13 Russians under indictment

[islander]

And an American who has confessed to participating in the Russian multi
million dollar program to sabotage the 2016 election through social
media. This does not include the hacking of Democratic emails and does
not include cooperation with the Trump campaign. That is still to come.
What is obvious in this is the extent to which the US has been reading
communication traffic in Russia. I'm surprised that Mueller has
revealed as much as he has!

[me]

Consider
http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/11/25/sol_wachtler_the_judge_who_coined_indict_a_ham_sandwich_was_himself_indicted.html

[rumpelstiltskin]

Of course the USA would never try to undermine
Russia by means of propaganda. And the Russians
would never resort to prosecuting anyone who acted
in sympathy with the USA.

[islander]

That doesn't make it right!

In the current case, the Russians discovered a weakness in our election
system and they exploited it. It is up to us to fix that if we value a
democratic form of government. Sadly, Trump with the assistance of the
Republican Congress doesn't seem interested in fixing it.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 07:06:26 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 2/18/2018 1:55 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 17:45:21 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And an American who has confessed to participating in the Russian multi
>>> million dollar program to sabotage the 2016 election through social
>>> media. This does not include the hacking of Democratic emails and does
>>> not include cooperation with the Trump campaign. That is still to come.
>>> What is obvious in this is the extent to which the US has been reading
>>> communication traffic in Russia. I'm surprised that Mueller has
>>> revealed as much as he has!
>>
>>
>> Of course the USA would never try to undermine
>> Russia by means of propaganda. And the Russians
>> would never resort to prosecuting anyone who acted
>> in sympathy with the USA.
>>
>That doesn't make it right!

No, but the USA shouldn't be criticizing Russia for
doing in a picayune way what the USA itself does
all over the world in a mega way. That's known as
"hypocrisy". You shouldn't be falling for it, IMV.

>
>In the current case, the Russians discovered a weakness in our election
>system and they exploited it. It is up to us to fix that if we value a
>democratic form of government. Sadly, Trump with the assistance of the
>Republican Congress doesn't seem interested in fixing it.
>

And the USA doesn't do that? Radio Free Europe?
Gary Powers? Chile? Cuba? Etcetera etcetera
etcetera. Not that I'm necessarily against all those
things, especially not Radio Free Europe, but they
are the same kind of thing that the USA is now
yelling and screaming about when Russia dabbles
into it even a tiny bit. What Russia is being
accused of, even if it's all true, is indeed a "tiny bit"
compared to what the USA does because of its
self-touted "exceptionalism".

I don't blame Trump for any of this, not that he'd
oppose it. It's just the underbelly-government
doing what it always does.

[El Castor]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 19:21:47 -0800 (PST), me <werner...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Consider
>http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2014/11/25/sol_wachtler_the_judge_who_coined_indict_a_ham_sandwich_was_himself_indicted.html

Just for the record, I consider Darren Wilson a hero who was doing his
job and did it very well.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 08:35:32 -0800, rumpelstiltskin<x...@y.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 07:06:26 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2/18/2018 1:55 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2018 17:45:21 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And an American who has confessed to participating in the Russian multi
>>>> million dollar program to sabotage the 2016 election through social
>>>> media. This does not include the hacking of Democratic emails and does
>>>> not include cooperation with the Trump campaign. That is still to come.
>>>> What is obvious in this is the extent to which the US has been reading
>>>> communication traffic in Russia. I'm surprised that Mueller has
>>>> revealed as much as he has!
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course the USA would never try to undermine
>>> Russia by means of propaganda. And the Russians
>>> would never resort to prosecuting anyone who acted
>>> in sympathy with the USA.
>>>
>>That doesn't make it right!
>
>
>
> No, but the USA shouldn't be criticizing Russia for
>doing in a picayune way what the USA itself does
>all over the world in a mega way. That's known as
>"hypocrisy". You shouldn't be falling for it, IMV.
>
>
>>
>>In the current case, the Russians discovered a weakness in our election
>>system and they exploited it. It is up to us to fix that if we value a
>>democratic form of government. Sadly, Trump with the assistance of the
>>Republican Congress doesn't seem interested in fixing it.

P.S. What is this "weakness in our election system? Is it
that there's free interaction on Facebook? Franco would
consider that a "weakness", but in most situations in the USA
that's considered a "liberty". I realize the USA is again
moving closer to Franco these days, but I don't myself
regard that movement as a "good thing".

[El Castor]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 07:06:26 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:

What exactly is the weakness they don't want to fix?

[islander]

There is nothing tiny about what the Russians did. This was a conscious
effort to exploit the political divisions in this country. The Russians
saw and understood our weakness. You, yourself bought into some of what
they were selling, not because you use Facebook or Twitter, but because
you believed what was forwarded to you because it came from a trusted
source. You are a lot smarter than the average American, yet you
believed some of this stuff. Perhaps you still do.

Our First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but here we have
intentional spreading of untruths, some of them blatantly dangerous, as
part of what amounts to very sophisticated Russian psychological warfare
against the US.

I've mentioned here before that I was getting some of it in my Facebook
news feed and wrote it off as what I call the Republican Slime Machine.
I didn't realize what it was until the Russian exploitation of Facebook
was revealed.

Trump is still denying that the Russians were involved and the detail in
Mueller's indictments are compelling. Here is the full text of the
indictments:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945

[me]

Didn’t the DNC collude similarly to influence the election? And wasn’t the taxpayer funded surveillance state agency used in that effort? Where are the imdightments?

[islander]

On 2/19/2018 5:28 PM, me wrote:
> Didn’t the DNC collude similarly to influence the election? And wasn’t the taxpayer funded surveillance state agency used in that effort? Where are the imdightments?
>

Cite?

[El Castor]

The DNC (and by reasonable inference, Hillary), unable to pay $10
million for the supposed anti Trump dossier, because the intermediary
was an unregistered foreign national, had a law firm do the paying for
them. A large sum of money changed hands -- leaving the pocket of the
DNC and winding up in a Russian pocket. OK with you? Probably, but if
Trump or the RNC was found to have paid the Russians millions, you
would be doing your happy dance and demanding impeachment.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Compared to what the USA just did in the Middle East?
Give me a break.

