American Politics

[Tiny 12]

Note the #1 most often repeated Myth on the list:

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Wont Die. Heres Why Theyre Wrong.

https://time.com/5610317/mueller-rep...ths-breakdown/

Along with either unintentionally or intentionally misunderstanding, misstating or confusing the meaning of words like "increasing", "interference". "ADP Private Sector Jobs Report" vs "BLS Employment / Unemployment Report" and so on, some slavishly devoted Repubs can't seem to wrap their mind around the difference between "collusion" and "conspiracy to commit collusion. ".

To repeat my earlier point about this; there was TONS of evidence that Russia was colluding with Team Trump to help Trump win even if Team Trump was too stupid to notice it happening all around them.

By definition collusion requires secret or illegal conspiracy or cooperation. IF as you say Team Trump was too stupid to notice the interference, then how was it collusion?

[EihTooms]

I wonder how many elections we've interfered with? Answer: a lot. Probably one or more where Putin was a candidate.

Sure. And when we do it I assure you we don't just stuff banana peels into voting machines only to create general election results chaos. We choose a side and collude with their efforts to win in order to improve the chances of that outcome.

Oh, and another tid bit that you might add to your observations about this; We choose to collude with the side that will be beneficial to OUR agenda and goals and not the side known to oppose them.

The same as Russia did for Trump.

[EihTooms]

Choose wisely. PLEASE.

Mueller and the FBI investigated the alleged collusion thoroughly and didn't come up with anything.
...

Note the #1 most often repeated Myth on the list:

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Wont Die. Heres Why Theyre Wrong.

https://time.com/5610317/mueller-rep...ths-breakdown/

Myth: Mueller found no collusion.

Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. He found that a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. He also found that a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that a statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts. In fact, Mueller also wrote that the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts."

Along with either unintentionally or intentionally misunderstanding, misstating or confusing the meaning of words like "increasing", "interference". "ADP Private Sector Jobs Report" vs "BLS Employment / Unemployment Report" and so on, some slavishly devoted Repubs can't seem to wrap their mind around the difference between "collusion" and "conspiracy to commit collusion. ".

To repeat my earlier point about this; there was TONS of evidence that Russia was colluding with Team Trump to help Trump win even if Team Trump was too stupid to notice it happening all around them.

[EihTooms]

I fully agree with the following.

The Reagan Administration's decision to remove peacekeepers from Lebanon.

The Biden and Trump Administrations' decision to remove our troops from Afghanistan.

The Nixon and Ford Administrations' decision to remove our troops from Vietnam.

The Eisenhower Administration's decision to make peace in Korea.

Maybe Xpartan was right when he criticized me for saying Democratic Politicians are somewhat less anti-war than Republicans. Maybe they really are war mongers. Or at least it looks like it's Republicans that are predominately getting us out of wars.

Yes, Eisenhower did provide money and arms to the South Vietnamese government. However, he didn't commit men, beyond a small number of advisors, perhaps fewer than we have in Ukraine now. In 1954, he told his people he "simply could not imagine the United States putting ground forces anywhere in Southeast Asia. There was just no sense in even talking about United States forces replacing the French in Indochina. If we did so, the Vietnamese could be expected to transfer their hatred of the French to us. I cannot tell you, said the President with vehemence, how bitterly opposed I am to such a course of action. This war in Indochina would absorb our troops by divisions!"

Eisenhower knew war. Kennedy did too, and although he greatly escalated military aid and the number of American advisors, his administration never sent combat troops to Vietnam. LBJ and Congress were the ones to blame.

Look, if it makes you and Paulie feel better, despite Eisenhower committing us fully and completely by word, deed and treaty to fighting on behalf of South Vietnam in his Vietnam War, putting our troops / advisors directly in harms way to be shot at, attacked and killed until retaliation was inevitable and unavoidable unless we were prepared to concede the defeat of Democracy and victory for Communism around the world re his decade long Domino Theory pitch, his overthrowing a developing Democracy in Iran to install the brutal Shah regime that triggered and led directly to every anti West jihad, the Islamic Revolution and War on Terrorism that followed and producing and presiding over three Recessions in just 8 years and one of the worst jobs creation records in USA history, Eisenhower's presidency could still arguably be cited as one of the better Repub presidencies.

After all, somebody designed the '57 Chevy Bel Air on his watch and there is no evidence that Ike walked off a golf course to do anything to prevent that from happening.

[Tiny 12]

What cracks me up about the Democratic douches and Russiagate was they act as if that was the only time a foreign power (or domestic corporation) interfered in an election, and that one, Russiagate, was pure bullshit.

