Will Trump win again???

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
What's really sad is that this country made Nixon resign for lying to the people, and this guy lies constantly and his base just tries to rationalize it. It's a character flaw, and "character is destiny". OUR destiny.

It basically means that Americans are being brainwashed into getting used to living in a ****hole country, based on the kind of people in leadership positions, and considering it the new "normal". THAT's the danger to American democracy.

The current Republican party reminds me of the corrupt politics of my native country. It stinks of special interests to high heaven. That's why they support and join the cult of Trump; one hand washes the other. If people think the Clintons were corrupt, they ain't seen nothing yet. Just watch what the government is doing (if you want to know one's character, give one power - e.g. Ajit Pai). Ukraine is just a drop in the ocean. We won't know the truth for decades, but I assure you it will be as stunning as Reagan shamelessly manipulating the Iran-contra affair to win the elections.

You seem to have switched from one of the reasonable people here to being full on Trump derangement. It’s kinda weird...

Obviously Trumps a loud mouth, he’s kinda dumb, rude, crude, etc. I don’t think he’s any more corrupt than many previous presidents, but I think when you combine a loudmouth who tweets whatever he’s thinking, without thinking, with a media and deep state that has been trying to impeach him since the day he was elected, you get this scenario where it looks worse than it is. If this was 1980 and there was no twitter or 24 hr news cycle, how would Trump and his policies appear to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Everything they touch turns into a ****hole country.

Reminds me of socialism.
What's really sad is that this country made Nixon resign for lying to the people, and this guy lies constantly and his base just tries to rationalize it. It's a character flaw, and "character is destiny". OUR destiny.

It basically means that Americans are being brainwashed into getting used to living in a ****hole country, based on the kind of people in leadership positions, and considering it the new "normal". THAT's the danger to American democracy.

Sadly true that this is what our democracy has come to. We are living in very different times. Back then DNC and GOP had many overlapping ideals and actually tried at least half-heartedly to find bipartisan common ground. Nowadays everything is far more partisan and hyper-polarized to the point that people will just dig in their heels and defend their "team" until the end of days, come hell or high water. Part of the problem is how far diverged the DNC and GOP platforms have become. There is almost zero overlap in policy positions, especially looking at the progressive wing of DNC candidates. People aren't going to all of a sudden throw the election to a party that is diabolically opposed to everything they believe in just to stick it to one corrupt idiot in the white house. I fear the same thing will happen when the parties are vice versa. The next democrat president could snort a line of crack off a hooker's chest on live television and then charge it to his expense account yet I promise you very few DNC voters would switch their vote to Republican over it. Outside a modest cohort of swing voters, most people have started voting along party lines based on their fundamental worldview and can no longer be swayed by the misdeeds of any individual nominee no matter the severity or extent. I don't think this is good for politics or the country at all, but it's the reality we are now living in.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Reminds me of socialism.
Exactly. Populism does the same to a country. Generally, bad character in the leaders will sooner or later transform any country into an unrecognizable place. Churchill was essential to the Brits winning WW2, Gorbachev was the reason 1988 did not turn into a year of bloodbath for Eastern Europe (and the Russians never forgave him for it) etc. Character is destiny.
The next democrat president could snort a line of crack off a hooker's chest on live television and then charge it to his expense account yet I promise you very few DNC voters would switch their vote to Republican over it.
To quote a classic: Trump could kill somebody in full daylight on Fifth Avenue...

I still try to choose the individual who would be the least damaging to the country long-term, meaning the least damaging to its institutions. I couldn't care less about being wealthy in a type of society no quality person would want to live in. I didn't come to this country to become rich, but to live a decent life in a free and civilized liberal democracy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You seem to have switched from one of the reasonable people here to being full on Trump derangement. It’s kinda weird...

Obviously Trumps a loud mouth, he’s kinda dumb, rude, crude, etc. I don’t think he’s any more corrupt than many previous presidents, but I think when you combine a loudmouth who tweets whatever he’s thinking, without thinking, with a media and deep state that has been trying to impeach him since the day he was elected, you get this scenario where it looks worse than it is. If this was 1980 and there was no twitter or 24 hr news cycle, how would Trump and his policies appear to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Go back and you'll see that I have never changed my opinion about Trump. I just agreed with some of his policies (because the Dems were/are? too far left). But I still haven't gotten over this country electing that type of human being as president.

Most decent professionals in the federal government, whether leaning democrat or republican, are probably not proud of serving under Trump, and would probably defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". That's not Deep State (Deep State is the KGB in Russia, and the billionaires behind the two American parties, friend), that's patriotism. They are just doing their jobs, as they swore to.

If it were 1980, Trump would have not gotten elected in the first place. There is no way the Russians could have manipulated the American electorate the way they did in 2016 (and will try again in 2020).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Get back to us on that "damaging to our institutions" judgment after Horowitz and Durham do their thing. Just hold on a little longer before you lock in your opinion of Trump. December 9th is almost here. I'm pretty sure that the definition of Deep State will be clearer to you by then. Is KGB=Deep State? Absolutely. But the DC Swamp is just as dangerous. Don't be fooled. The time to wake up is now. Start mentally preparing yourself for what you are about to hear from Horowitz and Durham. It ain't gonna be pretty.
 