>This was a conscious
>effort to exploit the political divisions in this country. The Russians
>saw and understood our weakness. You, yourself bought into some of what
>they were selling, not because you use Facebook or Twitter, but because
>you believed what was forwarded to you because it came from a trusted
>source. You are a lot smarter than the average American, yet you
>believed some of this stuff. Perhaps you still do.

I still don't know what the Russians did. Even if I
believed everything the American press tells me
(which I don't) it was a minuscule operation which
even America admits had no effect on the outcome.
I actually saw an American operative on TV
yesterday admitting that the USA does interfere in
foreign politics, but when America does it, America
does it for "good" reasons.

>
>Our First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, but here we have
>intentional spreading of untruths, some of them blatantly dangerous, as
>part of what amounts to very sophisticated Russian psychological warfare
>against the US.

This was on Facebook, wasn't it?

>
>I've mentioned here before that I was getting some of it in my Facebook
>news feed and wrote it off as what I call the Republican Slime Machine.
>I didn't realize what it was until the Russian exploitation of Facebook
>was revealed.

But it wasn't illegal when the Republicans did it, eh?

>
>Trump is still denying that the Russians were involved and the detail in
>Mueller's indictments are compelling. Here is the full text of the
>indictments:

Trump can go fly a kite. He doesn't have any
credibility with me anyway.

>http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945

I'm not going to read, and certainly not listen to,
all that. Maybe it interests you enough to read it,
but I have no interest in it at all. We were talking
about "Russian meddling" which turned out to be
Posts to Facebook. If there's some other kind of
meddling in there, anybody who was interested
enough to research such things could match it,
I'm sure, with American meddling with Russia
at least 10:1.

I did read the first part of paragraph 1, and
was immediately struck by the arrant hypocrisy,
of accusing Russia of doing what the USA does
in spades every day before breakfast. I don't
buy "American Exceptionalism". If people want
to talk, let 'em talk. If they lie, expose the lies:,
don't try to cover the lies over with even bigger
lies of one's own. I never read any of the
Facebook stuff, nor I suppose did most other
people. I'm sure there must be plenty of US
government "plants" on Facebook too,
spreading home-grown lies such as the
trickle-down theory that's used to justify the
idle Walmart heirs holding, I'm told, 40% of
the wealth of the USA. Where's the "trickle
down" from that?

I just briefly scanned as much as I could
stand (only a tiny bit) of the stuff below
paragraph 1 in Mueller's statement. What
a pile of utterly minuscule legalistic crap!
It really does sound like McCarthyism all
over again, or the white resistance to a
black equal-education program I watched
on TV in the wee hours of this morning.

Too bad there were no comments from
ordinary people under the article. Those
would have been a lot more informative,
and infinitely more lively, than the article
itself. I usually find the comments
underneath lengthy articles far more
informative, and much more interesting,
than the lengthy articles themselves.

I suppose you'll accuse me of not being
really informed if I don't read ALL the crap.
If so, go for it. I'll read what I want, and
not read reams of crap in the same vein
as the crap I already read. It would be
possible to produce an article that long
"exposing" the stuff that my son and I
talk about over lunch, much of which the
McCarthyite forces in the USA would
probably find shockingly seditious, such
as our complete opposition to ElCastorish
justifications of the benefits of billionaires
to the huddled masses in the USA.
Neither my son nor I like to put up with
crap, not even carefully detailed crap,
though unlike myself he doesn't watch
RT and has no interest in it. I forced
him to watch a Jesse Ventura Friday
episode this trip, but he wasn't
impressed. It wasn't one of the more
vivid episodes, I admit.

Sorry about the tone, Islander. I
guess I'm a bit feisty this morning, but
that's a consequence of being lied to
so much by nearly all the American
press. Even in my less feisty moments,
I do think that you, and many others in
the USA, are being taken for a ride
here though. Surely after all the
clumsily hidden messing about the USA
has done all over the world since 1950
or so, most shockingly lately in the
Middle East, the USA can't expect to
start from zero again every time it
makes further allegations. It rightfully
should be met immediately with
distrust.

I think even the "founding fathers"
said that government should always
be regarded with suspicion. Adam
Smith said that about the influence
of the wealthy on politics. q.v. below:



The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV Chapter VIII, p. 145, paras. c29-30.

To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the
interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or regulation of
commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to
with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having
been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous,
but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men,
whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who
have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and
who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed
it.

https://www.adamsmith.org/adam-smith-quotes/

[islander]

That is hardly a citation. But, there are plenty of sources if you care
to verify that if the Clinton campaign paid for the dossier, why did
they not use it?
Here is a pretty comprehensive report on how the saga of the dossier
unfolded:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/25/us/politics/steele-dossier-trump-expained.html

In particular, there is no evidence that Hillary or the DNC or any
lawyer paid any money to the Russians, either directly or indirectly.
Where do you get this stuff?

[islander]

A couple of points:

While McMaster and Pence (more recently) have claimed that the Russian
campaign did not change any votes, they both drew conclusions that are
not supported by the investigation. The FBI stated that the effects on
the election are unknowable and McMaster had to correct his earlier
statement. We know that the Russians attempted to hack 21 election
precincts and succeeded in penetrating a few. I've written here before
about the possibility of using this penetration to actually change votes
using a stuxnet type of attack is unknowable since the necessary
precautions were not taken at the precincts. At a minimum, we know that
this is a weakness in our election system that needs to be eliminated.
It does not appear that anything is being done in this regard.

Secondly, the indictments of the Russians are only one part of the
investigation and reveal that any claims that the Russians did not
attempt to interfere in the election with the goal of defeating or at
least discrediting Hillary are no longer reasonable arguments. They
did, it is incontrovertible, and against US law despite anything that
Trump or his supporters claim.

What remains to be proven is whether there was collusion on the part of
the Trump campaign (Donald Junior has pretty much admitted to that) and
whether there was an attempt on the part of the Trump administration to
interfere with the investigation (Trump's firing of Comey is only one
piece of evidence to prove that).

The number of parties that are seeking to plead state-evidence to avoid
prosecution is growing. The rats are fleeing a sinking ship!

[obtusion]

On 2/19/2018 6:28 PM, me wrote:
> Didn’t the DNC collude similarly to influence the election?

