Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Raptor Witness

Where Does The Impeachment Leave U.S?

198 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Doug1029
9 hours ago, and then said:

If I thought it was possible, I think I'd be ready for the ground combat.  No way will filth like that put a boot on my neck while I have the strength to resist at all.

Sounds like you're looking for a fight.

It is better for violence to come from the right than from the left.  Whichever side starts it, the power of the US govt will be used to put it down.  I'd rather that power be applied to the right than to the left.

Besides, even if there is a "revolution," it won't involve armies maneuvering in the field.  What you'll see are right-wing hit squads showing up at peaceful demonstrations to start trouble.

You may see assassinations, but that's not a good idea.  Whatever you do to the other side, the other side can do to you.

I hear the threats of violence coming from right-wingers.  I don't hear them coming from the left.  So who's trying to start the revolutin?

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
7 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

She bombed on healthcare reform and lost to Obama in a primary and lost to Trump who even Bernie could have beaten and is married to a man who cheated on her, time and again. The woman is a loser whose husband only became President because Gore was too chicken to run against Bush Senior and because Ross Perot divided the electorate. Slick Willie Clinton won on a plurality vote, not a majority. No one wants her and the baggage she brings with her. She's finished. 

I hope you're right.

She keeps making funny noises about a comeback, but it's going to be a long trip.  I think the party would prefer she just disappear.

The right likes her, though.  Without her, what would they do for a whipping boy?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

No, I don't think it would be proper. Indeed, it could be viewed as a Hostile Act, or even an act of war ? 

As I understand it, a foreign government could pay for political advertising independently of a candidate, or it could donate to an independent PAC.  What it could not legally do is donate directly to the candidate or the candidate's campaign.

That being said, Trump solicited Ukraine for a contribution to his campaign:  he asked Ukraine for an announcement that Biden was being investigated.   That would be a "thing of value" and thus, fall under the definition of bribery.  SO:  if Ukraine had done that, it would have been breaking US law.  But Trump was acquitted, you say.  "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent."

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Having said that.. why would Germany or France WANT to support Bernie Sanders' campaign ? What's in it for them ? d

Having Trump out of their hair would be a big shot in the arm.  They would then have a person in the White House whom they could trust.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
12 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Sounds like you're looking for a fight.

Not looking but ready to defend himself if it should come.

 

It is better for violence to come from the right than from the left.  Whichever side starts it, the power of the US govt will be used to put it down.  I'd rather that power be applied to the right than to the left.

It won’t come from the Right.  The Right doesn’t start things, but they do finish them.  They are the ones that Jefferson fore claimed: “that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”  That is the best description of a Conservative.  At this point, the Right and the government (military) are well established as being on the same side.  If it was the other way, the government would be on the wrong side and after using the military against the people, units would start deserting and joining with the people.  The military would never join the Left.  Every soldier takes an oath to defend the Constitution and the Left are very much anti-Constitution.  This is why Obama was so intent in establishing the NCSF that would be just as powerful as the military.  He would need this force to check the military and be loyal to him.

 

Besides, even if there is a "revolution," it won't involve armies maneuvering in the field. 

Let’s hope not.

 

What you'll see are right-wing hit squads showing up at peaceful demonstrations to start trouble.

You won’t see that either.  It’ll be the Left hitting places to start up anarchy.  That’s what Charlottesville was intended to be but failed.

 

You may see assassinations, but that's not a good idea.  Whatever you do to the other side, the other side can do to you.

I’m sure the Left will go there.  The Right will pick up that gauntlet and thrash the Left with it.

 

I hear the threats of violence coming from right-wingers.  I don't hear them coming from the left.  So who's trying to start the revolutin?

