***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[dwalk31]

dwalk31
What are your thoughts on the Roger Stone indictment?

We will see. They are certainly very serious accusations.

 

[dwalk31]

He also said he would be "dead or in jail" if Obama got re-elected.

I'm still waiting....

Which makes the point... people just say things. True or false.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[RustyShackleford]

White supremacists, I imagine, believe a lot of things.

Do you believe all the things white supremacists believe?

Does a white supremacist believing something make it true? Or more probable?



Take your time

Ahhhh look at this, the seal is trapped and now he wants to deflect into a abstract conversation about "beleiving".

People believe some things that are true, people believe somethings that are false. When making a comparison like this you can't make them one-to-one, you have to analyze what evidence people are using to motivate their beliefs. And judge the evidence relative to the conclusion being drawn.

Because somehow how beleiving that white people are a superior race and deserve all power even though there is zero proof of this in the hard sciences, social sciences, or history. Is not the same as believing someone shares your views. Even though social scientist and journalist have reported about Trump white supremacist ideologies too. One is a huge leap in the fact of tons of evidence otherwise. The other is a small step given the evidence also points in the same direction.

It is like someone believing in a flat earth and also believing that their friend wants the Pats to win the Super Bowl just like they do. They came to their earth conclusion because of a YouTube video, but came to conclusion about their friend because he wears Pats gear all the time, watches their games, calls Brady the goat, tells everyone he is a huge Pats fan and knows details about all the players on the team, all behaviors they do as well. But since they have never heard their friend explicitly say they want them to win the Super Bowl this year, their beliefs their friend wants the Pats to win is just as flimsy as them believing in a flat earth. This is the BS logic you want to obscure this discussion with

You are well on your way back to peak buffoonery again

Troll better.

 

[dwalk31]

Ahhhh look at this, the seal is trapped and now he wants to deflect into a abstract conversation about "beleiving".

People believe some things that are true, people believe somethings that are false. When making a comparison like this you can't make them one-to-one, you have to analyze what evidence people are using to motivate their beliefs. And judge the evidence relative to the conclusion being drawn.

Because somehow how beleiving that white people are a superior race and deserve all power even though there is zero proof of this in the hard sciences, social sciences, or history. Is not the same as believing someone shares your views. Even though social scientist and journalist have reported about Trump white supremacist ideologies too. One is a huge leap in the fact of tons of evidence otherwise. The other is a small step given the evidence also points in the same direction.

It is like someone believing in a flat earth and also believing that their friend wants the Pats to win the Super Bowl just like they do. They came to their earth conclusion because of a YouTube video, but came to conclusion about their friend because he wears Pats gear all the time, watches their games, calls Brady the goat, tells everyone he is a huge Pats fan and knows details about all the players on the team, all behaviors they do as well. But since they have never heard their friend explicitly say they want them to win the Super Bowl this year, their beliefs their friend wants the Pats to win is just as flimsy as them believing in a flat earth. This is the BS logic you want to obscure this discussion with

You are well on your way back to peak buffoonery again

Troll better.

Or, put another way, you parroted a talking point that worked well during a gubernatorial election, but not really as well in a thought-out conversation.

No worries, happens to the best of us.

 

[IATT]

Hey look this dude taking something out of context, again

 

[RustyShackleford]

Or, put another way, you parroted a talking point that worked well during a gubernatorial election, but not really as well in a thought-out conversation.

No worries, happens to the best of us.

Oh, no trollish come back? No paragraphs riddled with deflections?

I guess every ******** fueled troll train has to run out of fuel some times.

Next time use coal.

 

[dwalk31]

Oh, no trollish come back? No paragraphs deflections?

I guess every bull**** fueled troll train has to run out of fuel some times.

Next time use coal.

You didn't get the coffee, did you?

Also I should be in NYC coming up pretty soon if anyone wants to link.

 

[Belgium]

We will see. They are certainly very serious accusations.

At least some of them, particularly the false statements to Congress, appear to be a slam dunk. For example, Stone rebutted a broad document request from the House Intel committee and stated he had no relevant documents, emails, communications, ... to provide. During his testimony, Stone issued a blanket denial in response to a direct question on whether he had any emails concerning allegations of hacked material and/or any emails with third parties about Assange.
Stone in fact contradicted some of his testimony all by himself by releasing some of the emails in response to media reports about those conversations. His emails with both Jerome Corsi and Randy Credico about Wikileaks and the DNC/Podesta emails clearly fell under the document request from the committee, as well as the direct question about certain emails during his testimony. His defense of a memory lapse makes no sense because on the very same day Stone testified, he exchanged 30 text messages with Credico.