To DESTROY Bernie, yes.

And so they did.

> And wasn’t the taxpayer funded surveillance state agency used in that effort? Where are the imdightments?

Being Mueller'd over?

[obtusion]

Really?

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/03/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-anti-sanders-conspiracy/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/22/leaked-dnc-memo-shows-staffers-conspiring-sanders-using-religion/

http://www.trueactivist.com/leaked-emails-prove-dnc-conspired-against-bernie-sanders-trump-uses-embarrassment-to-rally-voters/

[rumpelstiltskin]

I sent $100 three times to Bernie's campaign. Even
though he lost, I don't regret a penny of it. Change
takes a long time sometimes, but one has to work
at it. I still have Bernie's picture on my glass front
door.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 08:55:24 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
<snip>

I'm not much interested in it at all. Even if everything
asserted is true, and I have zero confidence of that,
$10M is a tempest in a teapot considering what
governments spend on bits of nothing these days.

As to people chatting on Flickr or Facebook, I've
rarely been to Facebook and have never been to Flickr.
Nothing in Facebook has been of interest to me.

[obtusion]

Thanks for working to destroy the America that the rest of us love and
honor.

May you never, ever succeed in collapsing the proud eagle into a caged
socialist canary, you bastard.

[wolfbat359]

Right wing nut case said nothing of note!

[obtusion]

Leftarded rotifer demonstrated single celled thinking again...

[islander]

So you feel that violation of US law should be ignored?

As to your non-use of Twitter and Facebook, I think that you are
discounting the multiplier effect of those who propagate the
misinformation, even here on soc.retirement.

[islander]

On 2/20/2018 10:27 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:

The problem was not one of supporting Bernie. I did too. The problem
was in the Russian efforts to promote division between the Bernie
supporters and the Hillary supporters. It was time to bring the party
together and Bernie supported that. But, the Russians did everything
that they could to sow discord. Bernie has acknowledged that they
became aware of that during the campaign and attempted to thwart it,
unsuccessfully. It was time to join forces to defeat the Republicans,
but there were those who were susceptible to the anti-Hillary propaganda.

[obtusion]

On 2/20/2018 1:32 PM, islander wrote:
> On 2/20/2018 10:27 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:51:09 -0700, obtusion <r...@wr.ee> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/19/2018 6:28 PM, me wrote:
>>>> Didn’t the DNC collude similarly to influence the election?
>>>
>>> To DESTROY Bernie, yes.
>>>
>>> And so they did.
>>>
>>>> And wasn’t the taxpayer funded surveillance state agency used in
>>>> that effort? Where are the imdightments?
>>>
>>> Being Mueller'd over?
>>>
>>
>>
>>     I sent $100 three times to Bernie's campaign.  Even
>> though he lost, I don't regret a penny of it.  Change
>> takes a long time sometimes, but one has to work
>> at it.  I still have Bernie's picture on my glass front
>> door.
>>
>>
>>
> The problem was not one of supporting Bernie.  I did too.

No, that is a major problem as he was planing the whoesale DESTRUCTION
of our Republic, you treasonous ninny.

> The problem
> was in the Russian efforts to promote division between the Bernie
> supporters and the Hillary supporters.  It was time to bring the party
> together and Bernie supported that.  But, the Russians did everything
> that they could to sow discord.  Bernie has acknowledged that they
> became aware of that during the campaign and attempted to thwart it,
> unsuccessfully.  It was time to join forces to defeat the Republicans,
> but there were those who were susceptible to the anti-Hillary propaganda.

Funny thing you left out - the Russkies tried to defeat Trump too, with
Michael Moore's slavish aid:

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/michael-moore-russian-anti-trump-rally/


Progressive director Michael Moore participated in an anti-Trump protest
in New York that was organized by Russians, according to information
released Friday by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Rosenstein announced indictments from Special Counsel Robert Mueller
Friday against 13 Russian nationals for meddling in the 2016 election,
highlighting how the Russians used social media to stir up strife and
anger on social media using memes and unwitting Americans to do their
bidding. One Russia-sponsored event was a protest of then
President-Elect Donald Trump on Nov. 12, 2016, called “Trump is NOT my
President,” and it involved Moore.

[El Castor]

The dossier came from a Brit. Assuming he didn't collect (or
fabricate) the info, he got it from the Russians. To assume that the
millions that the DNC paid for the dossier wound up exclusively in the
pocket of Russia's intermediary is very naive -- but if it did, the
obvious explanation is that the Russian sources were being well paid
by another source -- like their own government.

Anyhow, don't you think it's about time that you Democrats returned to
reality and told us what you will do, not what you claim to be
against? I guess, tax, spend, more debt, and open borders are a
tougher sell than Trump the Russian agent.

[El Castor]

Counterpunch, Breitbart, and Trueactivist. Really?

[El Castor]

Yawn

[obtusion]

Non factual 'rebuttal" attempt disguised as "shoot the messenger" ?

Or admission that the story tells from diverse sides?

[rumpelstiltskin]

I'm not sure there's even been a violation, though
if there has been, the USA has made the same kind
of violation in other countries thousands of times.

[rumpelstiltskin]

I wouldn't have seen this if you hadn't pointed it out, since I
nuked "obtusion" and all his posts past, present and future at
the beginning of this session, after I saw he'd made 70 or so
new posts just since this morning. Maybe this is "Globalist"
with a name change? The volume would suggest that, but
I've had Globalist killfiled for ages, as most everybody else
seems to have done too, so I'm not familiar enough with his
style to tell if it's the same guy.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 12:32:20 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:

>On 2/20/2018 10:27 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:51:09 -0700, obtusion <r...@wr.ee> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/19/2018 6:28 PM, me wrote:
>>>> Didn’t the DNC collude similarly to influence the election?
>>>
>>> To DESTROY Bernie, yes.
>>>
>>> And so they did.
>>>
>>>> And wasn’t the taxpayer funded surveillance state agency used in that effort? Where are the imdightments?
>>>
>>> Being Mueller'd over?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I sent $100 three times to Bernie's campaign. Even
>> though he lost, I don't regret a penny of it. Change
>> takes a long time sometimes, but one has to work
>> at it. I still have Bernie's picture on my glass front
>> door.
>>
>>
>>
>The problem was not one of supporting Bernie. I did too. The problem
>was in the Russian efforts to promote division between the Bernie
>supporters and the Hillary supporters.