Then you’re not paying attention.  The Right states that we will defend our Rights as the Founding Fathers intended.  The Left claims that we should be forcibly placed into reeducation camps.  So you tell me, which one sounds more violent?  The Right that just wants to be left alone or the Left that must impose their will on others?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
7 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

It won’t come from the Right.  The Right doesn’t start things, but they do finish them.  They are the ones that Jefferson fore claimed: “that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”  That is the best description of a Conservative.  At this point, the Right and the government (military) are well established as being on the same side.  If it was the other way, the government would be on the wrong side and after using the military against the people, units would start deserting and joining with the people.  The military would never join the Left.  Every soldier takes an oath to defend the Constitution and the Left are very much anti-Constitution.  This is why Obama was so intent in establishing the NCSF that would be just as powerful as the military.  He would need this force to check the military and be loyal to him.

I know about the right.  I have seen them in action.

Remember Kent State?  I am a 1971 graduate of Kent State.  I was not there for the murders (May 4, 1970), but I knew many of the people involved.

I say "murder" because that is what it was.  There is a tape, recorded by my cousin, in which the order to "Turn. Point. Shoot" is heard.  The Guard wasn't a mob of panicked kids.  They were people obeying an illegal order, which makes them complicit.  There were no snipers.  The entire campus has been searched for bullet marks in buildings or trees.  The Guardsmen's bullets account for them all.  The students were not attacking the Guard.  One of the dead, Sandy Schuerer, was more than 900 feet from the Guard.  How could she be threatening them?

Bill Slocum, the guy who beat me in the previous election for Student Body President, was arrested, even though he wasn't even there.  The court threw out his and the other student convictions.  The police had charged everybody except the perpetrators.

Charley Brill, a professor who I had for a geology class, was fined for disobeying a gag order imposed by the court.  This is the USA - we have a right and a duty to speak out against injustice.  It was Charley who after the initial shootings, placed himself between a mob of angry students and the Guard, risking being shot in the back, to quell the anger.  If he hadn't been there, more students would have died, but so would have 23 National Guardsmen.

 

The night before the shooting, a bunch of drunk students had broken windows out of 19 bars along State Street.  The bar owners were p***ed and demanding the governor send in the National Guard.  So whatever happened to arresting and charging the drunks?  You don't just go grab somebody off the street and shoot them.

The SDS had been protesting the presence on campus of a bunch of barracks buildings left over from WWII.  They were being used for storage, but that was beside the point to the SDS.  They set the buildings on fire.  When the fire department arrived, they cut the hoses.  The buildings burned to the ground.  By the time the Guard got there, it was all over but the shouting.  After the murders the Guard took shelter in the burned out shells.

 

What started this all?  Hateful rhetoric coming from the White House, from Nixon (who resigned from the Presidency in disgrace) and Agnew (later resigned as part of a tax-evasion plea bargain).  These two people routinely crossed state lines inciting riot in violation of the Riot Act.  In the background was J. Edgar Hoover who wanted this type of incident to teach the kids a lesson and quell resistance to the war.  He suckered James Rhodes, a man of limited intellect, into calling students names the night before and sending in the Guard.  The very agency supposed to keep this sort of thing from happening was instrumental in making it happen.

 

The Portage County Prosecutor tried the Guardsmen in a whitewash trial.  He charged them and when the case came to trial, he argued for the defense.  It was a sham trial, but it protects the Guardsmen from further prosecution under Double Jeopardy.

 

That was fifty years ago this spring and I'm still mad as hell.  Virtually every legal protection was subverted by right-wing politicians so they could win an election.  And the right still does those things.  Trump is as guilty of inciting riot as Nixon was.  Right-wing agents still force their way into demonstrations and injure or kill people (Antifa is a necessary defense against that.).  Even "peaceful gun owners" brandish their weapons in public to intimidate or threaten their opponents, most recently in the Kentucky State House.

This kind of politics split the country over the Vietnam War and clearly demonstrated that the right WILL resort to murder to get its way.  If we want to keep all those rights we claim the other side is trying to take away from us, we'd better figure out a way to work together before the government takes away all our rights.

Doug

 

P.S.:  Remember that Kent State graduate who made a big deal of carrying an AK-47 on campus in violation of university policy?  After graduation, she maintained that they couldn't legally touch her.  The university didn't touch her - they froze her records.  No transcripts can be issued; no confirmation or denial of degrees obtained.  As far as the public record goes, she never attended college.  She can't even get into another university's graduate school; she'll have to start over.  But don't worry; I'm sure the lawyers will work something out.