I wonder how many elections we've interfered with? Answer: a lot. Probably one or more where Putin was a candidate.

[Tiny 12]

I like another saying Stalin had and it is particularly apt when it comes to prosecuting Trump. "Find me the man, and I will find you the crime. "

Are you sure that was Stalin who came up with that? Not the USA Department of Justice? Harvey Silverglate, one of the premier civil liberties attorneys in the country, pointed out in "Three Felonies a Day" that prosecutors have laws on the books so they can put anyone in jail. The Manhattan District Attorney in particular is taking advantage of that, in prosecuting Trump for paying a porn star to keep her mouth shut.

[Tiny 12]

Tiny, I linked the instances when Trump's team members (Trump Jr, Page, Manafort, Papadopoulos and others) have initiated contacts with Russian officials, not the other way around. It looks to me that it's not just Russia trying to interfere -- it's Trump's campaign begging them to. .

What am I not seeing here?

In fairness, you might have a leg to stand on (lame as hell, though).

1. You may insist that whatever Trump's people did was at their own behest (Trump didn't know).

2. You may claim that Trump was so overwhelmingly concerned about improving the Russia-US relationship (and the fate of Russian orphans, LOL) that he just couldn't wait until getting elected.

There is one or another. Choose wisely.

Choose wisely. PLEASE.

Mueller and the FBI investigated the alleged collusion thoroughly and didn't come up with anything. Yes, they got convictions, for tax evasion, lying to the government, failure to register as a foreign lobbyist, etc., but nothing related to collusion.

My recollection of the June 9 meeting was that Donald Trump, Jr. Expressed excitement that a Russian might have dirt on Hillary Clinton. But in reality the Russian had nothing and, as you said, adoption policy was her agenda.

Papadopoulos, he's the one person on your list who may have at least tried to collude. Apparently he was low level, and couldn't get higher ups to listen to him. The FBI wasn't able to pin anything on him except lying. Your explanation "1" may apply.

Manafort was fired by the campaign when his work for pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs came to light. Ironically, Hunter Biden also worked for a pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarch's company. Small world.

Your explanation "2" applies to meetings with the Russian ambassador, Kislyak. Yes, Trump and his people did indeed want to improve relations with Russia.

Now admittedly Trump wasn't going to look a gift horse in the mouth. He probably was grateful for any unsolicited help the Russians might provide, which could partly explain why he was friendlier on a personal level with Putin than some of our allies. You may recall that according to Neocon John Bolton, Trump asked Xi for help in winning the 2020 election.

But I don't believe there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, other than perhaps Papadopoulos' comical efforts. And yes, Trump did suggest on national television that Russia look for Hillary's emails. Circling back to where I started, if there were collusion, the FBI and DOJ and Mueller should have uncovered it. They did wiretap Manafort and Carter Page, and probably Papadopoulos and others. They tried to entrap Papadopoulos with an undercover agent. They didn't come up with anything.

[Elvis 2008]

In my life where people screamed "more, more" but that is what happened when Doug Casey spoke at an investment conference. There was a Q&A period later with Casey, Newt Gingrich, and some typical bleeding heart liberal. What got me was how often Gingrich and the liberal agreed with each other. Of course, Casey was in a different league intelligence wise because he was not attached to a party but could just tell the truth.

HIs latest piece is on why RFK cannot win, and I doubt, despite being a candidate I would vote for, that I will get that chance. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...tate-hates-him.

What I found interesting is he actually predicted Trump's win in 2016 and his losing in 2020, and his assessment of 2020 was the most realistic I have read.

https://internationalman.com/article...t-us-election/

Reason #6 was my favorite.

This election is going to hinge on who cheats the best. And the Democrats have, over the years, developed far greater expertise in cheating than the Republicans. I grew up in Chicago, and it was a joke even then. Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" wasn't written for the kind of people who vote Republican.

For one thing, there's now an emphasis on mail-in votes, which makes it easier to cheat. You can register dead people as voters. You can register your dog as a voter. You could probably register 50 million Nigerian princes and get away with it. If the fraud is ever even discovered, it won't be until long after the election. Which means it's likely to be a contested election long after Nov 3rd.

That's only part of it, though. A high percentage of voting machines are computerized. Fraud by hacking voting machines is apparently easy to do and it's pretty untraceable. It's just a matter of planning and boldness.

Remember what Stalin said: "Who votes doesn't count. What counts is who counts the votes. " End of link.