I supported Hillary when she first ran, and I still have the
T-shirt. Now though, I'm tired of the same old s... all the
time, and Hillary was seemed by now too much of an
"establishment" candidate to make a dent in the kind of
politics I've gotten so tired of. I would have liked to support
Al Franken in the next election, but he's been booted out
and I'd be surprised if he isn't too disgusted with politics
now to want to run again. Looks like we're going to be
stuck with the same old s..., until the present teenagers
grow up to voting age. Where there's youth, there's hope,
though since I'm 73 I won't get to see it.

>It was time to bring the party
>together and Bernie supported that. But, the Russians did everything
>that they could to sow discord. Bernie has acknowledged that they
>became aware of that during the campaign and attempted to thwart it,
>unsuccessfully. It was time to join forces to defeat the Republicans,
>but there were those who were susceptible to the anti-Hillary propaganda.

The Russians did almost nothing compared to what the
USA does everywhere every single day. Give me a break.

[obtusion]

On 2/20/2018 4:05 PM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> Now though, I'm tired of the same old s... all the
> time, and Hillary was seemed by now too much of an
> "establishment" candidate to make a dent in the kind of
> politics I've gotten so tired of. I would have liked to support
> Al Franken in the next election,

Wow, you really are a mass of contradictions.

Franken was/is about as lamestream leftard "establishment" as there is.

Go grope so sleeping women, fool.

[obtusion]

Lol.

No, that wasn't your reason.

You know your ass is going to get handed to you time and again, leftard
troll.

> Maybe this is "Globalist"
> with a name change?

Nope!

> The volume would suggest that, but
> I've had Globalist killfiled for ages, as most everybody else
> seems to have done too, so I'm not familiar enough with his
> style to tell if it's the same guy.

I'm not him.

But I am your worst debate nightmare, leftard shill.

[obtusion]

Brilliant!

So we somehow cede the right to enforce our own laws?

How's that work in reality, Marxist toadie?

[islander]

What did you not understand about "the Russians did everything that they
could to sow discord." You really should get your information from more
than right wing sources. Moore attended and used the event to apologize
to the American people for the Democrats not working hard enough to
defeat Trump. It hardly rises to the level of collusion.

[islander]

Another indictment today of an American lawyer, son-in-law of a Russian
oligarch.

[obtusion]

On ALL sides...

Yes, non-partisan discord.

> You really should get your information from more
> than right wing sources.

Is this Rosenstein quote not accurate, leftard?

> Moore attended and used the event to apologize
> to the American people for the Democrats not working hard enough to
> defeat Trump.

Aw, he wuvs his Stalinist masters!

> It hardly rises to the level of collusion.

Oh yes it does.

Wait and see....

[obtusion]

On 2/20/2018 6:25 PM, islander wrote:
>>> The number of parties that are seeking to plead state-evidence to avoid
>>> prosecution is growing.  The rats are fleeing a sinking ship!
>>>
>> Yawn
>>
> Another indictment today of an American lawyer, son-in-law of a Russian
> oligarch.

Double yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnnnn....

[islander]

Probably a good idea. No redeeming value!

[obtusion]

Quick - all hide heads in sand!

[wolfbat359]

He is on my eliminate list - give him a count of ten!

[obtusion]

Quick...run...hide...run...

...then post another leftarded meme cartoon...

[wolfbat359]

4

[obtusion]

5

[El Castor]

I don't bother to read references from extreme left wing sources, so
why should I be a hypocrite and swallow the stuff from the extreme
right when I can get it from the Washington Post? Assuming your intent
is to convince, the people you are trying to convince might find it
more difficult to dismiss the Post, Newsweek, or the NY Times.

"Here are the latest, most damaging things in the DNC’s leaked emails"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/24/here-are-the-latest-most-damaging-things-in-the-dncs-leaked-emails/?utm_term=.38a7756910f1

"Was the Election Rigged Against Bernie Sanders?"
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-rigged-hillary-clinton-dnc-lawsuit-donald-trump-president-609582

"Released Emails Suggest the D.N.C. Derided the Sanders Campaign"
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html

[islander]

Most of the cost of assembling the intelligence that is in the dossier
was compiled with funds that were provided by the Washington Free
Beacon, a conservative political website which opposed Trump in the
Republican primaries, funneled through Fusion GPS, but we don't know who
the actual donors were or how much they paid for the opposition
research. When Trump won the primary, they lost interest and the
Democrats picked up the results, not for millions, but relatively
cheaply - $68K from the DNC and $100K from Hillary supporters. So,
Trump's claim that Hillary and the Dems spent $12M is a lie without
foundation.

Otherwise, I think that the Democrats would do well to focus more on
what they have done and will do when elected. The country is tired of
all the acrimony. I'm encouraged by the increasing numbers of Democrats
who are running for office at the state and local levels. This is
looking even better than Howard Dean's 50 state strategy.

But, I agree, "When they [Republicans] go low, we should go high."

Focus on Democratic principles:
1) expanded social rights for minorities and women,
2) reliance on rule-of-law over individual or institutional power,
3) regulated markets and commerce,
4) progressive taxation as needed to support government activities, and
5) a government elected by the people in a fair and equitable election
process.

[obtusion]

On 2/20/2018 11:41 PM, El Castor wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 15:23:59 -0700, obtusion <r...@wr.ee> wrote:
>
>> On 2/20/2018 2:52 PM, El Castor wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:53:30 -0700, obtusion <r...@wr.ee> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/19/2018 6:43 PM, islander wrote:
>>>>> On 2/19/2018 5:28 PM, me wrote:
>>>>>> Didn’t the DNC collude similarly to influence the election? And wasn’t
>>>>>> the taxpayer funded surveillance state agency used in that effort?
>>>>>> Where are the imdightments?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Cite?
>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/03/leaked-dnc-emails-confirm-anti-sanders-conspiracy/
>>>>
>>>> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/22/leaked-dnc-memo-shows-staffers-conspiring-sanders-using-religion/
>>>>
>>>> http://www.trueactivist.com/leaked-emails-prove-dnc-conspired-against-bernie-sanders-trump-uses-embarrassment-to-rally-voters/
>>>
>>> Counterpunch, Breitbart, and Trueactivist. Really?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Non factual 'rebuttal" attempt disguised as "shoot the messenger" ?
>>
>> Or admission that the story tells from diverse sides?
>
> I don't bother to read references from extreme left wing sources, so
> why should I be a hypocrite and swallow the stuff from the extreme
> right when I can get it from the Washington Post? Assuming your intent
> is to convince, the people you are trying to convince might find it
> more difficult to dismiss the Post, Newsweek, or the NY Times.
>

Uh...are you on DRUGS?

