Politics 2017 Act 6

[redneckdevil]

https://youtu.be/O4X-8REYtLc

[Chilloutman]

Yeah Bush - started war based on false info about weapons of mass destruction

Obama - won Nobel prize without even doing anything yet, used directives more often than WC, supported terrorist during Arab spring

Clinton - started war in Iraq

Trump - he is mean, muh huh - worst president ewa

[Gfted1]

In the never ending cycle of "how to make this story more fantastical than the last", it appears our most benevolent leaker and world hero revealed the “most valuable source of information on external plotting by Islamic State.”.

[Pidesco]

Trump ran a smart campaign and focused on the right states, that's really all there was to it. The voting numbers look surprisingly similar to 2012, so the idea that huge swaths of the country were suddenly fed up is a bit overdramatic. Trump was able to strategically turn some states and it worked out in his favor.

 

That being said, I have higher expectations for how the President will act than I do the media. George W. Bush was treated unfairly by the media in many circumstances, but he handled it very differently. It's a bad look, but this shouldn't be a surprise. Trump has a long history of this type of behavior, I doubt he is going to change now. It's going to be an ugly term.

 

I don't think the Trump campaign did much during the run up other than winging it as much as they could. Trump's victory was as much a surprise to him as to the rest of the world.

[Blarghagh]

I misread "winging it" as "whining" and that made much more sense.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

That's all well and good but the media was always a bunch of biased muckrackers, even back to the days of the beginning of your country. The mainstream media is continuing as it always was, sometimes good, sometimes bad but most times just mediocre. Trump as President was the result of a weird confluence of factors, the strongest of all being the subprime financial crisis, but also the cult of celebrity, the increased awareness of underlying prejudices in society, the rise of internet powered extremists, the hard partisan divide, demographics, the electoral college, the slanted perception of crime and terrorism, the return of fascism as a relevant political force, and more things that haven't crossed my mind, right now.

 

One could argue that the pivotal event leading to the Trump Presidency was Comey's shenanigans a week before the election, but really, Trump shouldn't even have made it out of the escalator, much less the Republican primaries or the actual Presidential campaign.

 

You all that is true to an extent. But I really believe the biggest factor in electing Trump was the absence of a viable alternative. If the Democrats had nominated nearly anyone else (except Sanders, that s--t will never fly in the US as a whole) We would have a congress in control of one party and executive in the control of the other and we'd all be sleeping better. Hillary Clinton and all the baggage that came with her was a nonstarter. I mean she lost Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Democrats don't lose those states. She nearly lost Minnesota. Even Mondale won Minnesota. It was the only State he won. So for all of Trumps flaws, Clinton was equally flawed. And the voters were facing a choice of SoS or something different. 

 

Unless they were smart. The smart ones said "to hell with both of you" and voted 3rd party.

 

 

 

I know that saying all the GOP/DNC candidates are pretty much the same is your thing, but that was always obviously not true about Trump and is, incredibly, becoming even more blatantly obvious as time passes. I don't see a candidate the Democrats could have put up that would be massively better President than Trump. That was also true of the candidates that the GOP put up against Trump in the primaries, as terrible as that field was.

 

What Trump was, was a huge litmus test of partisanship in American politics. Once a upon a time you could say something along the lines of the following, albeit without evidence: "Republican voters would vote for their party even if Justin Bieber/Carrot Top/Donald Trump/Kim Kardashian/Paris Hilton was the nominee". well, now there's evidence, and I think the same is true of Democrats. Hell, if you could have magically exchanged the nominees in the last election, I'm pretty sure the end result would have differed very little in terms of the popular vote.

 

I don't think I agree with that last part. There are plenty of decent candidates that did run for the Republicans and could have run for the Democrats.