I like another saying Stalin had and it is particularly apt when it comes to prosecuting Trump. "Find me the man, and I will find you the crime. "

What cracks me up about the Democratic douches and Russiagate was they act as if that was the only time a foreign power (or domestic corporation) interfered in an election, and that one, Russiagate, was pure bullshit. Hell, right now, Biden has singlehandedly made certain that Ukraine will not have another election until USA aid stops flowing in. The Dems are even calling it a war to save Democracy while destroying Democracy. You cannot make this stuff up.

[Elvis 2008]

You completely skip over the fact that isolationist and traitorous and Trump was by far the more Russia friendly candidate. Just as you are quite a Russia friendly poster, and continually betray your true agenda while calling yourself center right and Libertarian.

Paulie, you and Xpartan really need to listen to this Joe Rogan podcast with RFK JR. The guy has been made out as a nut by the media and he is one of the most rational people I have ever heard. Listen to his POV on vaccines and the war in Ukraine and then tell me what you think. Thing went 3 hours long and it felt like 20 minutes.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3DQfcTY4viyXsIXQ89NXvg

[Xpartan]

Yes, please. Continue. This is entertaining. It sounds a lot like the logic that the alt Right uses to link Joe Biden to billions in bribes from China and the Ukraine. Again, yes, I believe that Russia did try to interfere in the election. And believe that Trump perhaps colluded when he asked Russia on national television to try to find Hillary's emails.

Tiny, I linked the instances when Trump's team members (Trump Jr, Page, Manafort, Papadopoulos and others) have initiated contacts with Russian officials, not the other way around. It looks to me that it's not just Russia trying to interfere -- it's Trump's campaign begging them to. .

What am I not seeing here?

In fairness, you might have a leg to stand on (lame as hell, though).

1. You may insist that whatever Trump's people did was at their own behest (Trump didn't know).

2. You may claim that Trump was so overwhelmingly concerned about improving the Russia-US relationship (and the fate of Russian orphans, LOL) that he just couldn't wait until getting elected.

There is one or another. Choose wisely.

[Tiny 12]

Any Joe Biden links to billions in bribes from anyone anywhere has been thoroughly debunked even by Trump Admin DOJ zealots and are not supported by any evidence.

What Xpartan cited was proven or testified to by the people involved.

It was only "election interference" in the sense that Russia really, really wanted to and did help Trump win the election. It wasn't like they were randomly stuffing voting machines with banana peels in an effort to screw things up for any and all candidates and issues on the ballot.

They were only engaged in helping Trump win and working with and for anyone in Team Trump including Trump himself to accomplish that. "Interference" might sound to the ill informed that Russia was out to hurt Trump as likely as hurt Hillary. But that BS won't float with anyone who is not glued to Fux News day and night.

LOL. I see "Interference" re the 2016 election is the new substitute safe word for "collusion" among the most slavishly devoted and protective Trumpsters.

Russia collusion and the Biden Family Crime Syndicate (with reference to Joe) are largely fabrications built around kernels of truth. Pro Trump posters could prepare a list with bullet points for Bobulinski, the Big Guy, Hunter's business trip on the Presidential Jet, etc. , that would be about as convincing as Xpartan's. That's if there were any of them left. You guys should be more diplomatic with them, or you won't have anyone to argue with.

[Tiny 12]

You completely skip over the fact that isolationist and traitorous and Trump was by far the more Russia friendly candidate. Just as you are quite a Russia friendly poster, and continually betray your true agenda while calling yourself center right and Libertarian.

A plurality of Republican and Republican leaning voters favor reducing military aid to Ukraine. I imagine a majority of libertarians would eliminate military aid entirely. I'm not necessarily Russia friendly, I'm anti war. But I do favor friendlier relations with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, along with a host of other countries.

Yes, Trump was much more Russia friendly than Hillary, maybe in part because he figured the probability of getting a Trump Tower built in Moscow was a lot higher than becoming president. And he is a narcissist and puts his self interest ahead of the country's. However calling him traitorous as far as Russia goes is a stretch. He did his dead level best to prevent the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from starting up, and also encouraged NATO countries to increase their defense budgets.

[Tiny 12]

Eisenhower's total commitment to replacing the defeated and retreated French and fight in their stead by word, deed and treaty was voluntary. But once commited and then having the USA troops present, thanks to Eisenhower's by then 10 years long commitment to his Domino Theory, be attacked, LBJ's decision to make it legal for us to fire back was far more inevitable and unavoidable than voluntary.

Unless, like Reagan in Beirut, you wanted LBJ to turn tail and run in response to our being attacked and thereby teach opposing forces in the region and elsewhere in the world that they can count on America to respond that way to any attack or show of aggression in the future.