No one is convinced of anything here, ever!

The cites are sound.

The "shoot the messenger" game is OVER!

Got it?

GOOD!

Now bugger off.

[obtusion]

On 2/21/2018 7:35 AM, islander wrote:
> I think that the Democrats would do well

I think you should DIE soon, real damned soon!

[El Castor]

Hmmm. The $10 - $12 million figure is bandied about, but now that I
look into it, I think you have a point.

>Otherwise, I think that the Democrats would do well to focus more on
>what they have done and will do when elected. The country is tired of
>all the acrimony. I'm encouraged by the increasing numbers of Democrats
>who are running for office at the state and local levels. This is
>looking even better than Howard Dean's 50 state strategy.
>
>But, I agree, "When they [Republicans] go low, we should go high."
>
>Focus on Democratic principles:
>1) expanded social rights for minorities and women,
>2) reliance on rule-of-law over individual or institutional power,
>3) regulated markets and commerce,
>4) progressive taxation as needed to support government activities, and
>5) a government elected by the people in a fair and equitable election
>process.
>

Shudder. It would sound OK if I didn't know what those words really
meant. (-8

[obtusion]

On 2/21/2018 11:17 AM, El Castor wrote:
>> So,
>> Trump's claim that Hillary and the Dems spent $12M is a lie without
>> foundation.
> Hmmm. The $10 - $12 million figure is bandied about, but now that I
> look into it, I think you have a point.
>

YOU are a brainwashed leftard shitbag!


http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/20/wikileaks-hillary-got-12-million-for-clinton-charity-as-quid-pro-quo-for-morocco-meeting/

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arranged a $12 million
donation from Moroccan King Mohammed VI to her family’s charity in 2014
in return for the Clinton Global Initiative hosting its international
meeting in the North African Muslim nation, according to an email made
public Thursday by Wikileaks.

The Moroccan monarch’s funds went to the Clinton Foundation’s endowment
and to CGI. The Jan. 18, 2015, email was included in Wikileaks’ latest
batch of communications to and from Clinton’s presidential campaign
chairman, John Podesta.

The email from Huma Abedin, Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff at the State
Department, was addressed to Podesta and campaign manager Robby Mook.
Hillary Clinton was a director of the foundation at the time.

Singapore and Hong Kong officials reportedly were also vying to convene
the CGI meeting in their countries, but the North African nation
ultimately hosted it in a five-star hotel in Marrakesh, Morocco, in
2015. Abedin told Podesta and Mook that Morocco was not CGI’s “first
choice.”

[bill bowden]

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 12:25:42 PM UTC-8, islander wrote:

> On 2/20/2018 10:27 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 08:55:24 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:

> > <snip>

> >
> >
> >> A couple of points:
> >>
> >> While McMaster and Pence (more recently) have claimed that the Russian
> >> campaign did not change any votes, they both drew conclusions that are
> >> not supported by the investigation. The FBI stated that the effects on
> >> the election are unknowable and McMaster had to correct his earlier
> >> statement. We know that the Russians attempted to hack 21 election
> >> precincts and succeeded in penetrating a few. I've written here before
> >> about the possibility of using this penetration to actually change votes
> >> using a stuxnet type of attack is unknowable since the necessary
> >> precautions were not taken at the precincts. At a minimum, we know that
> >> this is a weakness in our election system that needs to be eliminated.
> >> It does not appear that anything is being done in this regard.
> >>
> >> Secondly, the indictments of the Russians are only one part of the
> >> investigation and reveal that any claims that the Russians did not
> >> attempt to interfere in the election with the goal of defeating or at
> >> least discrediting Hillary are no longer reasonable arguments. They
> >> did, it is incontrovertible, and against US law despite anything that
> >> Trump or his supporters claim.
> >>
> >> What remains to be proven is whether there was collusion on the part of
> >> the Trump campaign (Donald Junior has pretty much admitted to that) and
> >> whether there was an attempt on the part of the Trump administration to
> >> interfere with the investigation (Trump's firing of Comey is only one
> >> piece of evidence to prove that).
> >>

> >> The number of parties that are seeking to plead state-evidence to avoid
> >> prosecution is growing. The rats are fleeing a sinking ship!
> >
> >

> > I'm not much interested in it at all. Even if everything
> > asserted is true, and I have zero confidence of that,
> > $10M is a tempest in a teapot considering what
> > governments spend on bits of nothing these days.
> >
> > As to people chatting on Flickr or Facebook, I've
> > rarely been to Facebook and have never been to Flickr.
> > Nothing in Facebook has been of interest to me.
> >
> So you feel that violation of US law should be ignored?
>

> As to your non-use of Twitter and Facebook, I think that you are
> discounting the multiplier effect of those who propagate the
> misinformation, even here on soc.retirement.
>

What is illegal about posting misleading ads on Facebook? Let the reader beware.

"These Are the Ads Russia Bought on Facebook in 2016"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/01/us/politics/russia-2016-election-facebook.html

[Talis Mann]

On 2/20/2018 5:33 PM, islander wrote:

> On 2/20/2018 3:05 PM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:

>> [...]

>>     I wouldn't have seen this if you hadn't pointed it out, since I
>> nuked "obtusion" and all his posts past, present and future at
>> the beginning of this session, after I saw he'd made 70 or so
>> new posts just since this morning.  Maybe this is "Globalist"
>> with a name change?  The volume would suggest that, but
>> I've had Globalist killfiled for ages, as most everybody else
>> seems to have done too, so I'm not familiar enough with his
>> style to tell if it's the same guy.

It is NOT Globy.