 

This is purely my own opinion here so take that for what it's worth but I do think I'm pretty well read on there things:

 

For the Democrats these candidates should have performed better than Clinton nationally:

• James Webb US Senator VA: Smart, practical, level headed and good name recognition. US Army Vet. He wasn't socialist enough to get traction in the primaries but would have shown well vs Trump. He has no negative baggage.
• Brian Schweitzer Governor of Montana: Big advocate of Federalism, He's likable with a good record or states rights and workers rights as well as practical environmental regulation. The quintessential Jacksonian Democrat. But he's anti-gun control so the national Democrats won't have him. They don't tolerate dissent on any issue.
• Tulsi Gabbard US Rep HI. The DNC showed her the door when she endorsed Sanders (dissent on any issue will not be tolerated by the DNC) but she has a clean record, military service, opposed the TPP and sequestration, and bank bailouts. She should be the rising star of the Democrat Party but they won't have her.
• Corey Booker US Senator NJ: Centrist Democrat with a reputation for working with opposition party. Of everyone on this list he's be the most likely to make deals and compromises to accomplish goals. He has some great ideas about tax free enterprise zones to rejuvenate inner cities. His gun control advocacy would hurt him in flyover country.

Republicans. The thing that helped Trump the most is the number of candidates in the Republican field. Trump was not winning primaries by majority. He just was getting more because support was spread so thin among all the others. Take away Rubio, Kasich, & Cruz (or any combination of 3 prior to Super Tuesday) and it's likey Trump would not have been nominated. Trump is president today in large part because a few GOP candidates didn't "take one for the team" and bow out so support could coalesce around one of the others.

• Rand Paul US Senator KY: OK, this was my choice. If he won the nomination I'd have voted for him. I did donate to his campaign during the primaries. He's more in the traditional Republican mold than his father is, but still has a strong libertarian streak. Of all the candidates he would have been the biggest advocate for fiscal responsibility.
• Nikki Haley US Ambassador to UN: Think Sarah Palin with a brain. She checks the conservative box without being a fanatic and a four year stint as UN ambassador will giver foreign policy cred. But she could have gone on the strength of a successful term as governor of SC.
• Marco Rubio US Senate FL: There is nothing wrong with Rubio. For some reason he was never able to get his campaign in gear. I think he was focusing on defeating Clinton when he should have been focusing on Trump. But nationally he would have performed better to the general electorate than he did to the primary.
• Tim Scott US Senate SC: OK, this one is a bit of a reach because he's still light on electoral experience but he's the balance between fiscal conservative and social liberal that general election voters would gravitate to.

Put any of those Democrats vs Trump or any of those Republicans vs Clinton and I think they would have won a general election.

[Gorgon]

The term 'mainstream media' doesn't mean much anymore. Isn't it largely cable TV news outlets struggling for relevance, they are not quite competent enough to survive purely on the quality of their journalism, that's a rarity now surely, and they are not quite interesting enough on their own merits. So they create the story if it doesn't exist already. Lots of feigned outrage, that'll surely get them talking. 

 

News reporting is supposed to be dispassionate and accurate before it is anything else. 

 

The whole Russia thing only exists because it's such an obvious Republican weak spot. There is a lot to be gained from a Democrat position in steadily poking at that scab whenever the opportunity arises. 

[Meshugger]

In the never ending cycle of "how to make this story more fantastical than the last", it appears our most benevolent leaker and world hero revealed the “most valuable source of information on external plotting by Islamic State.”.

 

Ok, that was even more hilarious than i expected.

[redneckdevil]

Am I missing something? Did he tell the Russians how to track Islamic plans to blow up commercial planes?

[Gromnir]

 

 

Wait....so the media can attack you all day long and thats fine, but if u attack back, your in the wrong?

Lets not kid ourselves here, they both asking for this and both deserve this. Established media is turning itself off to people and people are terrified of it and don't even trust the media anymore. After it blatantly tried to manipulate the public, Trump is the cause of our media. Unfortunately we selected a ****ed up answer to a ****ed up problem and so we have Trump for president.

Cause and effect, they made for each other, 2 dumpster fires that can't stop trying to burn the other one.

 

So a middle finger to Trump AND our media, Trump's a piece of **** and our media isn't a shining beacon anymore when it lets biasedness stop it from airing info because it could hurt "political party" or providing undistorted facts.

Red, trust me there are several important lessons I have learnt about how to have a healthy, positive and sustainable lifestyle

 

If you a politician you cannot make the media your enemy for no reasonable reason. He was criticizing the media back in the days when he needed to win the Republican presidential candidacy, it was unprecedented and as I said he has absolutely made enemies of numerous media institutions

 

He was under the mistaken impression that a man can be greater than the global media, its not likely. Anyone in the public limelight can have a good and respectful relationship with the media, the onus is on them as the media is generally not hard to understand or rationalize

Trump attacking the media was one of the few things I could get behind with him.