If Eisenhower had been a Dem he still would have had one of the most atrocious economic and worst jobs creating records of all time. He would have been an impossible to believe outlier among the ranks of Dem presidential economic stewardship in modern times.

If Trump had remained a supposed Dem he never would have entered politics as one. To run and win as a Dem he knew very well he would have to actually work hard, pay attention, Know Something and Do Something to produce positive results for America while avoiding those "once in 100 years catastrophes" that due to wild coincidence of course only develop under Repubs and MSM would never notice or praise him for it.

That would be anathema to someone like Trump and he knew it. That's why he, Reagan and other losing celebrity types who decide to try politics for a change switch from Dem to Repub before they do.

Besides, even if Trump had somehow missed that obvious difference over his decades of observing MSM's love affair with those alarming disaster headlines the Repub Party provides them over and over and over again, he never would have made it past the first Dem debate in his bid for the nomination.

Dems tend not to fall for failed businessmen / blatantly obvious con men whose only chance to win might be his extraordinarily tight collusion with Russia and whose rare stated goal was to place enough Federalist Society judges on the bench to outlaw Sex For Pleasure and make sure all acts of sexual intercourse are solely for the purpose of procreation.

I fully agree with the following.

The Reagan Administration's decision to remove peacekeepers from Lebanon.

The Biden and Trump Administrations' decision to remove our troops from Afghanistan.

The Nixon and Ford Administrations' decision to remove our troops from Vietnam.

The Eisenhower Administration's decision to make peace in Korea.

Maybe Xpartan was right when he criticized me for saying Democratic Politicians are somewhat less anti-war than Republicans. Maybe they really are war mongers. Or at least it looks like it's Republicans that are predominately getting us out of wars.

Yes, Eisenhower did provide money and arms to the South Vietnamese government. However, he didn't commit men, beyond a small number of advisors, perhaps fewer than we have in Ukraine now. In 1954, he told his people he "simply could not imagine the United States putting ground forces anywhere in Southeast Asia. There was just no sense in even talking about United States forces replacing the French in Indochina. If we did so, the Vietnamese could be expected to transfer their hatred of the French to us. I cannot tell you, said the President with vehemence, how bitterly opposed I am to such a course of action. This war in Indochina would absorb our troops by divisions!"

Eisenhower knew war. Kennedy did too, and although he greatly escalated military aid and the number of American advisors, his administration never sent combat troops to Vietnam. LBJ and Congress were the ones to blame.

[Tiny 12]

Wow. That Kevin McQarthy must be a brilliant Job Creator!
Private sector adds 497,000 jobs in June, more than double expectations, ADP says.

Don't be silly Tooms. Kevin McCarthy had very little to do with the 209,000 jobs (not 497,000) added in June. You can give some of the credit to Paul Ryan and other Republican Congressmen and Senators who lowered the corporate tax rate from the highest in the world to the middle of the pack. Now it makes more sense to do business and add jobs in the USA. And some of the credit to the 5 Trillion+ in unfunded pork and stimulus passed by Democrats in 2021 and 2022. As a result, special interests which benefitted from this largess are creating new jobs. Time will tell how many of those jobs will disappear when companies go out of business, like Solyndra. Or what will happen when we have to pay the piper for the massive debt we're incurring.

But most of the credit goes to factors beyond the control of politicians, including the rebound from the pandemic.

[EihTooms]

Yes, please. Continue. This is entertaining. It sounds a lot like the logic that the alt Right uses to link Joe Biden to billions in bribes from China and the Ukraine. Again, yes, I believe that Russia did try to interfere in the election. And believe that Trump perhaps colluded when he asked Russia on national television to try to find Hillary's emails.

Any Joe Biden links to billions in bribes from anyone anywhere has been thoroughly debunked even by Trump Admin DOJ zealots and are not supported by any evidence.

What Xpartan cited was proven or testified to by the people involved.

It was only "election interference" in the sense that Russia really, really wanted to and did help Trump win the election. It wasn't like they were randomly stuffing voting machines with banana peels in an effort to screw things up for any and all candidates and issues on the ballot.

They were only engaged in helping Trump win and working with and for anyone in Team Trump including Trump himself to accomplish that. "Interference" might sound to the ill informed that Russia was out to hurt Trump as likely as hurt Hillary. But that BS won't float with anyone who is not glued to Fux News day and night.

LOL. I see "Interference" re the 2016 election is the new substitute safe word for "collusion" among the most slavishly devoted and protective Trumpsters.