Russia probes II -- The Mueller Report

[F3SS]

I agree. So many of these divisive issues could be solved. We'll still need government, just less of it and we could focus on more positive and uplifting things whatever those might be.

[+Hammerclaw]

[+and-then]

On 5/14/2019 at 6:11 PM, Tatetopa said:

Well, at least we have the government we deserve now.

We always have had...

[+and-then]

On 5/14/2019 at 9:38 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

 

Isn't it wunnerful...?   <grin>

No wonder why the dems have been going nuts at Barr, they must have known this was coming.  lol

I think it has been their nightmare scenario since Nov. 8th of 2016 and they've been doing everything they could to forestall or derail it.  It's Freddy Kruger time 

[+and-then]

On 5/14/2019 at 9:59 PM, F3SS said:

Rod Rosenstein on Comey. I agree that RR has thrown me for a loop too. 

 

I think a great new meme would be Comey staring soulfully into the distance through the bars of a cell 

[+DieChecker]

17 hours ago, skliss said:

They are well aware that he shows us how little we need them. And it's becoming apparent that if they solve all the problems what reason do we have to keep them? Why hasn't immigration been resolved over the last 30 years...because then what would they have to run on? Trump exposes all of this while still getting stuff done. They are worried about losing their "phoney, baloney jobs".

Same with poverty. Dems have been running on ending poverty for 50 years, and what has changed? More people on the dole and about the same rate of poverty as 50 years ago.

They've fixed nothing. Just made poverty a little more comfortable, because now fewer have to work AND be poor.

[+DieChecker]

On 5/14/2019 at 7:43 PM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

LOL She is still calling Trump "Bush"   

 

Maybe it's the Alzheimer's?

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

24 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Maybe it's the Alzheimer's?

or Oldsheimers  

They should team Maxine up with  Biden for 2020 and call them "Team Dimentia"  lol

[RavenHawk]

20 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Same with poverty. Dems have been running on ending poverty for 50 years, and what has changed? More people on the dole and about the same rate of poverty as 50 years ago.

They've fixed nothing. Just made poverty a little more comfortable, because now fewer have to work AND be poor.

This is representative of the Democratic platform that eventually gives way to Socialism (Progressivism).  You can try and build up the middle class; allowing people to be successful.  But that runs an enormous risk that a few will fall into extreme poverty.  But something manageable for a government safety net.  Or you can remove the middle class and provide for a more comfortable (not as extreme) poverty with heavy dependency on the government.  Without risk, there is no nation.  The government should provide for equal opportunity (not equal outcome).  Ensure that risk is available to everybody and let the individual rise or fall on their own.  In the end, more people will rise and be successful.  That is the American way.  That environment of success will rub off on those not as successful and those at the bottom will learn how to be successful.  That is how you build a strong middle class and combat poverty.  Not telling people that they didn’t build it.  We do need Fundamental Change; we need to exercise Socialism from our system.

[+DieChecker]

59 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

This is representative of the Democratic platform that eventually gives way to Socialism (Progressivism).  You can try and build up the middle class; allowing people to be successful.  But that runs an enormous risk that a few will fall into extreme poverty.  But something manageable for a government safety net.  Or you can remove the middle class and provide for a more comfortable (not as extreme) poverty with heavy dependency on the government.  Without risk, there is no nation.  The government should provide for equal opportunity (not equal outcome).  Ensure that risk is available to everybody and let the individual rise or fall on their own.  In the end, more people will rise and be successful.  That is the American way.  That environment of success will rub off on those not as successful and those at the bottom will learn how to be successful.  That is how you build a strong middle class and combat poverty.  Not telling people that they didn’t build it.  We do need Fundamental Change; we need to exercise Socialism from our system.

 

I was just talking with a coworker who said his brother was offered more hours and a better position, but he declined both, because he was already up against what he could make and still get his Section 8 housing, and other benefits. 