Let me ask you some questions, is the USA media honest and unbiased? Are you okay with media NOT being nuetral? Are you okay with the media being nothing more than political propaganda machines, where truth is sacrificed or twisted by both sides?

 

this is the thing the new alt-right and the hard lefts and professional political victims has managed to sell: the media is 'posed to be "unbiased" and "neutral." how does such a goal even make sense to people when we is 'posed to have Free press?  americans is free to voice opinions and rage 'gainst folks in washington and sacramento. you want press to be free, but only to speak objective truth? until recent, most americans woulda' wholehearted agreed that press should be free o' government entanglement.  free press is no less a fundamental freedom than free exercise o' religion and speech. what changed? press is free, but only so long as they is unbiased?  who decides neutral?  who decides unbiased?  the government?  when did we lose our way?

 

our press has always been biased.  our press has always advocated. is nothing new. lincoln were so enraged with the interference o' a free press, he actual did what trump asked comey to do: he arrested journalists. lincoln sent his thugs on nighttime raids and imprisoned large numbers o' antagonist journalists.  recall those scenes from v for vendetta? doesn't get too much coverage in our history books.  regardless, lincoln were incensed with journalists not 'cause they were unbiased and neutral and spreading difficult truth but rather 'cause they were frequent part o' an active campaign to smear his efforts. one can sympathize with lincoln, but his actions insofar as the press and habeas corpus (and a long list o' other stuff) were unconstitutional.

 

you were never promised neutral or unbiased press.  we don't want neutral or unbiased 'cause only way to ensure is with government intervention, no?  got opposite o' free press if neutrality is enforced.  

 

recent.  am not certain when things changed, but were recent.  sure, we has always had folks angry 'bout journalistic biases, but the rage were directed at individual journalists.  don't like the chicago tribune?  read sun times instead. with all the different news outlets available, all reporting the same events, the facts tend to be reported accurate... or at least that were the reasonable understanding until the now times.  washington post or cnn would look ridiculous if they reported how kravspekistan had invaded montenaranga when in fact it were the other way around and every other news outlet reported correct.  

 

...

 

reasonable has gone out the window.  the belief in a ubiquitous conspiracy o' journalists has folks actual placing greater trust in the fringe and outlier news sources.  reasoning goes thus: if all the mainstream media is in on the fix, then the only folks worthy o' belief is the journalists who is telling a different story.  is all backwards and upside-down. instead o' looking for the consensus facts from reputable sources, many folks is actual seeing greater legitimacy from the fringe.  

 

regardless, a free press necessarily precludes an unbiased or neutral press.  axiomatic.  you is gonna get largely accurate press 'cause o' the natural forces at work with a functioning "marketplace of ideas," but just as bob and trudy can look at living conditions in gaza and cheap labor in southeast asia with wholly different pov, so will news outlets. is costs o' freedom.  is a cost we is more than willing to pay, even if is, at times, frustrating. free religion means we get wacky cults. free speech means we get folks burning koran/bible/torah. free press means we get breitbart.  gotta accept the costs o' freedoms.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited May 18, 2017 by Gromnir

[Pidesco]

 

I know that saying all the GOP/DNC candidates are pretty much the same is your thing, but that was always obviously not true about Trump and is, incredibly, becoming even more blatantly obvious as time passes. I don't see a candidate the Democrats could have put up that would be massively better President than Trump. That was also true of the candidates that the GOP put up against Trump in the primaries, as terrible as that field was.

 

What Trump was, was a huge litmus test of partisanship in American politics. Once a upon a time you could say something along the lines of the following, albeit without evidence: "Republican voters would vote for their party even if Justin Bieber/Carrot Top/Donald Trump/Kim Kardashian/Paris Hilton was the nominee". well, now there's evidence, and I think the same is true of Democrats. Hell, if you could have magically exchanged the nominees in the last election, I'm pretty sure the end result would have differed very little in terms of the popular vote.

I don't think I agree with that last part. There are plenty of decent candidates that did run for the Republicans and could have run for the Democrats.