Get back to us on that "damaging to our institutions" judgment after Horowitz and Durham do their thing. Just hold on a little longer before you lock in your opinion of Trump. December 9th is almost here. I'm pretty sure that the definition of Deep State will be clearer to you by then. Is KGB=Deep State? Absolutely. But the DC Swamp is just as dangerous. Don't be fooled. The time to wake up is now. Start mentally preparing yourself for what you are about to hear from Horowitz and Durham. It ain't gonna be pretty.
I have a simple litmus test: What's your opinion about Sarah Huckabee Sanders? Besides Trump, I have never seen a person lie so brazenly. Because of Spicey and her, I rarely believe anything that comes out of the current White House or Republican Party anymore, unless strongly supported by facts. I simply don't trust them to tell the truth, based on a history of thousands of documented lies (I am not PC enough to call them otherwise).

So I am more than prepared to hear a bunch of lies again, as they've been serving about Ukraine. They are the kind of people that piss on you and tell you it's raining. I miss John McCain.

On the other side, I don't agree with most of Pelosi's politics, but that's a stateswoman.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a simple litmus test: What's your opinion about Sarah Huckabee Sanders? Besides Trump, I have never seen a person lie so brazenly. Because of Spicey and her, I rarely believe anything that comes out of the current White House or Republican Party anymore, unless strongly supported by facts. I simply don't trust them to tell the truth, based on a history of thousands of documented lies (I am not PC enough to call them otherwise).

So I am more than prepared to hear a bunch of lies again, as they've been serving about Ukraine. They are the kind of people that piss on you and tell you it's raining.

I can see that you are very angry and don't like being lied to. You and I have that in common.
I ask with all sincerity, what did Sarah Huckabee Sanders lie about?
 
Go back and you'll see that I have never changed my opinion about Trump. I just agreed with some of his policies (because the Dems were/are? too far left). But I still haven't gotten over this country electing that type of human being as president.

Most decent professionals in the federal government, whether leaning democrat or republican, are probably not proud of serving under Trump, and would probably defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". That's not Deep State (Deep State is the KGB in Russia, and the billionaires behind the two American parties, friend), that's patriotism. They are just doing their jobs, as they swore to.

If it were 1980, Trump would have not gotten elected in the first place. There is no way the Russians could have manipulated the American electorate the way they did in 2016 (and will try again in 2020).

You honestly believe that Russia is the reason Trump got elected?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You honestly believe that Russia is the reason Trump got elected?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Their social media manipulation may have given him that extra few percentage points needed to tip over some of the swing states. Plus where do you think Wikileaks got the DNC material from?
 
I can see that you are very angry and don't like being lied to. You and I have that in common.
I ask with all sincerity, what did Sarah Huckabee Sanders lie about?
Everything? I couldn't trust her tell the truth about anything. When it wasn't a bold-faced lie, it was a half truth.
 
Their social media manipulation may have given him that extra few percentage points needed to tip over some of the swing states. Plus where do you think Wikileaks got the DNC material from?

IF that’s true, perhaps they got back 1/10th of what the corrupt mainstream media took away from him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I rarely believe anything that comes out of the current mainstream media anymore, unless strongly supported by facts. I simply don't trust them to tell the truth, based on a history of thousands of documented lies (I am not PC enough to call them otherwise).

There, fixed it for you.


On the other side, I don't agree with most of Pelosi's politics, but that's a stateswoman.

What does that even mean?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Wikileaks got the thumb drive from Seth Rich. Experts in this kind of thing confirm that this much data could not have been a "remote hack".
Seth Rich was a young guy who worked for the DNC and saw that DNC was rigged against Bernie (who he supported).
Seth Rich wanted to get the truth out, and he is an American hero.
Seth Rich was promptly killed via a botched so-called robbery, the kind in which nothing was stolen.
The murder was done by 2 MS-13 gang members, who promptly turned up dead themselves shortly after. How convenient.
You see, illegal MS-13 gang members are the Deep State's assassins of choice. It's one of the reasons we must keep our borders open.

Laugh all you want. When the Truth is told, you will realize that I'm telling you the real deal. Let that sink in.