He's rather have the bird (tiny quail) in the hand then go after the two (giant turkeys) in the bush. He's ok with a minimal income that is stable, rather then the chance of several times that, but with some risk.

I think this thinking is very prevalent in many lower class areas around the country. They have gotten used to the minimal lifestyle, not because they want it though, and see the Democrats as the means to continue that lifestyle, or even add (see minimum salary debate) on top of what they already receive. The emphasis being to maintain, not to improve. At least not to improve by way of risk.

I'm not sure what to do about it. It's become lifestyle for so many. How do you motivate people who are ok with being dirt poor to get off government aid?

[Tatetopa]

13 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

This is representative of the Democratic platform that eventually gives way to Socialism (Progressivism).  You can try and build up the middle class; allowing people to be successful.  But that runs an enormous risk that a few will fall into extreme poverty.  But something manageable for a government safety net.  Or you can remove the middle class and provide for a more comfortable (not as extreme) poverty with heavy dependency on the government.  Without risk, there is no nation.  The government should provide for equal opportunity (not equal outcome).  Ensure that risk is available to everybody and let the individual rise or fall on their own.  In the end, more people will rise and be successful.  That is the American way.  That environment of success will rub off on those not as successful and those at the bottom will learn how to be successful.  That is how you build a strong middle class and combat poverty.  Not telling people that they didn’t build it.  We do need Fundamental Change; we need to exercise Socialism from our system.

I surely do like some of your comment here.  Risk is good if as you say, when you are taking the chance, there is a net.  The fall may be uncomfortable, but you don't die, and you get a chance to try again.  

[Gromdor]

On 5/16/2019 at 9:58 AM, DieChecker said:

I was just talking with a coworker who said his brother was offered more hours and a better position, but he declined both, because he was already up against what he could make and still get his Section 8 housing, and other benefits. 

He's rather have the bird (tiny quail) in the hand then go after the two (giant turkeys) in the bush. He's ok with a minimal income that is stable, rather then the chance of several times that, but with some risk.

I think this thinking is very prevalent in many lower class areas around the country. They have gotten used to the minimal lifestyle, not because they want it though, and see the Democrats as the means to continue that lifestyle, or even add (see minimum salary debate) on top of what they already receive. The emphasis being to maintain, not to improve. At least not to improve by way of risk.

I'm not sure what to do about it. It's become lifestyle for so many. How do you motivate people who are ok with being dirt poor to get off government aid?

I think housing is a very real issue that people are just now coming to terms with.  Having a good job is nice and all but if a pay raise makes you homeless, it really doesn't do you much good.  Of course the housing discussion is probably something that deserves a thread of it's own.

[skliss]

This just shows it's all about political theater.:

 

Attorney General Barr to House Speaker Pelosi: 'Did you bring your handcuffs?'

Attorney General William Barr reportedly joked Wednesday with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., about being put in handcuffs on the sidelines of an event honoring slain law enforcement officers outside the Capitol.

“Madam Speaker, did you bring your handcuffs?" Barr quipped to Pelosi, according to the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Pelosi smiled and offered her own tongue-in-cheek response. The House sergeant-at-arms was in attendance, should an arrest be necessary, the top Democrat told the attorney general. Barr reportedly chuckled and walked away, according to the outlets.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/15/ag-barr-speaker-pelosi-did-you-bring-your-handcuffs/3688072002/

[+DieChecker]

I did see that Pelosi has beaten her subordinates into submission and has said, basically, that impeachment is dead.

Many of the further left media outlets are posting many articles on how that would be a mistake, but it seems she's not listening.

 

[ExpandMyMind]

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I did see that Pelosi has beaten her subordinates into submission and has said, basically, that impeachment is dead.

Many of the further left media outlets are posting many articles on how that would be a mistake, but it seems she's not listening.