 

This is purely my own opinion here so take that for what it's worth but I do think I'm pretty well read on there things:

 

For the Democrats these candidates should have performed better than Clinton nationally:

• James Webb US Senator VA: Smart, practical, level headed and good name recognition. US Army Vet. He wasn't socialist enough to get traction in the primaries but would have shown well vs Trump. He has no negative baggage.
• Brian Schweitzer Governor of Montana: Big advocate of Federalism, He's likable with a good record or states rights and workers rights as well as practical environmental regulation. The quintessential Jacksonian Democrat. But he's anti-gun control so the national Democrats won't have him. They don't tolerate dissent on any issue.
• Tulsi Gabbard US Rep HI. The DNC showed her the door when she endorsed Sanders (dissent on any issue will not be tolerated by the DNC) but she has a clean record, military service, opposed the TPP and sequestration, and bank bailouts. She should be the rising star of the Democrat Party but they won't have her.
• Corey Booker US Senator NJ: Centrist Democrat with a reputation for working with opposition party. Of everyone on this list he's be the most likely to make deals and compromises to accomplish goals. He has some great ideas about tax free enterprise zones to rejuvenate inner cities. His gun control advocacy would hurt him in flyover country.

Republicans. The thing that helped Trump the most is the number of candidates in the Republican field. Trump was not winning primaries by majority. He just was getting more because support was spread so thin among all the others. Take away Rubio, Kasich, & Cruz (or any combination of 3 prior to Super Tuesday) and it's likey Trump would not have been nominated. Trump is president today in large part because a few GOP candidates didn't "take one for the team" and bow out so support could coalesce around one of the others.

• Rand Paul US Senator KY: OK, this was my choice. If he won the nomination I'd have voted for him. I did donate to his campaign during the primaries. He's more in the traditional Republican mold than his father is, but still has a strong libertarian streak. Of all the candidates he would have been the biggest advocate for fiscal responsibility.
• Nikki Haley US Ambassador to UN: Think Sarah Palin with a brain. She checks the conservative box without being a fanatic and a four year stint as UN ambassador will giver foreign policy cred. But she could have gone on the strength of a successful term as governor of SC.
• Marco Rubio US Senate FL: There is nothing wrong with Rubio. For some reason he was never able to get his campaign in gear. I think he was focusing on defeating Clinton when he should have been focusing on Trump. But nationally he would have performed better to the general electorate than he did to the primary.
• Tim Scott US Senate SC: OK, this one is a bit of a reach because he's still light on electoral experience but he's the balance between fiscal conservative and social liberal that general election voters would gravitate to.

Put any of those Democrats vs Trump or any of those Republicans vs Clinton and I think they would have won a general election.

 

 

I just noticed I made a gigantic typo that completely changed the meaning of of my post:

 

 

This tiny sentence: "I don't see a candidate the Democrats could have put up that would be massively better President than Trump."

 

Should actually be this: I don't see a candidate the Democrats could have put up that wouldn't be a massively better President than Trump.

 

 

Now regarding your list of candidates to replace Trump/Clinton, my point that the difference between candidates, as far as the popular vote is concerned is tiny. Obama got less than 4% of the vote over Romney, Clinton had a little over 2% of the vote over Trump, Bush had 2% over Kerry, Bush Sr had 8% over the Dukakis, the same for Clinton and Dole. Other than 1984, every presidential election of the past 40 years was decided by what are effectively tiny margins, with huge swaths of the population voting the same no matter what.

 

I think the story of the 2016 election is that Republicans had results similar to all other candidates in recent history, despite having a candidate with a history of racism, sexism, sexual assault, and general mismanagement of his various businesses. Politicians are already generally a bunch of corrupt, seedy rat bastards, but Trump comes along and not only normalizes their behavior, but shows himself to be vastly worse during the campaign, without essentially any effective backlash. Sure there was lots of pearl clutching as the scandals rolled out, but nothing ever really happened to him that was substantial. He only had 4% percent less of the popular vote than, say, Bush in 2004.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I know that saying all the GOP/DNC candidates are pretty much the same is your thing, but that was always obviously not true about Trump and is, incredibly, becoming even more blatantly obvious as time passes. I don't see a candidate the Democrats could have put up that would be massively better President than Trump. That was also true of the candidates that the GOP put up against Trump in the primaries, as terrible as that field was.