> Probably a good idea.  No redeeming value!

Correct. This thing has become known as "spammy," and has infested
numerous newsgroups. Its MO is the same: troll while accusing others
of being trolls, stalking, screaming epithets, frequent nymshifting,
and all the rest.

It is regretful that "spammy" has chosen to show up here. It is boring,
stupid, useless, and tedious. It will scream at veterans even though it
has never served its country in uniform. Killfile and be done, and
expect your killfile to see disproportionate amounts of use dedicated to
this one sick troll. It considers that an "accomplishment."

[Talis Mann]

On 2/20/2018 5:42 PM, wolfbat359 wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 4:05:05 PM UTC-7, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't have seen this if you hadn't pointed it out, since I

>> nuked "obtusion" and all his posts[...]

>
> He is on my eliminate list - give him a count of ten!

No need to count that high. Killfile "spammy" and be done with it. It
is a pariah in every newsgroup it infests.

[El Castor]

That the Russians tried to screw with our election, there seems little
doubt, but where was Obama while all this was going on? Playing 333
rounds of golf? I'm not excusing the Russians, but it is clear that
the US has been engaging in the same sort of election meddling for
years. Shame on us, and shame on Obama if he presided over it.

"Russia Isn’t the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too"
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

In any event, Trump has been in office for more than a year and still
not one shred of evidence of collusion (whatever that really means) on
his part. It is clear that this kerfuffle is not about Russia, but is
really about gaining control of congress and getting Trump out of
office -- by any means necessary. You lost the election. Time to grow
up and admit to yourselves why you lost. The reason was not Russia, it
was eight years of Obama, no real message to the voters, and Hillary
Clinton, the crookedest most incompetent candidate your party could
possibly have put forth. Who's next? Nancy Pelosi or perhaps Oprah?

[obtusion]

On 2/21/2018 12:37 PM, Talis Mann wrote:
> Its MO is the same: troll while accusing others
> of being trolls,

Thus spake Tzatx Ziki, Cicero's widdle shadow, LOL!

[obtusion]

On 2/21/2018 12:41 PM, Talis Mann wrote:
> It
> is a pariah in every newsgroup it infests.

Thus spake Tzatz Ziki, Cicero's widdle shadow and a feckless kraut fascist.

[obtusion]

On 2/21/2018 12:55 PM, El Castor wrote:
> "Russia Isn’t the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too"

So
fucking
what!

[islander]

What do they really mean to you?
1) Do you really feel that minorities and women should not have equal
rights?
2) Do you really feel that individual or institutional power should
trump rule-of-law?
3) Do you really feel that the free market will not exploit people if
not regulated?
4) Do you disagree that those who benefit from government should not be
taxed accordingly?
5) Do you oppose a fair and equitable election process?

Perhaps you would prefer the Republican principles:
1) maintains traditional social values,
2) protects the individual from excesses and abuses of government,
3) does not interfere with free markets and free enterprise,
4) minimizes taxes, and
5) is responsible and accountable to the people.

[islander]

It took two years to nail Nixon!

[islander]

The ads are not illegal unless a case can be made that they are intended
to give political advantage to a political candidate and that they are
paid for outside election law.

[Errant Field]

Trump ain't Nixon, you old fart.

[Errant Field]

Do you really think do not?

> 2) Do you really feel that individual or institutional power should
> trump rule-of-law?

Do you maintain our system of checks and balances has failed?

> 3) Do you really feel that the free market will not exploit people if
> not regulated?

Do you wan to over-regulate to the point that market economics fail?

> 4) Do you disagree that those who benefit from government should not be
> taxed accordingly?

Double negative.

> 5) Do you oppose a fair and equitable election process?

Do you have substantive proof we lack one?

> Perhaps you would prefer the Republican principles:
> 1)    maintains traditional social values,

Oh too late, you libs killed them off, ftmp...

> 2)    protects the individual from excesses and abuses of government,

Of course!

> 3)    does not interfere with free markets and free enterprise,

Does not overly meddle...

> 4)    minimizes taxes, and

Yes, please!

> 5)    is responsible and accountable to the people.

Always has been a moving target.

[El Castor]

Oh, I see. You apparently suffer from Histrionic Personality Disorder.
Is a sad mess like you allowed to roam around loose, or are you
posting from The Home? Well never mind. These posts of yours are an
attention seeking device, so you won't hear from me again. Plonk.

[El Castor]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 11:37:22 -0800, Talis Mann <story...@told.me>
wrote:

Psychiatrists have a name for it -- Histrionic Personality Disorder.
It has a form of mentall illness that causes it to seek attention.

[El Castor]

Actually, I'm OK with both -- but not Marxism, which is the direction
in which the Democrat party is headed.

[islander]

Probably not.

The reason that I listed these two sets of principles is that they are
symmetric - there is room for agreement with both, if only we could
avoid the hyperbole.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 19:15:34 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>On 2/21/2018 10:17 AM, El Castor wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 06:35:26 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:

<snip>

(with apologies to John Cleese and Monty Python)

Donald Trump, Donald Trump
Riding through the glen.
Donald Trump, Donald Trump
With his band of men.
He steals from the poor
And gives to the rich --
Stupid bitch
Stupid bitch
Stupid bitch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp-R1o753pM

[Errant Field]

Says the idjit who forgot Watergate was the precursor to Obama
wiretapping Trump Tower and weaponizing the FBI against the R's!

Stunning leg trap you made yourself their old man.

> Is a sad mess like you allowed to roam around loose, or are you
> posting from The Home? Well never mind. These posts of yours are an
> attention seeking device, so you won't hear from me again. Plonk.

I WIN again!

Lol.

[Errant Field]

Pot/kettle/castor oil?

[Errant Field]

There is NO ROOM for "agreement" with your disgusting Marxist leading
questions, you leftarded shitbag.

[Errant Field]

On 2/22/2018 7:33 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> Donald Trump, Donald Trump
> Riding through the glen.
> Donald Trump, Donald Trump
> With his band of men.
> He steals from the poor
> And gives to the rich --
> Stupid bitch
> Stupid bitch
> Stupid bitch

You are a very fucked up person, truly.

[islander]

:)

[Errant Field]

On 2/22/2018 8:26 AM, islander wrote not one word of the slightest
redeeming value, in YEARS!