Naturally, House Republicans blocked all motions to subpoena the documents Stone was withholding. They simply took the self-proclaimed "dirty trickster" at his word and further refused to subpoena the documents even after Stone published some of the emails that contradicted his testimony.
In March of 2018, Stone assured Credico that Republicans wouldn't act against either of them.

What do you think it says that each and every single Trump associate lied and kept on lying about their Russian contacts? From "no contacts with Russians by anyone" to at least 100 known contacts by more than a dozen Trump associates, including the president himself and his family members?

 

[dwalk31]

At least some of them, particularly the false statements to Congress, appear to be a slam dunk. For example, Stone rebutted a broad document request from the House Intel committee and stated he had no relevant documents, emails, communications, ... to provide. During his testimony, Stone issued a blanket denial in response to a direct question on whether he had any emails concerning allegations of hacked material and/or any emails with third parties about Assange.
Stone in fact contradicted his testimony all by himself by releasing some of the emails in response to media reports about those conversations. His emails with both Jerome Corsi and Randy Credico about Wikileaks and the DNC/Podesta emails clearly fell under the document request from the committee, as well as the direct question about certain emails during his testimony. His defense of a memory lapse makes no sense because on the very same day Stone testified, he exchanged 30 text messages with Credico.

What do you think it says that each and every single Trump associate lied and kept on lying about their Russian contacts? From "no contacts with Russians by anyone" to at least 100 known contacts by more than a dozen Trump associates, including the president himself and his family members?

Do you think that you can correctly name every russian contact you have made?

It could be that Roger stone colluded with the Russians and Putin to influence the American election with the help of members of the Trump campaign.

Or it could be benign.

One of those is rather fantastical. But all I can say is we will see.

 

[Belgium]

Do you think that you can correctly name every russian contact you have made?

It could be that Roger stone colluded with the Russians and Putin to influence the American election with the help of members of the Trump campaign.

Or it could be benign.

One of those is rather fantastical. But all I can say is we will see.

I'm sure I could name them but then again I haven't had a whole lot of Russian contacts, personal or otherwise. I could name several Russians I have met personally and one I never met but sold an Instagram to. It's not the hardest thing in the world to remember and my interactions weren't the subject of multiple investigations or constantly scrutinized in the media.

The lies about Russian contacts were not some forgettable interactions with some average Russian. There has been a very clear pattern of repeated lying by a multitude of individuals associated with Trump, even under oath to Congress and/or to the FBI.
Not one person came clean about those contacts before they could no longer deny it, despite being well aware there was an ongoing Russia investigation.

Watergate's investigative theme was to follow the money, in the Russia investigation(s) it would be follow the money and follow the lies.

 

[combo gd]

White supremecists, neo-nazi's, MAGA good ole' boys, "teachers,'" "preachers," internet forum gangsters, deep web thugs... they all run the world via social media. The number one place is Facebook. Facebook sets us up to compare ourselves to each other. What that really does is set us up to be in constant competition with each other. That perpetuates hedonistic behaviors, a lifestyle, and self sustaining culture that these controllers exploit and profit from.

 

[IATT]

 

[Belgium]

They contradicted Trump's lies about national security threats numerous times during their sworn testimony, resulting in Trump lashing out at them and suggesting they should perhaps go back to school.
Trump also claimed he didn't read the intelligence report anyway.

https://thehill.com/policy/national...iefs-told-him-media-mischaracterized-comments
Trump says Intel chiefs told him media mischaracterized comments
President Trump on Thursday said media coverage was to blame for an apparent rift between him and intelligence community leaders following their congressional testimony this week.

The president tweeted that he met with Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, CIA Director Gina Haspel and national security adviser John Bolton in the Oval Office, and that the group is "very much in agreement on Iran, ISIS, North Korea, etc."

"Just concluded a great meeting with my Intel team in the Oval Office who told me that what they said on Tuesday at the Senate Hearing was mischaracterized by the media," Trump wrote on Twitter.