 

What Trump was, was a huge litmus test of partisanship in American politics. Once a upon a time you could say something along the lines of the following, albeit without evidence: "Republican voters would vote for their party even if Justin Bieber/Carrot Top/Donald Trump/Kim Kardashian/Paris Hilton was the nominee". well, now there's evidence, and I think the same is true of Democrats. Hell, if you could have magically exchanged the nominees in the last election, I'm pretty sure the end result would have differed very little in terms of the popular vote.

I don't think I agree with that last part. There are plenty of decent candidates that did run for the Republicans and could have run for the Democrats.

 

This is purely my own opinion here so take that for what it's worth but I do think I'm pretty well read on there things:

 

For the Democrats these candidates should have performed better than Clinton nationally:

• James Webb US Senator VA: Smart, practical, level headed and good name recognition. US Army Vet. He wasn't socialist enough to get traction in the primaries but would have shown well vs Trump. He has no negative baggage.
• Brian Schweitzer Governor of Montana: Big advocate of Federalism, He's likable with a good record or states rights and workers rights as well as practical environmental regulation. The quintessential Jacksonian Democrat. But he's anti-gun control so the national Democrats won't have him. They don't tolerate dissent on any issue.
• Tulsi Gabbard US Rep HI. The DNC showed her the door when she endorsed Sanders (dissent on any issue will not be tolerated by the DNC) but she has a clean record, military service, opposed the TPP and sequestration, and bank bailouts. She should be the rising star of the Democrat Party but they won't have her.
• Corey Booker US Senator NJ: Centrist Democrat with a reputation for working with opposition party. Of everyone on this list he's be the most likely to make deals and compromises to accomplish goals. He has some great ideas about tax free enterprise zones to rejuvenate inner cities. His gun control advocacy would hurt him in flyover country.

Republicans. The thing that helped Trump the most is the number of candidates in the Republican field. Trump was not winning primaries by majority. He just was getting more because support was spread so thin among all the others. Take away Rubio, Kasich, & Cruz (or any combination of 3 prior to Super Tuesday) and it's likey Trump would not have been nominated. Trump is president today in large part because a few GOP candidates didn't "take one for the team" and bow out so support could coalesce around one of the others.

• Rand Paul US Senator KY: OK, this was my choice. If he won the nomination I'd have voted for him. I did donate to his campaign during the primaries. He's more in the traditional Republican mold than his father is, but still has a strong libertarian streak. Of all the candidates he would have been the biggest advocate for fiscal responsibility.
• Nikki Haley US Ambassador to UN: Think Sarah Palin with a brain. She checks the conservative box without being a fanatic and a four year stint as UN ambassador will giver foreign policy cred. But she could have gone on the strength of a successful term as governor of SC.
• Marco Rubio US Senate FL: There is nothing wrong with Rubio. For some reason he was never able to get his campaign in gear. I think he was focusing on defeating Clinton when he should have been focusing on Trump. But nationally he would have performed better to the general electorate than he did to the primary.
• Tim Scott US Senate SC: OK, this one is a bit of a reach because he's still light on electoral experience but he's the balance between fiscal conservative and social liberal that general election voters would gravitate to.

Put any of those Democrats vs Trump or any of those Republicans vs Clinton and I think they would have won a general election.

 

 

I

 

I think the story of the 2016 election is that Republicans had results similar to all other candidates in recent history, despite having a candidate with a history of racism, sexism, sexual assault, and general mismanagement of his various businesses. Politicians are already generally a bunch of corrupt, seedy rat bastards, 

 

Here is  an interesting question, do you consider some of the current or previous Swedish  politicians corrupt?

 

How would you define the type of corruption you post?  The reason I ask is I want to share my view of political corruption as Im sure we have vastly different definitions of this

[Pidesco]

I am not the best person to ask about corruption in Sweden but as fast I know corruption here is relatively low compared to the rest of Europe.

 

Regarding the corruption I mentioned is mostly about taking bribes in order to defend the rights of those that bribed as opposed to the rights of the people the politician supposedly represents. In the US this seems to be rampant and used to be the biggest problem of the government, there. Thankfully, it is now a minor problem, compared to having the increasingly extremist right pushing a xenophobic agenda.

 

There are other types of corruption, of course. For example, the current administration appears to have maxed out its nepotism skill tree.

