Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

What a joke

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Kimmo said:

You're acting rather detached over there, asking folks what's the problem with a dead-set moron/psycho par excellence with his finger on the button.

Because I quite deliberately snipped out all reference to Trump in what I quoted, to try and see if these were personality traits that would upset Chris as much if they were attached to anyone else.

 

5 hours ago, Rybags said:

And the way these whiny left-whingers carry on, it's as if the guy is their neighbour or bullying workmate or something.

Yet they take it all so personally, and despite their pleas of being "educated" they base 90% of their judgement on their assessment of the guy's personality and demeanor.

You seem pretty happy to take it personally when it's the other side of politics doing stuff you don't like.  Unless you have nobler intentions for that 'dyke' comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'd missed that screaming woman clip of Kimmo's ... lol I wonder if after three years she's still screaming. She needs to go take lessons from those Egyptian  professional mourning women. This modern day screamer was all about the camera she knew was near by. imo.

Edited by eveln
"new" needed a "k"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2019 at 9:08 PM, eveln said:

um ... is that about the whipping cream ?

 

what does whipping cream have to do with the price of eggs in china?

 

Share this post


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

No. No I don't think you have the right analogy with that ... but thanks for the explanation 🙂

 

It was meant tongue in cheek too 😉

 

Well to a degree ar least 😛

 

Share this post


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

Yet they take it all so personally

 

The state of their nation matters to them. It matters to us. 

 

Like I said to Nich, what gives you any cause to act detached? Are you a journalist from another planet too? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, @~thehung said:

 

what does whipping cream have to do with the price of eggs in china?

 

Ohhh, but it's "President whipping cream " ... :D

 

38 minutes ago, fliptopia said:

 

It was meant tongue in cheek too 😉

 

Well to a degree ar least 😛

 

yup ... I did pick up on that . Dry bland humour is something I grew up on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

The sky hasn't fallen in yet...Ry.

 

Washington and the U.S. in general and its external relations have a lot of inertia but he has destabilised many aspects of the U.S and especially its foreign relations.

 

Putting strain on NATO and its many facets is damaging to an alliance that has stood the test of time. Fortunately the partner states of the alliance seem to have a clear view of the reality of the reason for NATO's existence and reason that the organisation will survive his presidency, thus it remains stable despite his wrecking ball antics and threats, for now.

 

FTR I do agree with his asking for Europe to pull more of the financial weight but the very reason for the existence of NATO and why historically the U.S. has been the pivotal partner is so that the U.S. will not have to fight another war in Europe. Opening up the possibility of IRBMs coming back into the European theatre is destabilising and dangerous, looking upon the investment as a liability is dangerous, cozying up to the other lunatic, Putin, is dangerous, simply putting strain upon NATO itself is dangeous. Trump seems to have a very limited grasp of the importance of the organisation and of the ongoing balance of Europe in respect to Russia.

 

He seems to be doing nothing about the moves by Moscow in the Caribbean and Central and Northern South America . It is akin to inviting Russia back into an area where they had little to no presence apart from a very weakened Cuba. Putin is putting Russia back within easy striking distance of the underbelly of America.

 

He is not doing anywhere near enough to stop  China's expansions in the South China Sea. The U.S. has been weaker there ever since Clark and Subic closed. Japan and Taiwan in particular feel more exposed than they have in a long time.

 

He has put racism back on the table in America, especially with his ridiculous wall and his anti-hispanic comments associated with that.

 

The U.S. economy is in a cyclic upswing, I really do not believe he can take much credit for that, but he does. The U.S. economy is driven by its big businesses and its hold on the global financial market. Policy changes that make it easier for big business are not particularly useful to the country, long standing U.S. regulation that keeps those sometimes too powerful businesses in check are being weakened.

 

Environmentally he is a disaster, undoing many U.S. initiatives in that regard, tightening that back to align with what is becoming the norm in most of the rest of the world is going to be a chore for a future government with a better grasp on the environmental necessities.

