Jump to content

Alternative Facts, Broken Promises & Wolves


DrmDoc
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is he really smart? I mean Donald Trump has really believed that Obama wasn't born in the USA.

 

Or the fact how he behaves doesn't seem very intelligent to me. Like the case where he attecked Arnold Schwarzenegger because of the show, although he was at a prayer event for antisemetism! Hu?

 

 

 

He won't be POTUS for a long time.

Edited by Der_Neugierige
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a recent poll people were asked:

"Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘the Bowling Green massacre shows why we need Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration?"

 

23% agreed, 57% disagreed, 20% not sure.

 

Among Trump voters: 51% agree. 23% disagree, 25% not sure

Clinton: 2% agree, 90% disagree, 8% not sure

Johnson: 6% agree, 55% disagree, 40% not sure

Stein: 3% agree, 50% disagree, 47% not sure

 

Party:

Democrat: A:7% D:83% N:10%

Republican: A:46% D:25% N:29%

Independent: A: 21% D: 56% N:23%

 

It is troubling that a made-up event can cause so much uncertainty...

 

Edit: wrong number.

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a recent poll people were asked:

"Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘the Bowling Green massacre shows why we need Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration?"

 

23% agreed, 57% disagreed, 20% not sure.

 

Among Trump voters: 51% agree. 23% disagree, 25% not sure

Clinton: 2% agree, 90% disagree, 8% not sure

Johnson: 6% agree, 55% disagree, 40% not sure

Stein: 3% agree, 50% disagree, 47% not sure

 

Party:

Democrat: A:23% D:83% N:10%

Republican: A:46% D:25% N:29%

Independent: A: 21% D: 56% N:23%

 

It is troubling that a made-up event can cause so much uncertainty...

 

Superb example of the alt-fact effect. Is there no cure for gullibility?

Edited by DrmDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Education, of course. Thank goodness we FINALLY have a supremely qualified Secretary of the Department of Education to help!

 

http://www.vox.com/2017/1/17/14304692/devos-confirmation-hearing-education

 

Don't remind me of that. I mean, what could possible go wrong with an entire for-profit education system with no accountability. Just look at the shining beacon of scholarly success that is the Trump University.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't remind me of that. I mean, what could possible go wrong with an entire for-profit education system with no accountability. Just look at the shining beacon of scholarly success that is the Trump University.

 

Growth business models won't stop at trying to educate to a standard. They can't stop, that's the point of growth. At some point, they'll need to grow by teaching more than their competitors, knowledge that must come from alternative sources. We're already seeing how much they're pushing the point of alternative facts.

 

Honestly, it always looked like the Republicans were purposely trying to make Americans stupid with all the pushback to public education they supported. I never understood how they thought that made us a stronger country.

 

Now it's beginning to look like it was just a wealth-driven gaslight to make them stupid enough to elect someone like this. It would be the ultimate Republican scam to wave the flag for so long, keeping it in our faces ALL THE TIME, and then suddenly flip and say WOW, those Russian leaders sure are admirable human beings! They'll do whatever it takes to get the job done! They NEVER get pushed around! Their government lets them grab whatever they want to! Morals are for fragile little snowflakes! It's might that makes us RIGHT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Growth business models won't stop at trying to educate to a standard. They can't stop, that's the point of growth. At some point, they'll need to grow by teaching more than their competitors, knowledge that must come from alternative sources. We're already seeing how much they're pushing the point of alternative facts.

 

 

That is not required for education, though, is it? I mean, instead of growth, they just need to decimate the competition, i.e. public schools. If the latter gets defunded they will look much better in comparison, if only for having computers and functioning toilets. The content becomes secondary at that point.

 

Edit: Reason being that everyone has to attend school.

Edited by CharonY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet more evidence that America has elected a wolf to its highest office. It seems that Trump's campaign had closer ties to Russian influence than Trump attested. Trump's campaign surrogates had frequent contact with Russian intelligence no less. Where is the indignation of the Republican electorate over this flagrant fraternization with America's staunches opponent on the world stage. Ron Reagan is most certainly rolling in his grave. It seems American has elected Russia's version of the Manchurian Candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-campaign-aides-had-repeated-contacts-with-russian-intelligence/ar-AAmWODE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

 

 

Law enforcement officials did not say to what extent the contacts may have been about business.