Edited to add: Ask yourself this: Why did the DNC refuse to hand over their servers to the FBI (Comey)? Instead, the FBI (Comey) gave the DNC permission to have Crowd Strike (a Ukrainian cyber security company) examine their servers after they were "hacked," the story goes, by Russia. This was a criminal investigation into HRC's servers being hacked during a US presidential election. This is a big deal. And the FBI just relegated the examination of the servers to a private company? Sounds awfully strange to me. Kind of irregular to have the FBI stand down like that, no? After we were told by the Ukrainian company that Russia did the hack, the servers disappeared, never got looked at by the FBI--the premier investigative agency in the world. Do you think that there would be "finger prints" on the server of who did the data extraction? I'm no cyber expert, but I think they can see who/what/where/how the "hack" was perpetrated. Do you think the servers might be hidden for a reason? To hide the actual source of the Wikileaks info from the public? If Russia were the true source of the leaks, why would the servers need to remain hidden? It's only if DNC and Crowd Strike are lying that the servers must remain hidden. But don't fret, I have it on good authority that we have/will have the servers. And the truth will be told.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Wikileaks got the thumb drive from Seth Rich. Experts in this kind of thing confirm that this much data could not have been a "remote hack".
Seth Rich was a young guy who worked for the DNC and saw that DNC was rigged against Bernie (who he supported).
Seth Rich wanted to get the truth out, and he is an American hero.
Seth Rich was promptly killed via a botched so-called robbery, the kind in which nothing was stolen.
The murder was done by 2 MS-13 gang members, who promptly turned up dead themselves shortly after. How convenient.
You see, illegal MS-13 gang members are the Deep State's assassins of choice. It's one of the reasons we must keep our borders open.

Laugh all you want. When the Truth is told, you will realize that I'm telling you the real deal. Let that sink in.
Yep. And God knows what will happen when I find out that the Earth is actually flat. As usual, the intelligence community must be wrong but Internet conspiracists are right. Trump brain syndrome. And you're surprised why I feel that the country is not safe under his leadership? What's next? You're going to quote Alex Jones?

This is what I believe:
On July 13, 2018, Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian military intelligence agents of a group known as Fancy Bear alleged to be responsible for the attack,[1] who were behind the Guccifer 2.0 pseudonym which claimed responsibility.[16]

We are all too insignificant to know the whole truth, but, if we cannot trust our intelligence agencies to do the right thing most of the time, we're doomed anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FFP, in your opinion, who’s been more corrupt so far, Trump or the Clintons and their foundation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FFP, in your opinion, who’s been more corrupt so far, Trump or the Clintons and their foundation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Awfully irrelevant question in 2019.

Trump was trained by Roy Cohn, who apparently said that the apprentice had outdone the master ("he pisses ice water"). So I doubt that the Clintons could come close.
 
Awfully irrelevant question in 2019.

Trump was trained by Roy Cohn, who apparently said that the apprentice had outdone the master. So I doubt that the Clintons could come close.

Not really irrelevant, just asking your opinion. But I think there’s a clear answer if you are familiar with the CF. Hundreds of millions of dollars brought in, made the Clintons rich - if ya wanna talk quid pro quo.... and NUMEROUS sketchy suicides. But no, your right. Asking to investigate a corrupt politician’s son and corrupt company is clearly worse. Oh, and the means tweets. Clearly, clearly worse. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Not really irrelevant, just asking your opinion. But I think there’s a clear answer if you are familiar with the CF. Hundreds of millions of dollars brought in, made the Clintons rich - if ya wanna talk quid pro quo.... and NUMEROUS sketchy suicides. But no, your right. Asking to investigate a corrupt politician’s son and corrupt company is clearly worse. Oh, and the means tweets. Clearly, clearly worse. [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's irrelevant because Hillary is not running the country. Why didn't Trump investigate her? Maybe because he wouldn't have been able to prove the conspiracy theories he peddles about her?

The foundation clearly NOT a charity as per the state of New York, that I remember, belonged to Trump.
 
It's irrelevant because Hillary is not running the country. Why didn't Trump investigate her? Maybe because he wouldn't have been able to prove all the conspiracy theories he peddles about her?

The only foundation clearly NOT a foundation as per the state of New York, that I remember, belonged to Trump.

Huh? I just asked you who was more corrupt and your thoughts on the CF. And your response is, it’s irrelevant cause she’s no longer in power???? That really voids the question to you? Ok, deflect if you want. Seems a legit question.

Dude, you’re making me sad. Again, I thought you seemed so reasonable for most of this thread, but it’s like you’ve thrown all your ability to make a non-leftist thought out the window now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


Interestly, it was the CIA in 1967 which coined the term Conspiracy Theory as a slur against anyone who challenged the desired narrative.
 
Huh? I just asked you who was more corrupt and your thoughts on the CF. And your response is, it’s irrelevant cause she’s no longer in power???? That really voids the question to you? Ok, deflect if you want. Seems a legit question.

Dude, you’re making me sad. Again, I thought you seemed so reasonable for most of this thread, but it’s like you’ve thrown all your ability to make a non-leftist thought out the window now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My thoughts belong to neither party. I tend to dislike both of them. I find all these politicians making millions after public service disgusting, and a sign of corruption.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


Interestly, it was the CIA in 1967 which coined the term Conspiracy Theory as a slur against anyone who challenged the desired narrative.

Says another conspiracy theorist. 🙂

"The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event". It cites a 1909 article in The American Historical Review as the earliest usage example,[16][17] although it also appears in journals as early as April 1870.[18] The word "conspiracy" derives from the Latin con- ("with, together") and spirare ("to breathe")."

