" in.  It was used to refer to specifically to the posters who gassed this board with right out nonsense for 2+ years. I don't think that I am even capable of providing a full accounting of the nonsense, but it ranges from Papadopoulos has got Trump on a wire to the Marshal of the Supreme Court serving AF1 to Mueller puts Cohen in Prague, etc. Be honest with yourself bolverk, there was a shit load of fucking nonsense propagated here. Most of it filtering straight and uncut from the brainless political twatter sphere. I used the term in the context of pointing out the lack of self-accountability by the posters who trafficked knee deep in that shit.  Maybe the use in that context triggers you, that is something you need to work through for yourself. I didn't really have you specifically in mind when I penned it. But now, you take that term and apply it to a very different group of people, those who are "concerned that this happened", and throw it back to me as an insult to your intelligence. And to boot, call me disingenuous and question my intent in the process. No mirrors in your world?

Edited May 4, 2019 by Anastasis

[4th&Five 42004]

Just tweeting out info wars. Nbd. 

 

[bolverk 30323]

30 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Go back and read the context that I used the term "conspiracy lunatics" in.  It was used to refer to specifically to the posters who gassed this board with right out nonsense for 2+ years. I don't think that I am even capable of providing a full accounting of the nonsense, but it ranges from Papadopoulos has got Trump on a wire to the Marshal of the Supreme Court serving AF1 to Mueller puts Cohen in Prague, etc. Be honest with yourself bolverk, there was a shit load of fucking nonsense propagated here. Most of it filtering straight and uncut from the brainless political twatter sphere. I used the term in the context of pointing out the lack of self-accountability by the posters who trafficked knee deep in that shit.  Maybe the use in that context triggers you, that is something you need to work through for yourself. I didn't really have you specifically in mind when I penned it. But now, you take that term and apply it to a very different group of people, those who are "concerned that this happened", and throw it back to me as an insult to your intelligence. And to boot, call me disingenuous and question my intent in the process. No mirrors in your world?

Dude, I'll let it go when you acknowledge that the Trump campaign wanted, expected, and received assistance from Putin. You're smart enough to know it's true. I'm not triggered - just dumbfounded by your inability to say "yes, that happened."

[4th&Five 42004]

Your Russian asset president. 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

He is such a traitor. 

[HenryJames 67343]

 

[Anastasis 23717]

21 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Dude, I'll let it go when you acknowledge that the Trump campaign wanted, expected, and received assistance from Putin. You're smart enough to know it's true. I'm not triggered - just dumbfounded by your inability to say "yes, that happened."

Let what go?  Your disingenuous misrepresentation of my words in a weak effort to score rhetorical points because your pussy is hurt.  You should let that go without precondition. 

I have shared my assessment of the Russian influence campaign, Trump, and the individuals associated with his campaign numerous times. I have shared the multiple bases for which I believe he should be removed from office here on this thread. If you want to take it back up once again, we can do so on the Mueller thread.  But as you can probably anticipate, it will take a little more than three words for me to roll out my assessment. 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Anastasis

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[retread 2951]

44 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

He is such a traitor. 

Obama/Clinton would have been impeached after Helsinki, if not before.

[brown water 3788]

14 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Dang. Wouldn’t ya know it? Old trumpy bear isn’t all that consistent on his views.

The guy is easier to read than a kindergarten coloring book. 

He’s absolutely consistent

1. Things he likes = great

2.  Things he doesn’t like = fake / illegal 

3.  Any particular person or issue can switch between 1 and 2 depending on his mood at a given time

[David Dennison 19537]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

Just tweeting out info wars. Nbd. 

 

The ad for fake boner pills in the bottom of the screen is so Alex Jones. 

Edited May 4, 2019 by David Dennison

[Bojack 2091]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

Your Russian asset president. 

 

Helsinki has been normalized.  I probably won't hear about this anywhere else today or next week.  This is the President, again being friendlier with dictators than he ever is with our democratic allies.  Once again, he attacks American law enforcement and free press.  

Putin, MBS, Duterte, President for life Xi, Bolsonaro, Kim. Have we ever had a President that was this openly friendly with authoritarians? 

[David Dennison 19537]

3 minutes ago, Bojack said:

Helsinki has been normalized.  I probably won't hear about this anywhere else today or next week.  This is the President, again being friendlier with dictators than he ever is with our democratic allies.  Once again, he attacks American law enforcement and free press.  

Putin, MBS, Duterte, President for life Xi, Bolsonaro, Kim. Have we ever had a President that was this openly friendly with authoritarians? 

When it serves our interests, yes. When it doesn't, we put on our mean face.