It is also unclear whether the conversations had anything to do with Mr. Trump himself.
A published report from American intelligence agencies that was made public in January concluded that the Russian government had intervened in the election in part to help Mr. Trump, but did not address whether any members of the Trump campaign had participated in the effort.
The F.B.I. has closely examined at least four other people close to Mr. Trump, although it is unclear if their calls were intercepted.
The F.B.I. has spent several months investigating the leads in the dossier, but has yet to confirm any of its most explosive allegations.

In other words, they have nothing.

 

So now you are counting on Comey? You folks crack me up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-campaign-aides-had-repeated-contacts-with-russian-intelligence/ar-AAmWODE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

 

In other words, they have nothing.

 

So now you are counting on Comey? You folks crack me up.

 

In the entire political history of American presidential campaigning, when was it ever necessary, appropriate or electorally favored to have contact or rumors of contact with Russian intelligence? Feel free to take your usual month or two to answer or not at all--some of us here have come to expect nothing less from those espousing unsupportable positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet more evidence that America has elected a wolf to its highest office. It seems that Trump's campaign had closer ties to Russian influence than Trump attested. Trump's campaign surrogates had frequent contact with Russian intelligence no less. Where is the indignation of the Republican electorate over this flagrant fraternization with America's staunches opponent on the world stage. Ron Reagan is most certainly rolling in his grave. It seems American has elected Russia's version of the Manchurian Candidate.

 

But were they using a secure email server?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In other words, they have nothing.

 

So now you are counting on Comey? You folks crack me up.

 

Apparently the law of the land means nothing to you... (except the 2nd Amendment, of course)

 

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799 ) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.

 

What part of "intercepted phone conversations" means nothing to you? It doesn't even matter what was said, the mere fact it happened is a crime in itself.

If a democrat did that, I'm sure you'd have your own thread with long winded screeds of your interpretation of evil liberalism and totalitarian regimes beating you down. Calling for prison, impeachment and banishment to Nod.

 

But a Republican did that, so no big deal, right?

Edited by rangerx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In the entire political history of American presidential campaigning, when was it ever necessary, appropriate or electorally favored to have contact or rumors of contact with Russian intelligence?

 

Well lets go back to your article.

 

 

Mr. Manafort, who has not been charged with any crimes, dismissed the accounts of the American officials in a telephone interview on Tuesday. “This is absurd,” he said. “I have no idea what this is referring to. I have never knowingly spoken to Russian intelligence officers, and I have never been involved with anything to do with the Russian government or the Putin administration or any other issues under investigation today.”

 

Mr. Manafort added, “It’s not like these people wear badges that say, ‘I’m a Russian intelligence officer.’”

 

So all you have is bad optics. Trump has been in office for less than a month. Plenty of time to recover from bad optics.

 

 

 

Apparently the law of the land means nothing to you... (except the 2nd Amendment, of course)

 

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799 ) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.

 

What part of "intercepted phone conversations" means nothing to you? It doesn't even matter what was said, the mere fact it happened is a crime in itself.

If a democrat did that, I'm sure you'd have your own thread with long winded screeds of your interpretation of evil liberalism and totalitarian regimes beating you down. Calling for prison, impeachment and banishment to Nod.

 

But a Republican did that, so no big deal, right?

 

So what exactly was "negotiated?" Until you have that, the Logan act does not apply. Yes intercepted phone conversations mean a lot to me. What authorization did the government have for tapping these phone conversations. What authorization did the government have in releasing this information? Without authorization that second question I'm sure is a felony. I think the FBI needs to find that person and send them to prison. The right to privacy is in the first amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well lets go back to your article.

 

 

So all you have is bad optics. Trump has been in office for less than a month. Plenty of time to recover from bad optics.

 

 

 

So what exactly was "negotiated?" Until you have that, the Logan act does not apply. Yes intercepted phone conversations mean a lot to me. What authorization did the government have for tapping these phone conversations. What authorization did the government have in releasing this information? Without authorization that second question I'm sure is a felony. I think the FBI needs to find that person and send them to prison. The right to privacy is in the first amendment.

If it happens in the context of government business, I would call it internal oversight rather than loss of 'personal' privacy. It's quite normal business practice to monitor employee behaviour when they are working. The intelligence and law enforcement agencies are the direct monitoring equivalent within the sphere of national government.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And intercepted emails?