Why does it matter who coined the term? We all know what it means, and what kind of people it attracts, usually the opposite of a scientific mind.
 
Says another conspiracy theorist. 🙂

"The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event". It cites a 1909 article in The American Historical Review as the earliest usage example,[16][17] although it also appears in journals as early as April 1870.[18] The word "conspiracy" derives from the Latin con- ("with, together") and spirare ("to breathe")."

Why does it matter who coined the term? We all know what it means, and what kind of people it attracts, usually the opposite of a scientific mind.

I am pointing out that the term was originated as a slur. It was coined by the CIA as as psychological strategy to diminish people who spoke out and gave theories that were counter to the desired narrative. It may not have copied over via that link, but that article describes how it was to be used to shut down opposing speech. I feel that this is very relevant to the times in which we are living. We have a clear media narrative that aligns itself (by corporate direction) with the Deep State desired narrative. If you speak out with a different view, you are labeled a conspiracy theorist. Were you calling me a conspiracy theorist as a compliment? No. I known an attempted putdown when I see one. I'm just pointing out how the term was created and how it is still being used.

Do you believe in organized crime? The mafia? Then you believe in conspired crimes, more than one party carrying out the crime. Conspiracies.

What's a theory? It's when you ask a question, collect info, see if the pieces make sense together, and you come to a point where it makes enough logical sense to you that you are open to the possibility of something. You don't have a smoking gun, but you theorize that it's in the realm of possibility (or you rule it out).

That's what conspiracy theory means to me. Someone who believes in conspired crimes and who is willing to look at all available information and not just that information that is deemed acceptable by some so-called information police.

I disagree with you that to theorize is unscientific. It's the scientific method--hypothesis, data, conclusion. I'm scientifically trained and very logical.
I am also very curious and persistent by nature.

As to "what kind of people it attracts" I don't know what to say, especially since you said it to me. I assure you that it is strange for me to think of anyone using that label on me, yet here I find myself. How did I get here? The short answer is, when the (political/media) things around me stopped making logical sense, I left my (mental) comfort zone to think outside of the box. When I did, I found some things made more sense. In general, though, I'd say it attracts people who aren't satisfied unless they know the truth.
 
I am pointing out that the term was originated as a slur. It was coined by the CIA as as psychological strategy to diminish people who spoke out and gave theories that were counter to the desired narrative. It may not have copied over via that link, but that article describes how it was to be used to shut down opposing speech. I feel that this is very relevant to the times in which we are living. We have a clear media narrative that aligns itself (by corporate direction) with the Deep State desired narrative. If you speak out with a different view, you are labeled a conspiracy theorist. Were you calling me a conspiracy theorist as a compliment? No. I known an attempted putdown when I see one. I'm just pointing out how the term was created and how it is still being used.

And this is also why the left, instead of discussing ideas and their merit, constantly attacks the messenger or the source of the message, and not the message itself. It happens all over colleges, in the media, social media, and frequently on this forum. Just like when (I think) you posted some video from Glenn Beck. Did Mr Boo watch the video and argue with the points that he disagreed with? No, he just slandered the source of the content, mocked you, and tried to move on. That’s the MO. A la Saul Alinsky. It’s in the playbook. Climate denier. White privilege. Bigot. Racist. It IS the playbook.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And this is also why the left, instead of discussing ideas and their merit, constantly attacks the messenger or the source of the message, and not the message itself. It happens all over colleges, in the media, social media, and frequently on this forum. Just like when (I think) you posted some video from Glenn Beck. Did Mr Boo watch the video and argue with the points that he disagreed with? No, he just slandered the source of the content, mocked you, and tried to move on. That’s the MO. A la Saul Alinsky. It’s in the playbook. Climate denier. White privilege. Bigot. Racist. It IS the playbook.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Blaze TV videos I posted were about 2 hours in length. The post I received criticizing my source came approximately 10 minutes after I posted. Do the math. There's a lot of good info in those videos. Stuff nobody's talking about. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

It's frustrating, but I keep trying. Look at how many views this thread has. There's about 12 active posters and a giant silent majority out there just reading. People reading but not wanting to jump into the fray. I don't blame people for not posting or reacting to posts. They are professionals who want to remain neutral. I've just reached a place where I can no longer sit on the sidelines and watch our country being burned to the ground without saying something, without posting information, without trying to wake somebody up. I keep thinking of that quote: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
 
The Blaze TV videos I posted were about 2 hours in length. The post I received criticizing my source came approximately 10 minutes after I posted. Do the math. There's a lot of good info in those videos. Stuff nobody's talking about. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

It's frustrating, but I keep trying. Look at how many views this thread has. There's about 12 active posters and a giant silent majority out there just reading. People reading but not wanting to jump into the fray. I don't blame people for not posting or reacting to posts. They are professionals who want to remain neutral. I've just reached a place where I can no longer sit on the sidelines and watch our country being burned to the ground without saying something, without posting information, without trying to wake somebody up. I keep thinking of that quote: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
You could as well post Alex Jones level BS here and then complain that you are not taken seriously. Glenn Beck is the first major conspiracy theorist Faux News has produced and intelligent people stopped giving a crap about.

