National Enquirer Immunity Deal

[+OverSword]

23 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Revelation: The U.S. intelligence apparatus concluded that Russia interfered in 2016’s election in a report released in January 2017. Though Steele’s name is not mentioned in that report, it does back up his reporting that Russia was actively interfering in the election process.

That's like saying that we are actively interfering ion the election process.  Posting on social media is not "actively interfering in the election process"

Hacking voting machines, assassinating candidates, paying off election officials to turn a blind eye to corruption, these are examples of interfereing in the election process.  Typing things on social media?  No.

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

That's like saying that we are actively interfering ion the election process.  Posting on social media is not "actively interfering in the election process"

IDK I believe the Feds used the term influence and not interfere but I do think that a foreign power intentionally flooding the "airwaves" with negative stories about one candidate to cover up negative stories about another is actively interfering in the election process by interfering with the flow of information.

I also think that a foreign power intentionally fomenting division, including attempts at inciting violence, among the electorate probably constitutes actively interfering in the election process as well - or at least comes close. 

 But im ok with the term influenced rather than interfere .....for now.

[+OverSword]

25 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

IDK I believe the Feds used the term influence and not interfere but I do think that a foreign power intentionally flooding the "airwaves" with negative stories about one candidate to cover up negative stories about another is actively interfering in the election process by interfering with the flow of information.

I also think that a foreign power intentionally fomenting division, including attempts at inciting violence, among the electorate probably constitutes actively interfering in the election process as well - or at least comes close. 

 But im ok with the term influenced rather than interfere .....for now.

Then you must believe that the USA "influence"  the elections of every nation on the face of the earth. 

Remember when Obama informed England that if Brexit passes then we would be forced to negotiate a brand new trade agreement with them and that since we are already negotiating many. many other agreements that England (our closest and dearest ally) would be put to the back of a very long line and it would be years before we ironed out a deal with them?  How is that for an attempt at election "influence"? 

One thing I'd bet on, that one speech had a greater influence on Brexit than all the Russian social media posts combined.

Was that blatant lie told to the citizens of England okay do you think?  It certainly wasn't illegal, although it should have been.  Praise God that the globalists have been beaten back and God willing it will continue.

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by OverSword

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Then you must believe that the USA "influence"  the elections of every nation on the face of the earth. 

I would assume as much. We know for a fact that they run the same type of operation that the soviets did from time to time, and as with everything else with the alphabet agencies if we know about it we can assume the reality is its 100x more complex than reported.

Are you suggesting that somehow means we should lay down and let it happen to us? Or wholly ignore when Americans assist in it happening?

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Remember when Obama informed England that if Brexit passes then we would be forced to negotiate a brand new trade agreement with them and that since we are already negotiating many. many other agreements that England (our closest and dearest ally) would be put to the back of a very long line and it would be years before we ironed out a deal with them?  How is that for an attempt at election "influence"? 

Was that blatant lie told to the citizens of England okay do you think?  It certainly wasn't illegal, although it should have been.  

I think you have to work really hard to equate public statements from a head of state with a clandestine influence operation designed to help one presidential candidate over another.

Why do you think that laying out the realities of withdrawing from Brexit to the citizenry should be illegal? Especially considering Cambridge Analyticas disinformation campaign to make it happen.

8 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Praise God that the globalists have been beaten back and God willing it will continue.

Why? I guess let me back up.....you're a level headed dude unlike most here who post about "globalists" so im curious in your opinion what are you calling a globalist and why are you glad that got beat back? 

[Farmer77]

LOL I said Soviets ^^

[Tiggs]

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Then you must believe that the USA "influence"  the elections of every nation on the face of the earth. 

Remember when Obama informed England that if Brexit passes then we would be forced to negotiate a brand new trade agreement with them and that since we are already negotiating many. many other agreements that England (our closest and dearest ally) would be put to the back of a very long line and it would be years before we ironed out a deal with them?  How is that for an attempt at election "influence"? 

It's been almost two years. Might possibly notice we still haven't managed to iron one out for them, yet.

[+OverSword]

7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Why do you think that laying out the realities of withdrawing from Brexit to the citizenry should be illegal?