[Guard Dog]

I am not the best person to ask about corruption in Sweden but as fast I know corruption here is relatively low compared to the rest of Europe.

 

Regarding the corruption I mentioned is mostly about taking bribes in order to defend the rights of those that bribed as opposed to the rights of the people the politician supposedly represents. In the US this seems to be rampant and used to be the biggest problem of the government, there. Thankfully, it is now a minor problem, compared to having the increasingly extremist right pushing a xenophobic agenda.

 

There are other types of corruption, of course. For example, the current administration appears to have maxed out its nepotism skill tree.

Hey they are not call bribes here! They are called campaign donations!

[BruceVC]

 

I am not the best person to ask about corruption in Sweden but as fast I know corruption here is relatively low compared to the rest of Europe.

 

Regarding the corruption I mentioned is mostly about taking bribes in order to defend the rights of those that bribed as opposed to the rights of the people the politician supposedly represents. In the US this seems to be rampant and used to be the biggest problem of the government, there. Thankfully, it is now a minor problem, compared to having the increasingly extremist right pushing a xenophobic agenda.

 

There are other types of corruption, of course. For example, the current administration appears to have maxed out its nepotism skill tree.

Hey they are not call bribes here! They are called campaign donations!

 

GD  what do you define as corruption in the USA ?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

I am not the best person to ask about corruption in Sweden but as fast I know corruption here is relatively low compared to the rest of Europe.

 

Regarding the corruption I mentioned is mostly about taking bribes in order to defend the rights of those that bribed as opposed to the rights of the people the politician supposedly represents. In the US this seems to be rampant and used to be the biggest problem of the government, there. Thankfully, it is now a minor problem, compared to having the increasingly extremist right pushing a xenophobic agenda.

 

There are other types of corruption, of course. For example, the current administration appears to have maxed out its nepotism skill tree.

Hey they are not call bribes here! They are called campaign donations!

 

GD  what do you define as corruption in the USA ?

 

How about this: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/corrine-brown-former-florida-congresswoman-found-guilty-sham-charity/

Or this: http://freebeacon.com/politics/rep-alcee-hastings-maxes-girlfriends-salary-fifth-straight-year/

This was a big one: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/10/us/rostenkowski-pleads-guilty-to-mail-fraud.html

Gotta love this one: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/congressman-william-jefferson-hid-90-000-freezer-face-20-years-jail-article-1.395138

I don't think of sex scandals as corruption, but is one involved money too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/nevada-sen-john-ensign-to-resign/2011/04/21/AFdIJsKE_blog.html?utm_term=.189f57f02fd2

On oldie but goodie going back to the S&L crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

 

I could come up with others. Former speaker using public funds to pay hush money to a boy he was sexually molesting when he was a wrestling coach. The House Banking scandal was a good one. Congressmen taking out loans of public money they never pay back. ABSCAM from the 80's was a great one and the FBI guys got to dress up as Arab Sheiks to boot. Then there the ones that never quite came out because everyone who knew details about them mysteriously dropped dead. Like Whitewater. Watergate was another good one. That actually DID involve tampering with an election. Unlike this Russia DNC hack BS that people are hyperventilating about for no good reason. Despite what Leferd said the Seth Rich murder is still a thing and if it was just a botched robbery why did the FBI seize his laptop, which was not at or had anything to do with the crime scene?

 

I could go on all day,

[Zoraptor]

Am I missing something? Did he tell the Russians how to track Islamic plans to blow up commercial planes?

 

No. It's almost certain he told them absolutely nothing they didn't already know or hadn't already inferred. It's highly unlikely Trump knew anything that wasn't already publicly known or couldn't easily be inferred, so couldn't give anything away. It's also kind of amusing, people in general said that McMaster had a great deal of integrity but when he comes out and categorically denies the WaPo story suddenly he's lying, not the 'anonymous source', who doesn't have to face any consequences for lying and can say literally anything. Same general thing happened to Comey actually, when he declined to prosecute Clinton he was a democrat stooge, when he reopened the investigation he was a republican stooge. Partisan politics destroys critical faculties and renders everyone a little bit more stupid.

 

It also was not an Israeli spy they got the initial info from. Which is one more reason to disbelieve anon sources in general.