[El Castor]

Probably not what? The American Left, and your party along with it, is
drifting further and further left. It's just a fact. What does that
leftward drift mean?

"Socialist groups see huge spike in membership as they join protests
against US President Donald Trump."
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/02/americans-joining-socialist-groups-trump-170205083615002.html

Take a look at the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) and honestly
tell me how your views differ from their policies.
http://www.dsausa.org/

[islander]

Actually, the country as a whole has been drifting to the political
right for about 3 decades, including those on the left. What you are
probably seeing most recently is a reaction to Trump. We are seeing a
groundswell of Democratic candidates and they are winning. That is a
consequence of public unhappiness with the Republican party and the
disruption that Trump has caused in government. I mentioned recently
that the Gallup State-of-the-States poll showed a slight decrease in
conservative preference over 2015, but hardly an indication of a slide
into socialism. Actually, most of the change was a shift to independent
preference.

[El Castor]

You strike as a well informed main stream 21st century liberal. If
that is the case, specifically how do you differ from the DSA? I
suspect you don't. Prove me wrong.

[islander]

Sigh, I would think that you would know by now that I am not a
socialist. As pertains to Democratic Socialism, I do not believe that
the economy should be run democratically. I believe that capitalism
creates a motivation to succeed that is valuable as long as it is
restrained from abuses. Where I agree with Democratic Socialism is in
their support of policies that strive to improve the human condition,
essentially protecting the individual from the power of the wealthy and
powerful, be they individuals or corporations. Like Democratic
Socialists, I support labor, single payer health care, social equality
and public support for higher education.

You, on the other hand do not claim to be a Libertarian, but you have a
lot of interests in common with them. I'll pass the baton back to you
and ask, from your point of view, how do you differ from Libertarians?
In particular, I would like to know what weight you place on economic
freedom vs. personal freedom. The CATO Institute sets that at 2/3 vs.
1/3. I suspect that your views are pretty similar. Prove me wrong.
https://www.lp.org/the-libertarian-party/
and
https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

[Errant Field]

On 2/22/2018 7:04 PM, islander wrote:
> Actually, the country as a whole has been drifting to the political
> right for about 3 decades, including those on the left.

That is a complete and utter LIE!

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/why-america-is-moving-left/419112/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/27/socially-liberal_n_7453526.html

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/29/red-white-and-bluer

[occupado]

On 2/23/2018 12:33 AM, El Castor wrote:
> You strike as a well informed main stream 21st century liberal

OMG!

Massive mutually exclusive terms there!

[Errant Field]

On 2/23/2018 8:14 AM, islander wrote:
> Like Democratic Socialists, I support labor, single payer health care,
> social equality and public support for higher education.

Democrat Socialists ARE the elites and hyper-rich, you brainwashed ninny!

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html

Democrats now depend as much on affluent voters as on low-income voters.
Democrats represent a majority of the richest congressional districts,
and the party’s elected officials are more responsive to the policy
agenda of the well-to-do than to average voters. The party and its
candidates have come to rely on the elite 0.01 percent of the voting age
population for a quarter of their financial backing and on large donors
for another quarter.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/democrats-party-of-the-rich/

In a world of Trumpism and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party
of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, while
Republicans would become the party of the working class. Democrats would
win backing from those who support expanded trade and immigration, while
Republicans would win the support of those who prefer less of both.

The more that Democrats write off the white working class, which has
been experiencing a drastic decline in living standards, the harder it
is for them to call themselves a party of the little guy. The more that
the rich can frame various business practices as blows to privilege or
oppression—predatory lending as a way to expand minority home ownership,
outsourcing as a way to uplift the world’s poor, etc.—the more they get
a pass from Democrats on practices that hurt poorer Americans.

[El Castor]

First, let me say you didn't answer my question. I asked for
specifics. Here is a link to DSA specifics. What can you find among
these specifics to disagree with?
http://www.dsausa.org/fact_sheets

With regard to libertarians, a few of the many points on which I
disagree with libertarians, with reasonable limitations ...

* With regard to use of private property, I support the principle of
eminent domain. I also support building codes and zoning restrictions.
* I support laws regarding the sale and use of addictive and
recreational drugs.
* I support the right of government to establish laws regarding the
monitoring of foreign and domestic communication.
* I support laws regarding the design, manufacture, sale and use of
firearms.
* I support government construction of roads, bridges, and traffic
control devices.
* I support the right and responsibility of government to enact laws
regarding taxation, education, contracts, the environment,
etc.

[islander]

Good for you! We agree on those points.

Otherwise, what did you not understand in my answer?

[El Castor]

You said ...
"I do not believe the economy should be run democratically"

What does that mean? DSA does not promote government ownership of the
means of production, so in what specific respects do you differ from
their beliefs?

[islander]

Read the second sentence in Article II. Purpose in their Constitution:

"We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order
based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning..."

For me, that is a bridge too far.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 07:22:21 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>On 2/24/2018 1:43 AM, El Castor wrote:

<snip>

>> What does that mean? DSA does not promote government ownership of the
>> means of production, so in what specific respects do you differ from
>> their beliefs?
>>
>Read the second sentence in Article II. Purpose in their Constitution:
>
> "We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order
>based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning..."
>
>For me, that is a bridge too far.

I know nothing about the "Democratic Socialists of
America", but that statement is not a "bridge too far"
for me. I will concede that selfishness is a far more
powerful spur to progress and production than
concern for one's fellow man, which is why, for all
its faults, it's tolerated. If we end up with oligarchs
who connive to get the Supreme Court to give them
power to exert even more control over government
than they have already gained though, that IS for
me conspicuously undemocratic, and a clear sign
that things have gone at least one "bridge too far".

[El Castor]

But we both know that you would leap at the opportunity to vote for
Bernie Sanders -- whose picture is plastered all over the DSA web
site.