First of all he layed out no reality, it was a lie meant to influence an internal election on behalf of his fellow globalists.  And why should that be illegal?????!!!!????  The President of the most powerful nation on the earth lying to a foreign electorate to influence their vote?  Why should that not be illegal would be a question that I think makes more sense.

[+OverSword]

13 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

in your opinion what are you calling a globalist and why are you glad that got beat back? 

Globalists are basically people ultimately trying to form a one world government, which is what makes Brexit a step in the wrong direction as far they're concerned, and I'm glad they got beat back because I'm a libertarian who believes in small government and big freedom.

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

First of all he layed out no reality, it was a lie meant to influence an internal election on behalf of his fellow globalists. 

Why do you consider it a lie? If Britain was changing their status by leaving the EU then why wouldnt trade be affected?

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

And why should that be illegal?????!!!!????  The President of the most powerful nation on the earth lying to a foreign electorate to influence their vote? 

Again why are you calling it a lie? Also, again, this is in the face of a Cambridge Analytica disinformation campaign. Should Obama have allowed the British voting populace to believe a falsehood?

Quote

Obama argued that he had a right to respond to the claims of Brexit campaigners that Britain would easily be able to negotiate a fresh trade deal with the US. “They are voicing an opinion about what the United States is going to do, I figured you might want to hear from the president of the United States what I think the United States is going to do.

“And on that matter, for example, I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done”.

 

[+OverSword]

14 minutes ago, Tiggs said:

It's been almost two years. Might possibly notice we still haven't managed to iron one out for them, yet.

We will soon after they are separated from the EU and it will happen rapidly.  They certainly won't be at the back of some trade deal cue behind Tasmania and the Marshall Islands.  It was a lie.  It was a lie told by the most powerful man in the world.  It was a lie told by the most powerful man in the world in order to influence a foreign election.

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Why do you consider it a lie?

See above.

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Globalists are basically people ultimately trying to form a one world government, which is what makes Brexit a step in the wrong direction as far they're concerned, and I'm glad they got beat back because I'm a libertarian who believes in small government and big freedom.

I used to be libertarian as well. I came to the realization that unless murder becomes acceptable, or you're already a multi millionaire,  the libertarian outlook is a losing one. I definitely still get it in theory though.

 

 

 

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

They certainly won't be at the back of some trade deal cue behind Tasmania and the Marshall Islands.  It was a lie. 

DId he actually say that? Can you provide a link? It wasnt in the article I just posted, in fact he said the exact opposite of that

Quote

Obama argued that it was much more efficient for the US to negotiate with the EU as a bloc, rather than attempt to take on “piecemeal trade agreements”, and suggested that Brexit would send a signal of division to the world.

 

[Farmer77]

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

See above.

See above

[+OverSword]

20 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

DId he actually say that? Can you provide a link? It wasnt in the article I just posted, in fact he said the exact opposite of that

 

He lied.  England, our closest ally. not interested in trade with one of our largest trading partners.  Lie.  Why the lie?  To influence voters into voting for a globalist cause and ultimately giving up their sovereignty.

He's ****ing slime.

Edited December 17, 2018 by OverSword

[Farmer77]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

He lied.  England, our closest ally. not interested in trade with one of our largest trading partners.  Lie.  Why the lie?  To influence voters into voting for a globalist cause and ultimately giving up their sovereignty.

You just posted the video of him saying what I posted above.

Your claim was :

27 minutes ago, OverSword said:

They certainly won't be at the back of some trade deal cue behind Tasmania and the Marshall Islands. 

He didnt say that, and actually said the exact opposite , that the US wants to trade with big blocs not small individuals. Which is common sense.

Where was the lie?

[+OverSword]

16 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

You just posted the video of him saying what I posted above.

Your claim was :

He didnt say that, and actually said the exact opposite , that the US wants to trade with big blocs not small individuals. Which is common sense.

Where was the lie?

Well we can derail this thread more for this one little bit I guess.  We won't know for sure until after it happens. 

How much do you want to bet that after Brexit is finalized bot the US and the EU will have a trade deal ironed out with England before the US and the EU do with each other? 

