All-for-Joffrey Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 And your evidence for this being the motivation is? The fact that this whole nonsense started when she asked Colin Powell about his private BlackBerry use, which Powell himself used to circumvent public records requests and the fact that her repeated claims of only doing it because she -- god forbid -- didn't want to have to carry two devices at once were repeatedly debunked by fact checkers as the saga unfolded. But fine, since I can't creep into her head, let me rephrase that to: I'm not making a false equivalency between Clinton's private email server which would have exempted all her work communications from FOIA requests unless the New York Times broke the story that she was using a private server and... (But that's just so much more cumbersome to type out.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 17 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said: Dude, we've known Manafort is under investigation for his links to Russian intelligence agents for months now. It was also pretty obvious all the way back summer that keeping the lethal assistance language out of the GOP platform was Manafort's doing. Again, this isn't as new or groundbreaking as you think it is. It's just more detail to flesh out a story that most of us have already been able to surmise. I'm not making a false equivalency between Clinton's private email server to skirt open records laws and the much more serious allegations facing Manafort et al of collaborating with Russian intelligence agents. I'm pointing out that taking a minor new angle to a story is generating the same kind of media phenomenon where the smallest development is making the anti-Trump folks act like it's a whole new scandal tantamount to Trump collaborating with the Russian sin the DNC hack. But screw it, I'm done with this BS. Keep having your Russia tea party. I'll engage in the topics I want to and just hope it doesn't get drowned out by the basic Russia crap. I give up. You are completing ignoring that a Russian national, with connections to Manafort and Russian Intelligence, flew to the US during the RNC and claims to have helped change the language AND THIS HAS NEVER BEEN REPORTED BEFORE. You are focusing on what we know and not at all what we didn't. You're dense and it's so fucking annoying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All-for-Joffrey Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 10 minutes ago, Mexal said: I give up. You are completing ignoring that a Russian national, with connections to Manafort and Russian Intelligence, flew to the US during the RNC and claims to have helped change the language AND THIS HAS NEVER BEEN REPORTED BEFORE. You are focusing on what we know and not at all what we didn't. You're dense and it's so fucking annoying. So the story fills in the gaps on why Manafort didn't want the lethal assistance to Ukraine policy in place. Great. The Yemen massacres are still one of numerous more important stories this week. You're dense and it's so fucking annoying. (And you apparently know more about the Russia-election situation than an actual Russian journalist who's on Putin's shit list -- not arrogant at all.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Why Do Republicans Hate the Republican Health Care Plan? Because the GOP has policy goals that can’t be achieved. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Just now, Martell Spy said: Why Do Republicans Hate the Republican Health Care Plan? I was going to guess because everyone else is doing it, so why not join in with the ridicule? But, the Slate article might have a better answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 28 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said: !$$#!%$!%#@ Because last time I checked, Trump isn't involved with said Russian intelligence agent and there is no evidence to indicate that. Trump hired a shitty campaign manager. What a shocker. Just another bizarre coincidence that has Russian fingerprints all over it, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All-for-Joffrey Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 12 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Just another bizarre coincidence that has Russian fingerprints all over it, right? Sure, let's go full out conspiracy here. Obviously Putin told Trump directly to hire Manafort because he had the water sports kompromat tape on him. It was in an unverified, completely unsubstantiated, oftentimes inaccurate dossier -- it must be true! Similarly, the Taiwnese President must have told Trump to listen to Bob Dole and Reince Preibus when Trump publicly renounced the One China policy. They must have compromising evidence on him too! ETA: Again, you're illustrating the real problem with all the Russia stuff -- you're working backwards to find evidence for something you desperately want to be true. This is how the GOP operated with Benghazi. It's supposed to work the other way around -- you're supposed to build your case based on the actual evidence at hand instead of taking wild speculation and finding any and all reason you can to justify said theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2017/03/scott_pruitt_perpetrates_gop_lie_about_climate_change.html Quote The head of the Environmental Agency Protection disagrees with a well-established scientific fact regarding global warming. On Thursday morning, while speaking to Joe Kernen on CNBC’s Squawk Box, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said that carbon dioxide isn’t necessarily a primary contributor to climate change. Now this is pretty funny. A while back, I posted a link for a plan on climate change by some fairly big named Republicans. Of course, in this "conservative vision to deal with climate change" or whatever in the hell it was, there just had to be the obligatory hippie punching and Obama bashing. It would seem though the major roadblock here would be conservatives though. It would seem you would need to clean up the intellectual mess on your own side before you go off hippie bashing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, All-for-Joffrey said: Sure, let's go full out conspiracy here. Obviously Putin told Trump directly to hire Manafort because he had the water sports kompromat tape on him. It was in an unverified, completely unsubstantiated, oftentimes inaccurate dossier -- it must be true! Sure, why not! That's probably why Flynn lied under oath as well. Or why Sessions lied about a question that he wasn't even asked. This is fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All-for-Joffrey Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 12 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Sure, why not! That's probably why Flynn lied under oath as well. Or why Sessions lied about a question that he wasn't even asked. This is fun! No. These are established facts with evidence to back them up. (Though I was recently chastened for saying Clinton made her private email server to skirt public records laws so to be consistent I should probably be careful about saying they lied as "fact" since I can't prove their intent.) I'm sorry you can't see the difference between facts and speculation/extrapolation. You may want to work on that. ETA: Also, when the hell did Flynn lie under oath? The National Security Adviser is not subject to Senate confirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Has anyone linked Representative Eric Swalwell's (D) web page listening all public information known about Russian connections to the administration? I may have missed it. https://swalwell.house.gov/russia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 1 minute ago, All-for-Joffrey said: No. These are established facts with evidence to back them up. I'm sorry you can't see the different between facts and speculation/extrapolation. You may want to work on that. Without speculation, these would not have become fact. Speculation often leads to examination/investigation. Like the exact reverse of the Trump tapp (sic) tweet followed by investigation. But I digress, here's a question: why do you think they lied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Sure, why not! That's probably why Flynn lied under oath as well. Or why Sessions lied about a question that he wasn't even asked. This is fun! Did you see that Flynn has now registered showing that he was working on behalf of a foreign person (a Netherlands company owned by an Erdogan crony) during the period covering the campaign. Just interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All-for-Joffrey Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Just now, Mlle. Zabzie said: Did you see that Flynn has now registered showing that he was working on behalf of a foreign person (a Netherlands company owned by an Erdogan crony) during the period covering the campaign. Just interesting. It's also an apparent violation of Trump's "lifetime" ban on lobbying for foreign interests after serving in his White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Just now, All-for-Joffrey said: It's also an apparent violation of Trump's "lifetime" ban on lobbying for foreign interests after serving in his White House. Well, "drain the swamp" is just really metaphorical rhetoric. After all, the hated EPA keeps people from draining wetlands. So really, it's Obama's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 6 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Well, "drain the swamp" is just really metaphorical rhetoric. After all, the hated EPA keeps people from draining wetlands. So really, it's Obama's fault. I hear that "drain the swamp" is the EPA's new goal with climate targets of +2-3 degrees. Most swamps should be nice and dry by then! /sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 47 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Well, "drain the swamp" is just really metaphorical rhetoric. After all, the hated EPA keeps people from draining wetlands. So really, it's Obama's fault. Everyone knows that before you drain a swamp you have to fill it all the way up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Martell Spy said: Paul Ryan, About Seven Years Too Late, Explains Why Full Repeal Would Be a Disaster http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/03/09/paul_ryan_uses_a_powerpoint_presentation_to_sell_his_ailing_health_care.html Sigh, stories like this are exactly why people hate politics. I do love how this undercuts Ryan's BS mystique of being an honest actor though. It always blows my mind when Washington talking-heads refer to him as such when it's pretty obvious that he's just as big a snake as anyone else in the Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Just now, Tywin et al. said: Everyone knows that before you drain a swamp you have to fill it all the way up. And of course it wouldn't be a proper swamp unless you went out and got some creepy and nasty critters to reside in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Just now, Tywin et al. said: I do love how this undercuts Ryan's BS mystique of being an honest actor though. It always blows my mind when Washington talking-heads refer to him as such when it's pretty obvious that he's just as big a snake as anyone else in the Congress. The whole idea of Ryan being the "serious conservative policy wonk" gets me hotter than a two dollar pistol. No, he's some guy that read Ayn Rand and that's all she wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.