 

(UK and US got the info, Israel does not share with the UK but Jordan does. They also have no strategic interest in stopping ISIS, quite the opposite, their continued existence is to Israel's benefit, hence the presence of ISIS and Al Qaeda territory next to the occupied Golan Heights and have far better targets for their very limited human intelligence sources. Electronic monitoring, fine, surveillance, fine, standing over palestinians inside Israel, OK. None apply here. Al Jazeera is definitely right, it was Jordan's spy. All the talk of Israel is either deliberate misdirection to obfuscate the damaging info- ironically, which all publicly comes from the leaker, not Trump- or someone making stuff up for the lulz)

[Pidesco]

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-18/house-may-be-forced-to-vote-again-on-gop-s-obamacare-repeal-bill

 

Outstanding work.

[redneckdevil]

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-18/house-may-be-forced-to-vote-again-on-gop-s-obamacare-repeal-bill

 

Outstanding work.

Okay? Obamacare had failed and had to be voted on what like 54 times in under 4 years before it passed.

[Elerond]

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-18/house-may-be-forced-to-vote-again-on-gop-s-obamacare-repeal-bill

 

Outstanding work.

Okay? Obamacare had failed and had to be voted on what like 54 times in under 4 years before it passed.

 

Weren't those 54 votes by House of Representatives to repeal the Affordable Care Act either in full or in part.

[ShadySands]

 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-18/house-may-be-forced-to-vote-again-on-gop-s-obamacare-repeal-bill

 

Outstanding work.

Okay? Obamacare had failed and had to be voted on what like 54 times in under 4 years before it passed.

 

Weren't those 54 votes by House of Representatives to repeal the Affordable Care Act either in full or in part.

 

Yes

Edited May 19, 2017 by ShadySands

[Gromnir]

"http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-told-russians-that-firing-%e2%80%98nut-job%e2%80%99-comey-eased-pressure-from-investigation/ar-BBBjeDT?ocid=spartandhp"

 

"Once again, the real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations."  

 

somebody needs to tell the wh how ridiculous it sounds for them to complain of leaking classified info at this particular moment.  am not disagreeing that the wh needs to get its $#^& in order insofar as leaks are concerned, but any mention o' wh leaks is only gonna remind folks o' trump's most recent faux pas.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

Popcorn ready for Trump's islam speech.

Edited May 20, 2017 by HoonDing

[Gromnir]

am saving the popcorn for comey testimony.  maybe buy a box o' raisinettes and a cinema-sized dr. pepper too. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Leferd]

Despite what Leferd said the Seth Rich murder is still a thing and if it was just a botched robbery why did the FBI seize his laptop, which was not at or had anything to do with the crime scene?

 

*sigh*

 

This ridiculous conspiracy theory has been debunked. 

 

 

The P.I. walked back his statements and said he was told by FOX to make the outlandish statements.

The private investigator told other outlets the Fox reporter essentially put words in his mouth by giving him information that he then repeated in an on-camera interview. "That story on Fox 5 last night was inaccurate," he told BuzzFeed.

Rich, who was a data analyst at the DNC, was killed while walking home early one Sunday morning last summer in what police suspect was a robbery gone wrong.

However, some have speculated — without any evidence — that Rich was the source of internal DNC emails published by Wikileaks and murdered for the act. The DNC, the FBI, every U.S. intelligence agency, and the cyber security firm hired by the DNC to investigate the breach say those emails were stolen by Russian hackers. But Rich's death has become a useful red herring for those interesting in undercutting the Russian hacking narrative.

That includes allies of President Donald Trump and the Russian government. On Friday, the official account of the Russian Embassy in London tweeted: "#WikiLeaks informer Seth Rich murdered in US but MSM was so busy accusing Russian hackers to take notice."

Wheeler has since admitted he had no first-hand evidence linking Rich to Wikileaks, and subsequent reporting by NBC News and other outlets confirmed Rich was not communicating with the group.

"It never contained any e-mails related to WikiLeaks," a former law enforcement official with first-hand knowledge of Rich's laptop told NBC News.

Rich's family only hired Wheeler on the urging of a conservative Dallas financial adviser and Fox News regular named Ed Butowsky, who offered to cover Wheeler's fees, as NBC News first reported.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/slain-dnc-staffer-s-family-orders-blabbing-detective-cease-desist-n762211