Doug

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
36 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

As I understand it, a foreign government could pay for political advertising independently of a candidate, or it could donate to an independent PAC.  What it could not legally do is donate directly to the candidate or the candidate's campaign.

And Hilary found a way around it.

 

That being said, Trump solicited Ukraine for a contribution to his campaign:  he asked Ukraine for an announcement that Biden was being investigated.   

Except that didn’t happen.  No doubt that Trump wanted to initiate a joint task force to look into corruption, especially when one of our own citizens were involved.  You think Trump was just wanting to invent something fictious like the Dossier to go after Hunter??  Why not just create dirt on Joe?  Maybe because what Hunter was doing was known to those that pay attention to such things.  Giuliani had probably already gathered all the evidence.  The Senate has already subpoenaed Hunter’s banking records.  If Biden doesn’t bounce back in South Carolina, Super Tuesday is going to be rough on him.

 

That would be a "thing of value" and thus, fall under the definition of bribery.  SO:  if Ukraine had done that, it would have been breaking US law. 

You still have to prove that *that* was something that Ukraine didn’t want to give up.  But Zelinsky was very eager to work with Trump and build a strong alliance.  Bribery was not necessary.

 

But Trump was acquitted, you say.  "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent."

So say the Senate and the evidence (or lack thereof).  Well, in our system, the accused starts of as innocent.  “Acquitted” means innocent forever.

 

Having Trump out of their hair would be a big shot in the arm.  They would then have a person in the White House whom they could trust.

Well, that just won’t work here.  If anarchy is what these nations want, then no, they can’t trust Trump.  But if they want someone that will have their back in establishing Western Culture and freedom, then Trump is very trustworthy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WanderingFool0
10 hours ago, bee said:

 

welcome to UM......  :) 

I disagree with what you say that Trump is 'another puppet working for the same globalists'....

If he was he wouldn't be attacked so viciously by the MSM and various others (like John Brennan
for example) .......24/7....

And when it comes to USCMA (which I believe Canada hasn't ratified yet...? ) this would be
to simply make improvements for America on the existing NAFTA agreement... maybe Canada
hasn't ratified it yet because they are dragging their heels because under Trudeau they are
100% committed to Globalization and the USCMA agreement is a move away from that ....
ie for Globalism to take a next big step forward America has to be weakened economically
and socially... ready for the North American Union.... and under Trumps Presidency... USCMA
is a move away from Globalism for the reason I've just speculated on...

As a businessman he isn't going to just get rid of NAFTA..?... too much business and investment
would be tied up in it....

And remember that on the very first day of his Presidency he did what he promised and pulled
the US out of the Trans Pacific Partnership - no Globalist Puppet would have done that....

would have been allowed to do that....

 

 

 

Thank you for the welcome.

We will just have to disagree on him being a puppet. I do agree, he has had quite a battle with the other party and even with his own party in the course of his run and his presidency. I just don’t think that opposition means he is really an outsider or outside of the elites control. If he was truly a loose cannon, then why did he seed his entire cabinet and administration with the same usual suspects? Many of them just as much corrupt swamp creatures as those on the left. If members of his cabinet are corrupt and controlled, then his administration will still be corrupt and controlled. A president is only as good as his advisers.

And really, though the masses tend to focus on the presidency, it is actually a very weak position of power in the first place. If the elite own the president, it just means they don’t have to own two thirds of the majority of congress. Even if the elite lose control of the presidency, if they still retain control of two thirds of congress, then the president is just a glorified rubber stamp. His veto powers would be nullified.

And as far as the USCMA. All I can say is looking at it, still has the same goal to set up independent regulation committees, that much like the EU commission and it’s edicts will effect the economic and possibly the social sovereignty of the United States. And the thing about sovereignty is if you give it up, you give it up, you can’t just give it up a little. A nation either has the right to control it’s economic destiny or it doesn’t.