I can accept that conspiracy theories attract some smart people who are not happy with existing explanations. Unfortunately, they are the minority. The majority are simply dumb as ****, who believe in the most idiotic explanations. I mean we have flat Earthers in 2019.

To me "mainstream" is synonymous with "expert", until PROVEN otherwise. Just because some uneducated f-ck comes out of the woods and finds a way of making money by pandering conspiracy theories and slandering "the mainstream media" and the "Deep State" and every democratic institution they can, it won't change my beliefs, and the probability that the "MSM" is telling the truth more often than not (and definitely more often than the naive base or the sell-out politicians).

This slandering of everybody who disagreed and stood in their way (the press, the courts etc.) is what the nazis did too, by the way. That is another reason why I think Donald Trump is toxic for our democracy. He has no respect for its institutions, not more than Charles I for the House of Commons. And his base is not far behind, because monkey see monkey do, let's just all applaud the schoolyard bully.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why don't you watch the video, do your own research on what he presents, and then come to your own conclusion.
You sound like this: "I do not like green eggs and ham! I do not like them, Sam I am!" And we all know how that story ended.
In the words of somebody: "What the hell do you have to lose?"
 
Why don't you watch the video, do your own research on what he presents, and then come to your own conclusion.
You sound like this: "I do not like green eggs and ham! I do not like them, Sam I am!" And we all know how that story ended.
In the words of somebody: "What the hell do you have to lose?"
Time. Peace. Quiet.

The probability of Glenn Beck (or other extremist) telling me anything interesting is about the same as the Earth being flat. Did that man even go to college? (Not that college is a big deal, but smart people like to push their brains the same way strong people like to use their muscles.)

"As of July 2013, Beck was tied for number four in the ratings behind Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Dave Ramsey." Great company. I tend to give a remote crap about one out of those three.

All these people with incendiary styles remind me of Hitler. Another extremist "genius" who loved and spread conspiracy theories. Their followers remind me of the saying "there is a ***** sucker born every minute" (present company excluded). So I can completely understand the disrespect they get from the left. (I am not on the left, and still get the same itch.)

But whatever tickles your fancy, madam. I am sticking with my faith in democratic institutions and major respected newspapers over extremist "thinkers". You can say I have been properly brainwashed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
And I will again re-harp on how Schiff is uniquely, bordering on a singular quality, to lead these proceedings. Never mind, albeit significant, that Nunes is not an attorney, and not even mildly bright, and his lead legal counsel on the R side has absolutely no experience in such matters as he is a commercial litigator and Jim Jordan went to a bottom of the barrel law school and has never passed the bar.

Schiff is and was a professional prosecutor, with the pelts to prove it....


Ok, I was just looking at this. Jordan states he never took the bar exam. However, there are some (or maybe many) people that say that Jordan flunked the bar twice. However, my question is: how do they know this? As a parallel, no one, besides me, knows how many times I took my board certification exam. If someone knew how many times, they would, very likely, be a close friend, and, as such, wouldn't reveal it. So, how do they know?

And, there is no animosity in this question. Strictly curiosity.
 
Ok, I was just looking at this. Jordan states he never took the bar exam. However, there are some (or maybe many) people that say that Jordan flunked the bar twice. However, my question is: how do they know this? As a parallel, no one, besides me, knows how many times I took my board certification exam. If someone knew how many times, they would, very likely, be a close friend, and, as such, wouldn't reveal it. So, how do they know?

And, there is no animosity in this question. Strictly curiosity.
One, all board exams for the law are publicly published by the respective state bar examiners. Two, I never said failed, just that he never passed as in never took the bar examination.

What I did say, was that any LSAT score under 150, has less than a 50 percent chance of ever passing the bar exam—the law school he attended, Capital Law, which is ranked near the bottom of all law schools, has an average accepted LSAT score of 147 or in the 33rd percentile nationally—by way of comparison, HLS (where Schiff attended) has a 173 average admitted score or the 99th percentile.
 
Why? Was it her British accent that impressed you so?

For someone who is supposedly such an astute expert on Ukraine, she struck me as someone pushing the Democratic narrative by conflating two very different conspiracy theories.

On one hand, she correctly articulated the absurd notion being peddled by Trump and some dip**** members of his inner circle that Ukraine, not Russia, somehow hacked the DNC, and the server is somewhere in the basement of the Ukrainian Parliament. Trump referred to this outlandish theory in his now infamous call. Ms. Hill correctly identifies that as hogwash and Trump owns the fallout for peddling it.