But don't get me wrong.  I'm against trade deals.  I'm against government interference with trade.  The end result of trade agreements is more money for governments, higher prices for consumers and less profits for our employers which equals lower wages for us.  Do you think trade wouldn't happen without governments?  It most certainly would and it would be a lot healthier than what we have now.

 

And edit just to say, you're joking?  Did you hear that little weasel talking to the English voters.  Eventually..Somewhere down the line...back burner.  What a ****.  I can not stand that well spoken piece of human waste.  Thank god for term limits.

Edited December 17, 2018 by OverSword

[Farmer77]

18 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Well we can derail this thread more for this one little bit I guess.  We won't know for sure until after it happens. 

How much do you want to bet that after Brexit is finalized bot the US and the EU will have a trade deal ironed out with England before the US and the EU do with each other? 

When you look at the timing I think it looks more like hubris than a lie. Obama simply thought there would be a continuity of policy with Hillary taking his place after the election. Now that the orange one is in office youre probably right - even if only because its the opposite of what Obama said he would do

20 minutes ago, OverSword said:

But don't get me wrong.  I'm against trade deals.  I'm against government interference with trade.  The end result of trade agreements is more money for governments, higher prices for consumers and less profits for our employers which equals lower wages for us.  Do you think trade wouldn't happen without governments?  It most certainly would and it would be a lot healthier than what we have now.

Im probably not qualified to even comment but dont trade agreements lower expenses for Americans by streamlining regulation and customs enforcement?

 

21 minutes ago, OverSword said:

And edit just to say, you're joking?  Did you hear that little weasel talking to the English voters.  Eventually..Somewhere down the line...back burner.  What a ****.  I can not stand that well spoken piece of human waste.  Thank god for term limits.

Methinks your problem is more with the individual than the words he actually said.

Put Trump in Obama's shoes right there and change the verbiage to say "America First" and if youre honest with yourself you would agree with the sentiment.

Thats what Obama did, he told the British voters that despite what Bannon and Cambridge Analyticas disinformation campaign said he would put America first in negotiations and not Britain.

 

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Im probably not qualified to even comment but dont trade agreements lower expenses for Americans by streamlining regulation and customs enforcement?

Regulations and customs enforcement put in place by which entity?

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

Methinks your problem is more with the individual than the words he actually said.

No, no.  It's both.  His words and lies are why I never liked his stupid smug superior self.  That and the whole born in kenya thing of course

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Regulations and customs enforcement put in place by which entity?

Well the government of course. Are you arguing there should be no customs enforcement?

 

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Well the government of course. Are you arguing there should be no customs enforcement?

 

Only to make sure people aren't importing nuclear weapons or illegal aliens. 

[Imaginarynumber1]

3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

I used to be libertarian as well. I came to the realization that unless murder becomes acceptable, or you're already a multi millionaire,  the libertarian outlook is a losing one. I definitely still get it in theory though.

 

 

 

A libertarian is just someone who doesn't have the balls to call themselves republican.

[+OverSword]

13 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

A libertarian is just someone who doesn't have the balls to call themselves republican.

Not true.  A Libertarian is the only true liberal you'll ever meet.  We would never tell you what to do as long as you're not hurting someone else and we don't think the government should either.  Republicans want to tell your women what to do with their bodies, tell same sex couples they can't get married think their religious morals should be yours and would love to use the government to enforce all of those things.  Democrats are exactly like republicans except they want the government to enforce the exact opposite but they're even worse because they want the government to be your mommy from cradle to grave and tell you exactly what to do all the time.

[Imaginarynumber1]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Not true.  A Libertarian is the only true liberal you'll ever meet.  We would never tell you what to do as long as you're not hurting someone else and we don't think the government should either.  Republicans want to tell your women what to do with their bodies, tell same sex couples they can't get married think their religious morals should be yours and would love to use the government to enforce all of those things.  Democrats are exactly like republicans except they want the government to enforce the exact opposite but they're even worse because they want the government to be your mommy from cradle to grave and tell you exactly what to do all the time.

Libertarians align themselves with Republicans 9 times out of 10.

[+OverSword]

Just now, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Libertarians align themselves with Republicans 9 times out of 10.

Libertarians more closely align themselves with republicans when forced to choose between the economic proposals presented by republicans and democrats.  To that extent your statement is not a complete farce.