 

He has done damage by his actions in all of those areas, but the consequences have not appeared...yet.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


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

Their economy seems a bit better.

 

Than what?  You realise that the first quarter results for this year have job creation at a net loss, and a recent record low (decade?  I forget - multiple years, anyway).  This is because corporations used those nice big tax cuts not to employ people, but to buy back their own stocks, which drove the prices of them up, which artificially inflated the stock market figures - there was no real economic growth.  And now things are worse than before the cut, because the marginally affordable shares are now more exxy, and the govt has cut a bunch of services to help pay for the cut which is exacerbating wealth concentration.

 

Could you enlighten me as to what you find distasteful about Sanders, btw?  Surely you can't be equating him with Hilary?  That witch is as crooked as Trump.

Share this post


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

exacerbating wealth concentration

 

Seems to me, some folks think this is actually a good thing. That'd explain Sanders hate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller report about to drop , this Epoch Tmes report is a bit of a refresh and update of events since the Spygate report .

How are they relevant  to the Mueller Report,  many sense the releases of the Mueller Report, will signal the beginning of what is known in some circles, as "The Storm ".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

It begins to read like a steady building of evidence, shades of Watergate, pity there does not seem to be a Woodstein on the case>

 

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/mueller-report-attorneygeneral-william-barr-says-donald-trump-is-cleared/news-story/54458432bf6b33e36765c859e8761923

 

Guess I'll read the redacted document over the weekend but the real fireworks look likely to be lit when Mueller testifies.

 

Expect Barr to get the boot before long, Trump seems to think once he fires someone they are out of the picture, not so but the list of people he fired early in, people close to the presidency including Mueller himself are not going to go away.

 

It's sort of a withering barrage, death by a thousand cuts.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading this this morning

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/mueller-report-examined-10-potential-obstruction-of-justice-episodes-by-trump-a-g-barr-20190419-p51fjm.html

 

"Mueller did not recommend that Trump be charged with obstruction of justice but emphasised that he was not clearing him of committing a crime.

"The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment," Mueller’s report states.

"At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.""

 

"Mueller makes clear he was heavily influenced by Justice Department guidelines stating that a sitting president should not be indicted; he also states it would be a distracting burden for a president to face prosecution while in office."

 

That last bit seems to say what he really wants to say but can't within the scope of what he is tasked to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

I generally find The Atlantic to be a fairly even-handed paper, this is, from what of the report I've read so far, a good analysis of what is between the lines of the report, laid out in careful language:

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/muellers-damning-portrait-of-trump/587521/?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

 

An interesting insight into what emanates from the Oval Office...

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mueller did not make it clear that he was heavily influenced by the not indict a sitting president rule at all, in fact he strongly emphasised the opposite and that the rule played no part at all in his decision.

Why keep getting supposed facts from the lieing looney left.

Here lets hear the facts before they are respun into a web of lies.

😎

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

I don't as a rule Nich, the link was sent to me. I always find it amusing however that The Atlantic is housed in The Watergate   🙂

 

The way I read the report Walt Mueller was rather non-committal about the DoJ edict that a President  should not be indicted, the tone is more along the lines of his laying groundwork for impeachment. It is a sensible situation to have the President protected from civil criminal prosecution, to avoid distraction in the job. Probably just as well for Trump, he and his businesses have spent an extraordinary amount of time in court. Makes you wonder if he didn't run for President to get a break   🙂

 

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

 

I really do not know how you or any sensible person can take Barr's attempt at a Whitewash for the White House seriously.

 

He's a Trump appointed spin merchant, pure and simple.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I like Dr Steve Turley, I like what he say and also how he says it 😎

 

Edited by Waltish
spellings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think not Walt.

 

The Guardian, Kimmo's favorite source, gives the more balanced post mortem on the report and what challenges now face America.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/19/mueller-report-bad-guys-play-dirty-trump-democrats-duty

 

Up to them, if they don't pick up the gun then they deserve Trump...

 

It's very far from over.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Waltish said:

Here lets hear the facts before they are respun into a web of lies.