On the other hand, Ms Hill conveniently fails to acknowledge the growing evidence that elements of the Ukrainian government worked closely with the Obama Administration, DNC, and Clinton operatives to damage then-candidate Trump in the run up to the 2016 election. This includes the following:

1) Acknowledgments by Ukrainian investigators that their Obama administration counterparts encouraged them to investigate Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. This resulted in Ukrainian officials leaking information damaging to Manafort in the form of an unverified ledger of tax crimes that forced Manafort’s ouster from the Trump campaign and triggered waves of negative publicity for the campaign. Keep in mind this ledger was the evidence that was used by Mueller to reopen investigations on Manafort but was never itself introduced as evidence because, like the Steele Dossier, it was full of bull****; they hung Manafort on tax (and many other) crimes that occurred long before he joined the campaign. Don’t get me wrong, I have no love for Paul Manafort, but let’s not pretend that he would be in prison had he not worked for Trump and gotten “extra” attention from outside sources.

Unlike Trump, Obama's DOJ actually had a modicum of independence, so if an investigation of Manafart or Page or whoever else was initiated, it's because they were doing criminal sht. Manafort is an abject criminal and ultimately, it's sad you're worried more about how he was caught rather than the fact that he's seemed physically unable to stop funneling millions of dollars of corrupt pro-Putin money out of Ukraine.

2) A Ukrainian court, in late 2018, concluded that two Ukrainian officials meddled in the 2016 election by coordinating with the DNC.

Source? Everyone in the DNC and in the clinton campaign denies any coordination took place and no Ukrainian material was ever found or used. All you have is a rumor mill about a contractor named Chalupa.

3) Nellie Ohr, who worked for Fusion GPS, the Clinton campaign opposition research firm that produced the lurid and discredited Steele dossier, conceded that a pro-Clinton Ukrainian legislator was a Fusion informant. By the way, Nellie and Bruce Ohr should be familiar names at this point and they will likely play significant roles in the upcoming DOJ IG report next month.

Steele is a private citizen who can talk to whoever he wants to. Wheres your outrage about the orange one literally shouting on television to a foreign govt "Russia, if you're listening..."

So, I find it implausible that this so called expert on Ukraine would be completely unaware of the very real possibility that members of the Obama Administration, DNC, and Clinton campaign did **** in Ukraine that make Trump’s call seem tame.

The house GOP were free to ask her about any of those things, and indeed she stated something along the lines that obviously many Ukrainians had negative opinions of Trump because it seemed he was a big Putin fanboy, and that relationship would be extremely damaging to their country (shocker, they would've lost 400m in aid in the middle of a hot war with Russia had it not been for the whistleblower).

At the end of the day, you are playing exactly into Russia's intelligence scheme to either downplay their efforts at election interference or create a false narrative that Ukraine interfered on the same level for Clinton as Russia did for Trump. Your 1, 2, and 3 are pretty much the talking points one would see if one tuned into RT.
 
Last edited:
One, all board exams for the law are publicly published by the respective state bar examiners. Two, I never said failed, just that he never passed as in never took the bar examination.

What I did say, was that any LSAT score under 150, has less than a 50 percent chance of ever passing the bar exam—the law school he attended, Capital Law, which is ranked near the bottom of all law schools, has an average accepted LSAT score of 147 or in the 33rd percentile nationally—by way of comparison, HLS (where Schiff attended) has a 173 average admitted score or the 99th percentile.
But Schiff is apparently a descendant of the wealthy Jacob Schiff (I still haven't found out how), so he's "part of the system". 🙄

While watching the hearings, I was wondering whether I was biased, because the three republican dogs were mostly barking smoke and mirrors (and I literally turned off the sound at one point), while the witnesses were mostly stating indisputable facts under oath. Even Sondland, who's obviously the typical bad quality individual this administration attracts, and who probably almost gave Nunes a heart attack.

I remember the times when I used to agree a lot with the Republican Party (I just couldn't vote). How could they sink so low?

This is no witch hunt. This is what they call "par for the course". I would have way more respect for republicans if they just said: yes, this is the person we put in the White House, yes he is corrupt, yes this is his modus operandi, yes he puts himself ahead of the country, yes he should be impeached because no American president should be above the law, because no president should behave as if he were king, but no, we don't think the Senate should remove him, rather the American people who voted him in, especially with the elections coming soon. I would respect them much more if they were not this coward sycophantic faceless mass of clones with no spine, no personality, no individual opinions, just the opposite of John McCain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But Schiff is apparently a descendant of the wealthy Jacob Schiff (I still haven't found out how), so he's "part of the system". 🙄

While watching the hearings, I was wondering whether I was biased, because the three republican dogs were mostly barking smoke and mirrors (and I literally turned off the sound at one point), while the witnesses were mostly stating indisputable facts under oath. Even Sondland, who probably almost gave Nunes a heart attack.

I remember the times when I used to agree a lot with the Republican party. How could they sink so low?
It’s rather telling, and as to the objectivity of both the substance and the presentation of the legal arguments, go to even conservative sites like the National Review and/or any legal/lawyers sites and across the board, there is a unanimous agreement that it was below subpar and bordered on ridiculous, in large part because their dream team consisted of two non lawyers (Nunes and Jordan) and Goldberg has a background only in commercial litigation.
 