I am not sure why Canada hasn’t ratified, I haven’t looked into it, but they may just not have liked the deal they got and it has nothing to do with the globalism or anti-globalism angle. Mexico refused to ratify as well, until it negotiated certain conditions that changed their mind.

And I would say at the end of the day, anyone looking at this legislation as a standalone piece of legislation didn’t really pay attention to NAFTA. Because, NAFTA consisted of many parts and additions added for a multitude of administrations. The original deal was floated under Bush sr and when Clinton came into office he signed it, Bush Jr signed additional legislation for it in his administration and Obama signed and added the trucking portion of the NAFTA legislation at the end of his administration.

I think it is important to understand that, because that is how the globalists get us. The USCMA on face looks real good and will do some good for the American Economy, but while wetting our beaks it’s already chipping away at our sovereignty. I would place a good wager as further legislation is passed for the USCMA in this administration and the next, that North American Union will slowly start to look more and more like the EU. The people won’t really notice or have problems until they run into weird regulations from the commission that start changing they way they do business, much like the nations of the EU.

And one last thing about the USCMA if you look at the wiki on it, there is a quote from the original author of the NAFTA trade agreement, saying that USCMA looks a lot like what NAFTA was when it was first purposed. And a rose by any other name and color is still a rose.

 

I of course could be wrong, but everything in my life experience tells me the new boss is the same old boss and the elite will always firmly stay in control. After all the banks and corporations can get money printed from thin air to bail them out, but congress couldn’t figure out where to get the money to fix the crumbling bridges, overpasses and infrastructure of the United States, when a team of engineers came to them saying that a lot of those old bridges and overpasses are reaching end of their life and will start collapsing in the coming years. Who really is getting the representation in this nation? Doesn’t seem like it’s the people to me.

Thank you for the discussion

 

 

 

 

Edited by WanderingFool0
typo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
22 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

And Hilary found a way around it.

I don't know if she found a way around it or did something illegal, or if this is another right-wind smear story.  But at any rate, if you have ever been to the University of Arkansas campus at Fayetteville, they have several buildings donated by wealthy Saudi royals.  In order to curry favor with the Clintons, but avoid breaking the law, they donated them to the Clinton's Alma Mater.  THAT is a way around it and certainly somebody used it, whether it was to impress Bill or Hillary, I don't know.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
29 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Except that didn’t happen.  No doubt that Trump wanted to initiate a joint task force to look into corruption, especially when one of our own citizens were involved.  You think Trump was just wanting to invent something fictious like the Dossier to go after Hunter??  Why not just create dirt on Joe?  Maybe because what Hunter was doing was known to those that pay attention to such things.  Giuliani had probably already gathered all the evidence.  The Senate has already subpoenaed Hunter’s banking records.  If Biden doesn’t bounce back in South Carolina, Super Tuesday is going to be rough on him.

That is virtually all right-wing conspiracy theory bs.

The Dossier turned out to be true, but that was only proven one point at a time over many months, so much so that I had forgotten about by the time they finished verifying it.

Does Trump have to invent something on Hunter?  My guess is that hunter was appointed to the board of a gas company he knew nothing about in hopes that it would help the company.  You see that with a lot of American companies.  The titular heads of many sawmilling companies have no idea how to run a sawmill.  They rely on CEOs to do that.

Why not create dirt on Joe?  Well, why not?  Trump is good at making up stuff and the "dirt" doesn't have to be true.  Just believable enough that his base will fall for it.  Apparently, it worked.

Maybe Giuliani had already gathered the evidence - but that's juts speculation.  Giuliani never testified, so we don't know.

I don't know what is going to happen with Biden.  He seems over-the-hill to me.  Out of touch with what is happening now.  So maybe Trump's smear campaign will result in Sanders getting the nomination and beating Trump.  Just have to wait and see.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

I’m sure the Left will go there.  The Right will pick up that gauntlet and thrash the Left with it.

So you're admitting the right is violent.  By your description, they are horses of the same color.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
16 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

The Dossier turned out to be true, but that was only proven one point at a time over many months, so much so that I had forgotten about by the time they finished verifying it.

You seem to be the only remaining person on the planet still claiming this.  Everyone else, including people involved in producing it, admit that it was all fabricated.