 

From yesterday:

Quote

Pelosi says Trump 'every day gives grounds for impeachment'

 

[Harte]

From yesterday:

Quote

"I’ve been trying to get answers to the questions and I've found that a lot of the answers have been inadequate and some of the explanations I've gotten don't hang together, in a sense I have more questions today than when I first started," Barr told Fox News' Bill Hemmer in an interview set to air Friday on "America's Newsroom."

Harte

[+and-then]

On 5/16/2019 at 8:43 AM, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

or Oldsheimers  

They should team Maxine up with  Biden for 2020 and call them "Team Dimentia"  lol

What a campaign that would be.  Trump would have so much fun razzing them that he could charge for doing stand-up comedy on the trail  

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I did see that Pelosi has beaten her subordinates into submission and has said, basically, that impeachment is dead.

Many of the further left media outlets are posting many articles on how that would be a mistake, but it seems she's not listening.

 

Even Nutty Nancy, aka "STRETCH" can read polls.  Speaking of demented partisan hacks from the land of fruits and nuts, I heard that Feinstein was overheard conferencing with Javad Zarif a couple of days ago.  THEN she made a statement about how Iran "doesn't want a war".  Can you believe people like she and Kerry working on foreign policy behind the president's back and without ANY portfolio to do so?  That crap should be illegal...wait.. it IS - The Logan Act should be used to prosecute these partisan hacks.  What the HELL do they think they're doing?  

[+and-then]

5 minutes ago, Harte said:

From yesterday:

Harte

He may be just another disappointment in the end, but it looks like he's serious at this point and if he is... it should be a quite interesting Summer ahead.  I heard today that the MSM was grumbling because of him saying things like this, how he shouldn't be speaking publicly about looking into the predicate for this investigation.  I'm sure the top fluffs at the media centers are wrangling an angle to intercede with an attempt to sway the public against his efforts but if Durham impanels a grand jury and indictments begin appearing, they're going to have an uphill battle with that little effort.  I hope he follows the information and if crimes are found, charges are brought no matter how high the trail goes.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

From yesterday:

 

Then.... why hasn’t he? He’s been there 2 years, so 730 pieces of evidence towards impeachabilty. Yet not s one has resulted in impeachment.

[+and-then]

18 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Then.... why hasn’t he? He’s been there 2 years, so 730 pieces of evidence towards impeachabilty. Yet not s one has resulted in impeachment.

Those who are still clinging to the hope that he's going to be removed, magically from that office are becoming a little pathetic.  If they hadn't been such jerks, I'd almost feel for their shame.  Instead, I think I'll just enjoy it.

[F3SS]

1 minute ago, and then said:

Those who are still clinging to the hope that he's going to be removed, magically from that office are becoming a little pathetic.  If they hadn't been such jerks, I'd almost feel for their shame.  Instead, I think I'll just enjoy it.

Enjoy it. Since 2008 they've been telling you that you're a dying breed, a bitter clinger, a racist and a Nazi and when they found out you weren't part of a dying breed they threw a fit of biblical proportions and planned a coup against the man who proved them wrong and exposed them for the self serving elitists that they truly are. Enjoy the hell out of it. I know I will.

[Vorg]

Once they look at the origins of this investigation and find that it was begun on illegal premises (aka Steele dossier) then everything else falls apart. It is like illegal evidence used in a trial, it is thrown out. The Dems are scurrying like swamp rats trying to sink Trump, yet they themselves are about to swirl down the drain.

[Vorg]

The Democrats need to realize this isn't about Trump, it is about the will of the voters that put him in office.

Maxine Waters represents her district of congress, and so forth. 435 members and 100 Senators. She is small potatoes compared to all the people that voted Trump in office and not just a small congressional district she represents. She shouldn't let her mouth override the will of 63,000,000 people. And she is just one of the extremely biased vocal ones in the Democratic controlled congress against Trump, AKA the people who voted him in Office.

 

[+and-then]

I REALLY hope Durham turns out to be impeccably nonpartisan and as tenacious as a bulldog on a fresh, meaty bone.