It’s rather telling, and as to the objectivity of both the substance and the presentation of the legal arguments, go to even conservative sites like the National Review and/or any legal/lawyers sites and across the board, there is a unanimous agreement that it was below subpar and bordered on ridiculous, in large part because their dream team consisted of two non lawyers (Nunes and Jordan) and Goldberg has a background only in commercial litigation.
I actually meant Nunes, Jordan and Stefanik.
 
It’s rather telling, and as to the objectivity of both the substance and the presentation of the legal arguments, go to even conservative sites like the National Review and/or any legal/lawyers sites and across the board, there is a unanimous agreement that it was below subpar and bordered on ridiculous, in large part because their dream team consisted of two non lawyers (Nunes and Jordan) and Goldberg has a background only in commercial litigation.

Let’s see if you can go a whole day without attacking people and sources, just facts. Yeah?

Nunes could be a janitor for all I care. If someone says a fact, it’s a fact. If someone says something stupid, it’s stupid. All you want to do is bash peoples law schools or alleged LSAT scores. Who cares? It’s just a deflection from the fact that there was no evidence of a quid pro quo. Period. Regardless of where the person who pointed that out when to law school, or didn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Let’s see if you can go a whole day without attacking people and sources, just facts. Yeah?

Nunes could be a janitor for all I care. If someone says a fact, it’s a fact. If someone says something stupid, it’s stupid. All you want to do is bash peoples law schools or alleged LSAT scores. Who cares? It’s just a deflection from the fact that there was no evidence of a quid pro quo. Period. Regardless of where the person who pointed that out when to law school, or didn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Stuck-up elitists like @BoolaHI and me tend to associate somebody's brand of school and scores with their brainpower. Like in Glenn Beck's case. 😉
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let’s see if you can go a whole day without attacking people and sources, just facts. Yeah?

Nunes could be a janitor for all I care. If someone says a fact, it’s a fact. If someone says something stupid, it’s stupid. All you want to do is bash peoples law schools or alleged LSAT scores. Who cares? It’s just a deflection from the fact that there was no evidence of a quid pro quo. Period. Regardless of where the person who pointed that out when to law school, or didn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please - you are the very person when confronted with over 20 polls said you only believe the one that predicted Trumps victory despite that poll being over 3 years old and with empirical evidence that it was the least accurate in the 2018 cycle and republican biased polling firm of the last 3 years. So least accurate and biased -and still that binary analysis was still not able to move you - so eff your continual insistence that you are objective.
 
Stuck-up elitists like @BoolaHI and me tend to associate somebody's brand of school and scores with their brainpower. Like in Glenn Beck's case. 😉
And there is an entire site that lists all of the things that beck is either wrong about or if it’s just a straight out lie. Like I say , if you are gonna be elite, be elite about education.
 
The State Department released a cache of records Friday night revealing communication between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Rudy Giuliani, even as the Trump administration continues to stonewall the House impeachment investigation.
The 100 pages of documents show repeated contact in March between Pompeo and Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, with the help of White House officials. They were released at the eleventh hour of a court-ordered deadline as part of a lawsuit by the non-profit watchdog American Oversight to uncover records concerning Trump's actions on Ukraine.

Why they won’t testify even though they could provide direct testimony and bluntly counter the previous testimony that was so damaging and damming - why- because the truth is not in their corner and would commit perjury.
 
Reminds me of socialism.


Sadly true that this is what our democracy has come to. We are living in very different times. Back then DNC and GOP had many overlapping ideals and actually tried at least half-heartedly to find bipartisan common ground. Nowadays everything is far more partisan and hyper-polarized to the point that people will just dig in their heels and defend their "team" until the end of days, come hell or high water. Part of the problem is how far diverged the DNC and GOP platforms have become. There is almost zero overlap in policy positions, especially looking at the progressive wing of DNC candidates. People aren't going to all of a sudden throw the election to a party that is diabolically opposed to everything they believe in just to stick it to one corrupt idiot in the white house. I fear the same thing will happen when the parties are vice versa. The next democrat president could snort a line of crack off a hooker's chest on live television and then charge it to his expense account yet I promise you very few DNC voters would switch their vote to Republican over it. Outside a modest cohort of swing voters, most people have started voting along party lines based on their fundamental worldview and can no longer be swayed by the misdeeds of any individual nominee no matter the severity or extent. I don't think this is good for politics or the country at all, but it's the reality we are now living in.


Your take espousing "both sides-erism" is mistaken. What was the democratic response when Al Franken was accused of impropriety? They had been going on for months about believing women, so did they act like hypocrites and circle the wagons, or did pretty much every dem come out and say he had to resign pending an ethics investigation?

As far as all candidates being corrupt, Bernie has been a transparently socialist democrat defender of the people for 50 years. He is hated by special interests. The vast majority of his donations are small-donor and a $27 dollar donation is the amount his campaign encourages. Furthermore, he was among for the poorest members of Congress (similar to Biden) until he wrote a best-selling book.

As for Warren, she has been hated by Wall St and other big money donors ever since she spearheaded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Her and Bernie's wealth tax is also hated by special interests. The multibillion dollar megainsurance companies would be up in paroxysms if they thought M4A actually had a chance of passing.