Sunday Times Says British Intel Agent Fabricated Entire ‘P*ssGate’ Dossier, Media Silent

Quote

“From a professional intelligence perspective, the dossier . . . is profoundly troubling and cannot be taken at face value.”

https://nationalfile.com/sunday-times-says-british-intel-agent-fabricated-entire-pssgate-dossier-media-silent/

It's probably time to let go of the dossier...it is dead and debunked.

Also, Burisma itself was involved with Crowdstrike and the genesis of the dossier, so this runs much, much deeper than Hunter being placed on the board to "help" the company.  The entire Ukraine mess was about kicking millions in US funds back to US pols and their cohorts and ties in U1 as well.  Many, including Kerry and Romney will be exposed.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
9 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

You seem to be the only remaining person on the planet still claiming this.  Everyone else, including people involved in producing it, admit that it was all fabricated.

Sunday Times Says British Intel Agent Fabricated Entire ‘P*ssGate’ Dossier, Media Silent

https://nationalfile.com/sunday-times-says-british-intel-agent-fabricated-entire-pssgate-dossier-media-silent/

It's probably time to let go of the dossier...it is dead and debunked.

Also, Burisma itself was involved with Crowdstrike and the genesis of the dossier, so this runs much, much deeper than Hunter being placed on the board to "help" the company.  The entire Ukraine mess was about kicking millions in US funds back to US pols and their cohorts and ties in U1 as well.  Many, including Kerry and Romney will be exposed.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the Steele Report:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier

According to them, parts have been refuted, while parts have been verified.  Putin's active favoring of Trump over Clinton has been verified.  Many Trump campaign officials had secret contacts with Russians (If they're appropriate, why keep them secret?).  Muller dismissed the allegation aginst Michael Cohen as being too weak to conclude that a law had been broken.

The full text of the Steele Report is available here:  https://archive.org/stream/TheSteelDossierTrumpIntelligenceAllegations/The Steele Dossier - Trump-Intelligence-Allegations_djvu.txt

Perhaps we should start a separate thread on it.  I think it safe to say it isn't ALL false.  A good part is true.  And a few parts are just plain vague.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
40 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

I know about the right.  I have seen them in action.

You know nothing about the right.  You have held this in for that long and have become insane.  What you label as the Right, is not the Right.  I accept that this is your point of view, but it is easy to see the level of mischaracterization.  One would have to hear many points of view.  This is not to ignore the tragedy of what happened, but it was a lesson for all to learn from.  This was not the fault of the Right.  The Left was just as much to blame.  What you want to blame are the extremes.  Today that is the Left and the extreme Right.  The extreme Right does not drive the Conservative bus and never has.  The extreme Right would do better to hop on the Left’s bus because it is Socialism that drives it.  I’m not sure what happened but the extreme Right had always been associated to Democrats (going back to at least the Civil War).  At some point in the 70s I believe, the Left just dumped them and started calling them extreme Right.  I think because the Socialists wanted to do away with the 2A, the old fashioned para-military groups needed to be shed.  Anything that is extreme (Anarchy) is anti-American.  There are no more (what I call) Classical Liberals (cut from the original Federalist fabric).  “Moderate” merely describes the level of extremism.  And someone like you that have allowed this to eat you up for 50 years is too far gone extreme.

 

Remember Kent State?  I am a 1971 graduate of Kent State.  I was not there for the murders (May 4, 1970), but I knew many of the people involved.