"A false narrative is so bad for our Country," he added. "I value our intelligence community. Happily, we had a very good meeting, and we are all on the same page!"

The president relayed a similar version of events to reporters during a meeting with the Chinese vice premier in the Oval Office

"They said they were totally misquoted and it was taken out of context," Trump said when asked if he had spoken with the intelligence leaders about their testimony.

He suggested reporters call the intelligence leaders to clarify their comments.

The CIA declined to comment on coverage of Haspel's testimony or whether she told Trump that the media mischaracterized her remarks.

The director of national intelligence's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump's projection of unity came hours after he appeared to acknowledge that he and the intelligence leaders were out of step after Haspel and Coats testified that North Korea is unlikely to give up its nuclear weapons, Iran is complying with the Obama-era nuclear deal and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) still poses a grave threat.

“I disagree with certain things that they said,” Trump said earlier Thursday at an executive order signing.

“I think I’m right,” he added. “Time will prove me right, probably.”

Trump rejected their findings in a string of tweets on Wednesday, writing that the intelligence community was "passive and naive" and they should “go back to school!”

Thursday's back-and-forth underscores what has been a tense relationship between the president and the leaders of the intelligence community. He has previously cast doubt on the conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

https://www.axios.com/all-the-times...him-297059c4-1f7a-44e4-9621-67c74c47f486.html

 

[cubanref]

So now it's a wall again

 

[stuntman mike]

wall is literally synonymous with wall.

 

[plansb]

Dwalk you should meet up with ninja and have an nt echo chamber free political thread meet up. That sounds like it'd be a lot of fun.

 

[blastercombo]

wall is literally synonymous with wall.

Studies agree. Various studies

 

[IATT]

wall is literally synonymous with wall.

"nancy.. or nancy, as i call her"

 

[Belgium]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a84a4bdb0e3a
Disclosure of presidential tax returns will be subject of Feb. 7 House hearing
A House panel is set to examine proposals that would force the public disclosure of presidential and vice-presidential tax returns, a direct challenge from Democrats to President Trump’s norm-breaking decision not to reveal his own.

The hearing of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on oversight is scheduled for the afternoon of Feb. 7, two days after Trump visits Capitol Hill for his State of the Union address.

The panel’s chairman, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), did not provide details about the hearing Thursday beyond its title, “Legislative Proposals and Tax Law Related to Presidential and Vice-Presidential Tax Returns,” and a list of witnesses.

Democrats have invited Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; Steven M. Rosenthal of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center; Joseph J. Thorndike of the nonprofit publisher Tax Analysts; and George K. Yin, a University of Virginia law professor and former senior aide to the Joint Committee on Taxation. Republicans could invite additional witnesses.

The hearing is a crucial first step for congressional Democrats, who have said they plan to pursue multiple avenues to force Trump to disclose his returns and also force future presidential and vice-presidential candidates to follow suit.

Before Trump withheld his returns during the 2016 campaign, citing ongoing audits, presidential candidates dating back four decades had provided at least some information about the taxes they have paid. In one extreme case, 2016 Republican candidate Jeb Bush released 33 years’ worth of returns.

A broad political reform bill supported by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and co-sponsored by 226 other Democrats includes a provision requiring presidential and vice-presidential candidates to submit their 10 most recent tax returns to the Federal Election Commission for public disclosure. The House could vote on the legislation as soon as next month, although the GOP-controlled Senate is unlikely to advance it.

Democrats are also expected at some point to take advantage of a provision in a 1924 federal law allowing the chairman of any of the three congressional tax committees to inspect any taxpayer’s return.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-Mass.) has said he expects to move deliberately toward such a request in the expectation that Trump would probably challenge it in court.

 

[gry60]

Proof that corporations can be people: they can be roommates.

 

[Belgium]

And much more great economic news to follow in the near future. A potential no-deal Brexit, a trade war orchestrated by a senile moron who thinks "trade wars are good and easy to win", ...
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...b01125b082a546#block-5c52c886e4b01125b082a546
Italy falls into recession as eurozone economy struggles - as it happened
Rolling coverage of the latest economic and financial news, as Italy stumbles back into recession

 

[blastercombo]

“Hi, I’m an internet troll who goes to athletic shoe forums strictly to talk about my unending trump support.”



g

 

[niketalker23]

Studies agree. Various studies

 

[boris]