Like the email, these intercepted phone calls might just impact future elections. Who knows, maybe even the mid term elections. See you then.

 

If it happens in the context of government business, I would call it internal oversight rather than loss of 'personal' privacy. It's quite normal business practice to monitor employee behaviour when they are working. The intelligence and law enforcement agencies are the direct monitoring equivalent within the sphere of national government.

Here in the US, I believe as a result of the patriot act, the government can intercept international phone calls but there are law prohibiting the release of the US citizens name, or their part of the conversation. Violating such laws are felonies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in the US, I believe as a result of the patriot act, the government can intercept international phone calls but there are law prohibiting the release of the US citizens name, or their part of the conversation. Violating such laws are felonies.

 

 

Ohh shit, the CIA's gonna pay; oh wait who now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So what exactly was "negotiated?" Until you have that, the Logan act does not apply. Yes intercepted phone conversations mean a lot to me. What authorization did the government have for tapping these phone conversations. What authorization did the government have in releasing this information? Without authorization that second question I'm sure is a felony. I think the FBI needs to find that person and send them to prison. The right to privacy is in the first amendment.

 

By that logic, only the third rate burglars of the Watergate Hotel should be imprisoned and Nixon should have never been impeached or resigned?

 

I don't need a ton of bricks to fall on my head to know a call from Flynn to a high level Russian ambassador was not to talk about the weather and exchange recipes. You're skirting a serious national security issue to defend a Republican by claiming no authorization exists, when you clearly have no idea, one way or the other. This is why there are investigations, hearings and legal procedures. Dismissal has no bearing on anything other than partisan politics. Period.

Edited by rangerx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Obama or Clinton had done 1/20th what we're seeing here, our hypocritical friends would be tying a noose for a lynching and lighting fires while carrying pitchforks.

 

As of today, here's what we actually know and what this is all about: http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/15/14620560/trump-flynn-russia-campaign

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

By that logic, only the third rate burglars of the Watergate Hotel should be imprisoned and Nixon should have never been impeached or resigned?

 

I don't need a ton of bricks to fall on my head to know a call from Flynn to a high level Russian ambassador was not to talk about the weather and exchange recipes. You're skirting a serious national security issue to defend a Republican by claiming no authorization exists, when you clearly have no idea, one way or the other. This is why there are investigations, hearings and legal procedures. Dismissal has no bearing on anything other than partisan politics. Period.

You see in the US we have this legal requirement that people are innocent until proven guilty. Maybe you have heard of it. Waste you time with investigations, hearings, and legal procedures. You haven't slowed Trump down yet. I don't think you are going to, particularly when you have nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see in the US we have this legal requirement that people are innocent until proven guilty. Maybe you have heard of it. Waste you time with investigations, hearings, and legal procedures. You haven't slowed Trump down yet. I don't think you are going to, particularly when you have nothing.

 

When did I say anything about Trump? Seeing how you mentioned him, his National Security advisor stepped down yesterday for being a liar and last week had his ass handed to him for issuing an unconstitutional executive order. Sounds like checked and balanced to me, in other words... slowed down.

 

Better yet, none of those actions had anything to do with me or my opinion.

 

Call it what you like, but alternate facts don't impress me much. It says more about the person saying them than those listening.

Edited by rangerx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What authorization did the government have for tapping these phone conversations. What authorization did the government have in releasing this information? Without authorization that second question I'm sure is a felony. I think the FBI needs to find that person and send them to prison. The right to privacy is in the first amendment.

 

The patriot act, for one. Executive order 12333 for another. Communication going outside the US has been monitored for some time now.

 

Where in the first amendment does it mention privacy? I always thought that was understood to be implied by the fourth amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well lets go back to your article.

 

So all you have is bad optics. Trump has been in office for less than a month. Plenty of time to recover from bad optics.

 

As expected, you completely ignored my question and answered one of your own creation. Essentially, I asked when is it ever appropriate for members of a presidential campaign staff to have continual contact with Russian officials, intelligence or otherwise? I await what will probably be a spectacularly disingenuous response.

 

You see in the US we have this legal requirement that people are innocent until proven guilty. Maybe you have heard of it.

 

Convenient; where was this particular sentiment during your discussions of Hillary's emails? C'mon, you don't really believe in that requirement, do you?

Edited by DrmDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.