Interesting, my nephew just started attending, but yes, I do remember.  I was just 10 and shortly after, we had our riots.  The Red Scare, scared kids like me.  But I was probably more aware than most my age.  I wasn’t as much into say the music as I was into the events around me and history.  That’s not to say that the music didn’t affect me, it spoke to me very deeply.  I grew up watching the body bags being lifted by helicopter in Vietnam at a very early age.  I keenly followed the Six-day war, Dawson’s Field, Bangladesh Independence, then the Munich Massacre, Yom Kippur war.  The Space Race and landing on the Moon.  Watts and Haight-Ashbury, and Woodstock.  And I listened to Huntley and Brinkley and Cronkite.  And Kent was right in the middle of it all.  I think I still have a box up in the attic that I saved the newspaper clippings of the events.  Just last year, I found an old poster from 1969 from Hammond International of pictures of the astronauts that my dad got me.  He grew up with one of the astronauts (Gordo Cooper - Shawnee).  It was a cherished childhood possession that I thought was lost.  I now keep it in my library.  But the point to all of this is not just ramblings, but I can’t say that I have ever experienced a tragedy as up close and personal than you have.  But I was so sensitive in my youth that events still affected me personally.  I would really imagine that that is true for most.  And there has been plenty of bad history to become jaded from.  But through all of that, I have not lost my faith in this country as you seem to have.  In fact, the events of the past week have rejuvenated my outlook for this country.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
5 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

According to them, parts have been refuted, while parts have been verified.  Putin's active favoring of Trump over Clinton has been verified.  Many Trump campaign officials had secret contacts with Russians (If they're appropriate, why keep them secret?).

This sort of prevaricating only serves to further undermine the dossier since none of the actual claims of Trump misdeeds are mentioned as being proven.  Only vague assertions that are essentially un-provable are claimed "proven".  Wikipedia pages, btw, can become quite the dumpster of misinformation and partial truths as they get 'edited' over time by just about anyone.

For its intended purpose and for every single one of its "explosive" revelations, the dossier is ALL false.

That's why its creators now regret having ever been involved with it.  They will regret it even more in the not-too-distant future.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
3 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

This sort of prevaricating only serves to further undermine the dossier since none of the actual claims of Trump misdeeds are mentioned as being proven.  Only vague assertions that are essentially un-provable are claimed "proven".  Wikipedia pages, btw, can become quite the dumpster of misinformation and partial truths as they get 'edited' over time by just about anyone.

For its intended purpose and for every single one of its "explosive" revelations, the dossier is ALL false.

That's why its creators now regret having ever been involved with it.  They will regret it even more in the not-too-distant future.

So why not read the actual text of the document, rather than just rant about Wikipedia?  I posted the link.  Tell me what you disagree with and why.

 

Trump's behavior as regards Russia is strongly suggestive that the Russians have something with which to blackmail him.  The Dossier offers an explanation (Trump's hatred of the Obamas and his fondness for "golden showers").  Believe it or not, it is plausible.  But if it's true, Trump could ditch Putin by going on national TV and saying "Yes.  I did it.  So what?"  That would take care of any Putin blackmail attempts.

Apparently Putin tried to sweeten Trump's real estate deals in Moscow, but Trump wouldn't have anything to do with it.  Is that part also disproven?

At any rate, the Dossier eventually slipped into irrelevancy as its information became dated or was superseded by more detailed information.  Still, it has some interest as a historical document.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, Doug1029 said:

I don't know if she found a way around it or did something illegal,

And the difference? – None.

 

or if this is another right-wind smear story. 

It’s all backed up and documented.  If Trump wins reelection, justice will not be denied.

 

But at any rate, if you have ever been to the University of Arkansas campus at Fayetteville,

Actually, I’ve been by there.  We were in Eureka Springs heading to Fort Smith.  Went through Bentonville.  We just don’t like the Walmart energy and it was very strong there.  When we got to Fayetteville, we got off the freeway to see the town and I think we must have driven through the University, but it was very pretty.

 

they have several buildings donated by wealthy Saudi royals.  In order to curry favor with the Clintons, but avoid breaking the law, they donated them to the Clinton's Alma Mater.  THAT is a way around it and certainly somebody used it, whether it was to impress Bill or Hillary, I don't know.

So the Clintons were already cleaning up and setting the stage for their Foundation?  I’m sure the Clinton’s had to charge a “handling fee”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
2 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

And the difference? – None.

Finding a way around a problem is legal.

3 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

It’s all backed up and documented.  If Trump wins reelection, justice will not be denied.

Humor me.  Where is it backed up?  Citations, please.

So you're suggesting that Trump jail his political enemies?  The first step to a banana republic.