 

Look, regardless of the side of the divide you're on (on ANY issue, not just politics - and especially not just this case), citing the guy suspected of twisting the truth, and as reported by a source known for bias, is NOT the way to get to truth.  The redacted report is freely available online; why don't you try reading it for yourself?

 

I think, if you do, you will see that even based on the material Barr left *in* the document released he's being exceedingly misleading - if not outright lying.  For example, he restates multiple times Trump's favourite "no collusion" mantra,, and he's technically correct - because the charge was not collusion it was conspiracy.  Now, in daily use, those are almost interchangeable terms, but they're very different from a legal perspective.

 

I don't care if you have a different opinion than me.  I do care if your opinion is based on bullshit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incredible... what Barr said about the report is easily verified or discredited by the report itself, which is being made public.

Why would he lie then release proof of the lie, hmmm he wouldnt.

Time will show who/whom twisted the truth.

The scales of justice are about to rebalance.

😎

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Waltish said:

Incredible... what Barr said about the report is easily verified or discredited by the report itself, which is being made public.

Why would he lie then release proof of the lie, hmmm he wouldnt.

Time will show who/whom twisted the truth.

The scales of justice are about to rebalance.

😎

 

 

It's quite possible that Barr is reading what he wants to see in this reports and then giving it the best possible spin, knowing that Trump supporters will want to see the same thing when they read the report and help them stay onside by colouring it from the start. 

 

People on the left will do the same of course. Seeing the most damning bits and picking up on those, giving full attention to those bits. 

 

In the end we've all got assumptions a out what it might say and it's playing out exactly like that in comments everywhere I've seen. 

 

Having said that, I don't have any real plans to read the document itself. I'm doubt I'll be reading that much for a game I have no effect over. If it were a politician I could vote for it might be different. But then again I might find my curiosity will get the better of me. 

 

Maybe we'll see who does trying to sell spin and maybe once something happens/doesn't happen we'll blame something/someone else for buying into spin and taking the document the wrong way and not understanding context or some such thing... 

 

Personally I'm giving more weight to internationally owned sources due to them likely having a lest vested interest in what happens in America. I'm sure you'll feel they may be part of a globalist agenda though so I know it won't be how you will find a trustworthy source. 

Edited by fliptopia
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

Any redacted document is Swiss cheese.

 

I've read it, dry, boring but under the surface lots of carefully barbed inference.

 

The message that comes out is that Mueller and his team have crafted a report that cannot be challenged but leaves a lot of questions to be explored.

 

It's a very circumspect document that I find rather clever in that regard, evidenced by the way Barr can put spin on it but also lots of gems for the Dems to go dig out.

 

Mueller is playing to the reality, the Dems do not control Senate, if they did they'd be calling for impeachment right now, to turn loose the hounds but as things stand in the power balance that would be a weakening waste of time.

 

Similar did in fact happen during Watergate, the real difference is the Trump camp have cleared out the people they do not trust to sing their song inside the WH, but they seem to have forgotten those people can still talk and have disturbing things to say.

 

The Reps are crowing a lot of bravado but under the surface I'd suggest they are very, very worried.

 

Wait for more shoes to drop, death by a thousand cuts.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Naddler wont get his untrdacted version . Barr has already said a select few with security clearence from both sides of the house will get to see a version that is unredacted except for the grand jury material.

Barr was under no legal compulsion to release the Mueller report at all, he released it his discretion.

No  unredacted public version will be made available, any redacted material that gets reported will be lies or leaked classified material or a combination of both.

Heaven help the leakers of this one if they are caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Waltish said:

Incredible... what Barr said about the report is easily verified or discredited by the report itself, which is being made public.

Why would he lie then release proof of the lie, hmmm he wouldnt.

Is this the first time you're reading political coverage, and you're surprised that in the political sphere, often it's about staying on-message moreso than the truth?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facts are still facts either what Barr said will be supported by the contents of the report or it wont .

 

  • Like 1

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
Sign in to follow this  

×