Your statement that the "next democrat president could snort a line of crack off a hooker's chest" and democrats wouldn't care is not based in reality. Indeed, one of the biggest complaints about the party from many democrats is that too many care about things like the ethics or morality of a candidate's policy as opposed to whether that candidate can actually pull in enough moderates to win ("democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line"). For instance, I think there is an argument to be made that Biden is the most electable candidate, but I'm still not going to vote for him, especially after he put out that garbage stating he is against legalizing cannabis (the criminalization of which has affected hundreds of thousands if not millions of people).
 
Last edited:
People who allow a brand/title/position of someone to rationalize things and cloud their judgment are often victimized. It's like a person saying that a Catholic priest cannot possibly be a sex offender, a police officer cannot possibly be taking bribes, and Senator cannot possibly be a traitor to his country. It's not true for all of the above, but it is true for some, regardless of their pedigrees. I don't give people a pass simply because they have a certain piece of paper, put on a certain uniform, or wear a certain face in public. My safety and the safety of those I love depends upon my skepticism and the refusal to make such assumptions.
 
The State Department released a cache of records Friday night revealing communication between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Rudy Giuliani, even as the Trump administration continues to stonewall the House impeachment investigation.
The 100 pages of documents show repeated contact in March between Pompeo and Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, with the help of White House officials. They were released at the eleventh hour of a court-ordered deadline as part of a lawsuit by the non-profit watchdog American Oversight to uncover records concerning Trump's actions on Ukraine.

Why they won’t testify even though they could provide direct testimony and bluntly counter the previous testimony that was so damaging and damming - why- because the truth is not in their corner and would commit perjury.

Ugh this is so upsetting.
Dr. Hill testified that she wouldn’t even be able to tell you the names of Obama and Bush’s personal attorneys because she never met them, nor did they ever come close to being involved in government business.

Why are trump supporters so brain washed to be ok with trump’s PERSONAL lawyer being so involved in our government/foreign affairs?
Keyword there is PERSONAL. I wonder who trump looks out for first....himself or the US?? Hmm.

Giuliani and Pompeo could certainly clear everything up if there’s nothing to see!
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
And John Bolton should be on the radar of Trumpers— he is my ideological opposite- but I pay him afforded due respect as he is articulate and smart (YLS, yes Leon and Matty in the legal world academic pedigree mean a lot- you ever see a captal law grad in the supremes - never).

 
Stuck-up elitists like @BoolaHI and me tend to associate somebody's brand of school and scores with their brainpower. Like in Glenn Beck's case. 😉

That’s great. I tend to associate the brain power of someone with the veracity of what they say and do.

For example, I work with a doc who trained and worked for 20+ years at one of the top medical institutions in the country and is well published. But they say and do some of the dumbest things clinically that you’ll ever see. And it’s a consensus amongst everyone who works with them. No one could care less about their background, but I couldn’t name one person I work with who would let them care for anyone in their family.

If you wanna put your trust in what someone says just cause of where they went to school, feel free. I just think it’s a crappy measure of validity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
People who allow a brand/title/position of someone to rationalize things and cloud their judgment are often victimized. It's like a person saying that a Catholic priest cannot possibly be a sex offender, a police officer cannot possibly be taking bribes, and Senator cannot possibly be a traitor to his country. It's not true for all of the above, but it is true for some, regardless of their pedigrees. I don't give people a pass simply because they have a certain piece of paper, put on a certain uniform, or wear a certain face in public. My safety and the safety of those I love depends upon my skepticism and the refusal to make such assumptions.
It's not about possibly, it's about probably.

A Yale/Harvard grad is probably a smart individual, but then you have Bush. A Wharton grad is probably a great business mind, but then you have Trump. Truth be told, he only has an undergraduate degree as a transfer student from Fordham, and a Fordham student is probably... let's just stop here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ugh this is so upsetting.
Dr. Hill testified that she wouldn’t even be able to tell you the names of Obama and Bush’s personal attorneys because she never met them, nor did they ever come close to being involved in government business.

Why are trump supporters so brain washed to be ok with trump’s PERSONAL lawyer being so involved in our government/foreign affairs?
Keyword there is PERSONAL. I wonder who trump looks out for first....himself or the US?? Hmm.

Giuliani and Pompeo could certainly clear everything up if there’s nothing to see!

Is it surprising to anyone that Trump and his cabal were too stupid to at least designate Giuliani as a "special envoy" or some such other BS title before he proceeded to engage in nakedly criminal behavior?
 
Please - you are the very person when confronted with over 20 polls said you only believe the one that predicted Trumps victory despite that poll being over 3 years old and with empirical evidence that it was the least accurate in the 2018 cycle and republican biased polling firm of the last 3 years. So least accurate and biased -and still that binary analysis was still not able to move you - so eff your continual insistence that you are objective.

You’re referring to that poll about Trump that I referred to that was the most accurate one in the Trump election yeah? Don’t know why you keep bringing that one up....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.