 

5 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

So the Clintons were already cleaning up and setting the stage for their Foundation?  I’m sure the Clinton’s had to charge a “handling fee”.

I have no idea what the Clintons did.  The President's Alma Mater often serves as a repository for his records, library, etc.  At any rate, I don't donate to the Clinton Foundation.  I figure with all those wealthy sheiks, they don't need me.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hacktorp
13 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

Tell me what you disagree with and why.

I, and pretty much everyone else, disagree that the dossier is anything but another in a LONG line of desperate Democrat/Deep State hoaxes which have ALL crashed and burned.

Claiming any of its half-truths are relevant doesn't wash since they are rancid fruit of the poisonous, and thoroughly debunked, tree.

Btw, factual information doesn't become "dated"...it stands the test of time.  Unlike the dossier, as you've pointed out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee
2 hours ago, WanderingFool0 said:

Thank you for the discussion

 

thanks for the reply... 

I stand by what I said and you obviously stand by what you said... so we will have to agree to disagree... 

I'm thinking of an actual puppet and to get a puppet to work properly all the strings have to be moved in a certain
way together or it's just no good...  

when Trump won he had to fit into the established set up,,,, up to a point as he was learning the game...
hence the ongoing flushing out of Swampies :)  who probably disguised themselves as friends, or at least
presented themselves as someone who could be useful.... (like Bolton for example..?)

so some of the puppet's strings were still working through them BUT they all have to be coordinated
properly for the puppet to function under the full control of the Puppet Master (s)...

So even if Trump manages to be in complete control of a few strings they will hate him and try to destroy
him because they want to have control of ALL the strings, all of the time... or it just doesn't work for them..

Got a bit carried away with the Puppet Analogy thing there... re the Big Picture... :D


 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
2 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the Steele Report:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier

According to them, parts have been refuted, while parts have been verified.  Putin's active favoring of Trump over Clinton has been verified.  Many Trump campaign officials had secret contacts with Russians (If they're appropriate, why keep them secret?).  Muller dismissed the allegation aginst Michael Cohen as being too weak to conclude that a law had been broken.

The full text of the Steele Report is available here:  https://archive.org/stream/TheSteelDossierTrumpIntelligenceAllegations/The Steele Dossier - Trump-Intelligence-Allegations_djvu.txt

Perhaps we should start a separate thread on it.  I think it safe to say it isn't ALL false.  A good part is true.  And a few parts are just plain vague.

Doug

Betcha the Dems had secret meetings with the Russians as well. It’s called “politics”, secret meetings are part of the Great Game of Politics, you talk to foreign powers and they talk to you, the wheels are pre-greased so when you’re in power you can have a “quick” victory to showcase how good you are - it’s been the way since before the Original Boston Tea Party, Franklin was in talks with the British in secret and the French, but that doesn’t make Washington a British Asset or a French Stooge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
1 hour ago, hacktorp said:

I, and pretty much everyone else, disagree that the dossier is anything but another in a LONG line of desperate Democrat/Deep State hoaxes which have ALL crashed and burned.

Claiming any of its half-truths are relevant doesn't wash since they are rancid fruit of the poisonous, and thoroughly debunked, tree.

Btw, factual information doesn't become "dated"...it stands the test of time.  Unlike the dossier, as you've pointed out.

So you didn't read it.  That's what I thought would happen.

I assume from your all-inclusive statements that you think Trump tried something funny with those Moscow real estate deals.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
1 minute ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Betcha the Dems had secret meetings with the Russians as well. It’s called “politics”, secret meetings are part of the Great Game of Politics, you talk to foreign powers and they talk to you, the wheels are pre-greased so when you’re in power you can have a “quick” victory to showcase how good you are - it’s been the way since before the Original Boston Tea Party, Franklin was in talks with the British in secret and the French, but that doesn’t make Washington a British Asset or a French Stooge.

As long as there is no agreement to break US law, it is legal, as I understand it.

Doug

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
1 hour ago, hacktorp said:

Btw, factual information doesn't become "dated"...it stands the test of time.  Unlike the dossier, as you've pointed out.

New research is constantly uncovering nuances.  That is what dates the original.  But that's science, not politics.  I suppose that in politics, once a mistake is made, it stays there forever.  Or did I misunderstand you?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
2 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

You know nothing about the right.  You have held this in for that long and have become insane.  What you label as the Right, is not the Right.  I accept that this is your point of view, but it is easy to see the level of mischaracterization.

I understand that you guys have re-defined "conservative" in such a way as to exclude conservatives like Nixon, Reagan and Papa Bush.  Nowadays, they could not be nominated by the Republican party.  But as far as I am concerned, people who call themselves "conservatives" ARE right-wing, especially now that honest conservatives have been excluded from the party.

The things I advocate are classic liberal policies, things that made this country great for working people.  The Democrats have drifted away from this of late and the Rubs have taken refuge in La La Land.  What I want is competent, honest government where civil rights are respected.  I want to retire and be able to know that my Social Security is safe - not threatened by a party trying to govern by dogma.  I want a balanced budget - not one breaking new deficit records every day.  I want a government that makes it possible for people to work, rather than punishing them for not working.

 

Two nights ago I went to the store.  Alright, it was Walmart.  There was a disabled couple ahead of me trying to figure out the vagaries of buying food using a WIC card.  The man looked at me and said, "I suppose you thin I'm awful, being on welfare."  I said, "Why would I think that?  I don't know anything about you."  He explained that both his wife and child had crippling diseases and would not survive too much longer.  He was on the WIC program because the only way he could get medical coverage for them was to be unemployed.

That is what conservative government has wrought.  We are ready to let people die for want of medical care, or force people who want to work onto welfare just for our political purity.  Trump and his followers oppose such compassionate care.  That is one more reason why he must go.

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 hour ago, Doug1029 said:

That is virtually all right-wing conspiracy theory bs.

You can believe what you want.  You just can’t tell how much your CT bs doesn’t hold water.  You’ve been brainwashed by the MSM.

 

The Dossier turned out to be true, but that was only proven one point at a time over many months, so much so that I had forgotten about by the time they finished verifying it.

@hacktorp has already answered this.  Wiki is fine if you can confirm the info but it’s too easy to falsify.  That you are easily influenced, speaks much when considering how prevalent your Kent State experience was.

 

Does Trump have to invent something on Hunter? 

Precisely.  He doesn’t.

 

My guess is that hunter was appointed to the board of a gas company he knew nothing about in hopes that it would help the company. 

How ‘bout that!

 

You see that with a lot of American companies. 

You don’t see too many siblings of foreign government leaders being setup on a board of directors trying to buy influence with American companies.  Especially in a consultant role with no experience in the field.

 

The titular heads of many sawmilling companies have no idea how to run a sawmill.  They rely on CEOs to do that.

That sounds very backwards.

 

Why not create dirt on Joe?  Well, why not? 

Precisely!  Involvement with foreign companies are hardly a concern with most people.  It would be better to invent something that happened here.

 

Trump is good at making up stuff and the "dirt" doesn't have to be true. 

Just project what the Left has done onto Trump and call it even?  The Dossier, the Russian Collusion, the Impeachment are all fabrications by the Left.  How long do you think it’ll be before they try again?

 

Just believable enough that his base will fall for it.  Apparently, it worked.

Trump’s followers aren’t taken in so easily.  We see through all the scams the Left tries to foist on us.

 

Maybe Giuliani had already gathered the evidence - but that's juts speculation.  Giuliani never testified, so we don't know.

Yes, the is speculation but I saw an interview with him and he kept referring to that he has everything on his cell phone.  I’m sure he’s talked with Barr and Durham and given them all he has.

 

I don't know what is going to happen with Biden.  He seems over-the-hill to me.  Out of touch with what is happening now.  So maybe Trump's smear campaign will result in Sanders getting the nomination and beating Trump.  Just have to wait and see.

If Biden is over-the-hill and out of touch, why smear him?  Trump can easily defeat Biden in a debate with one arm tied behind his back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.