"Bringing Socialism Back: How Bernie Sanders is Reviving an American
Tradition"
http://www.dsausa.org/tags/bernie_sanders

"How Democratic Socialists Are Building on Bernie's Momentum
Membership in the Democratic Socialists of America is way up – now,
can the group become a major force against Trump?"
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/how-democratic-socialists-are-building-on-bernies-momentum-w465452

[islander]

Compared to Trump, you bet your ass that I would have voted for Bernie.
I would have voted for a ham sandwich rather than Trump. Overall,
Hillary had a better vision, backed up with solid policy papers. I
never bought into all the propaganda about her, but acknowledge that she
was so badly damaged over the years that Bernie would have been a more
pragmatic choice. We get only two choices for all practical purposes
and I voted for the person who was best qualified to do the job
(Hillary) and I would do it again.

By the time we are through all this, I expect you to change your mind.
You have demonstrated in the past that you are big enough to admit it
when you make a mistake.

[El Castor]

As I've said before, I voted for Ronald Reagan in the primary. The day
will NEVER come when I would, or will, vote for Bernie or Hillary --
or wish that I had. So far, I'm fine with Trump.

[islander]

Then you haven't been paying attention. The indictments keep piling up
as Mueller's team circles ever closer to Trump. In the face of the
indictments, guilty pleas are also increasing. The rats are turning on
each other and this is going to be a lot worse than Nixon.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 06:48:23 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>On 2/24/2018 11:44 PM, El Castor wrote:

<snip>

>> As I've said before, I voted for Ronald Reagan in the primary. The day
>> will NEVER come when I would, or will, vote for Bernie or Hillary --
>> or wish that I had. So far, I'm fine with Trump.
>>
>Then you haven't been paying attention. The indictments keep piling up
>as Mueller's team circles ever closer to Trump. In the face of the
>indictments, guilty pleas are also increasing. The rats are turning on
>each other and this is going to be a lot worse than Nixon.
>

And then we'll get Pense instead. Wonderful. Maybe
we should hold off on going after Trump.

Can we get rid of Trump and Pense at the same time,
and then install Bernie as prez? If so, count me IN!
We'd have to send most of the Republicans in congress
to Guantanamo though, or Bernie wouldn't be able to
get anything passed. No problem, they're more guilty
than the hundreds of people known to be innocent who
have been in Guantanamo for 20 years or more.
https://tinyurl.com/y9psmnok

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On 2/25/2018 8:12 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 06:48:23 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>> On 2/24/2018 11:44 PM, El Castor wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>>> As I've said before, I voted for Ronald Reagan in the primary. The day
>>> will NEVER come when I would, or will, vote for Bernie or Hillary --
>>> or wish that I had. So far, I'm fine with Trump.
>>>
>> Then you haven't been paying attention. The indictments keep piling up
>> as Mueller's team circles ever closer to Trump. In the face of the
>> indictments, guilty pleas are also increasing. The rats are turning on
>> each other and this is going to be a lot worse than Nixon.
>>
>
>
> And then we'll get Pense instead. Wonderful. Maybe
> we should hold off on going after Trump.

Pence, not Pense.

> Can we get rid of Trump and Pense at the same time,
> and then install Bernie as prez?

Paul Ryan would be next. If Ryan went at the same time, who would come
after that?

[occupado]

On 2/24/2018 6:39 PM, islander wrote:
> Compared to Trump, you bet your ass that I would have voted for Bernie.

YOU are a senile moron then.

> I would have voted for a ham sandwich rather than Trump.

Ipso facto dumbo.

> Overall,
> Hillary had a better vision, backed up with solid policy papers.

Guess what, Lloyd Blankfein changed his mind on her:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/goldman-sachs-ceo-gives-trump-210740747.html


Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein told CNNMoney that the economy is
better off under President Donald Trump than it would have been under
Hillary Clinton.

Blankfein noted he had supported Clinton's White House bid.
Business confidence has surged under Trump as the administration has cut
corporate taxes and pledged to roll back regulations.

The US economy is better off under President Donald Trump that it would
have been under Hillary Clinton, according to Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO
of Goldman Sachs.

"If the president didn't win and Hillary Clinton won ... I bet you the
economy is higher today than it otherwise would be," Blankfein said in
an interview with CNN's Christine Romans.

> I never bought into all the propaganda about her,

Of course not, I mean who wouldn't want to shut their mind to this
inhuman savagery:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/12/hillary-clinton-benghazi-families-lied/

On September 14, 2012, three days after the murder of Ambassador
Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods in
Benghazi, Libya, Hillary Clinton appeared at Andrews Air Force Base,
where she spoke with family members of those slain.

Shortly afterward, Tyrone Woods’s father reported that she told him, “We
are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the
death of your son.” Sean Smith’s mother recently repeated this, saying,
“She said it was because of the video.” Glen Doherty’s sister said she
chose “in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.”

In public remarks Clinton said, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed
at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing
to do with.” Those words and her assurances to the family members stand
in stark contradiction to what Clinton said in messages she sent over
her private e-mail system at the time.

On September 11, 2012, she told her daughter that the “officers were
killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group.” On the morning of
September 12 she told an Egyptian diplomat, “We know the attack in Libya
had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.”

Blaming the Benghazi murders on spontaneous protest of an anti-Muslim
video (whose maker was indeed arrested, on unrelated charges) was
apparently part of an Obama administration strategy. On September 15,
Susan Rice, then ambassador to the United Nations, after a White House
briefing went on five Sunday interview programs and blamed the attacks
on the video.

There was an obvious political motive for blaming the video. Early
September polling showed the race between Obama and Mitt Romney tied.
Obama was claiming success against terrorists, frequently citing the
death of Osama bin Laden as evidence that the threat was reduced.

The Benghazi attack — the first murder of an American ambassador in 33
years — obviously cast doubt on those claims. It validated criticism of
the administration’s “leading from behind” in Libya policy.

Yet now Clinton says the victims’ family members are mistaken and that
she didn’t mention the video to them at all. On ABC News’s This Week
last Sunday George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton White House aide,
asked the candidate, “Did you tell them it was about the film?”

“No,” Clinton said.

She went on to say she understood “the continuing grief at the loss that
parents experienced,” thus suggesting that they are unreliable
witnesses. She cited her testimony before the Benghazi committee three
years later, as if that is relevant. She talked about “a fast-moving
series of events in the fog of war.”

To believe that Clinton’s “no” is not a lie, you have to believe that
multiple individuals each misremembered what the U.S. secretary of state
had said to them. Or that members of three different families, struck by
tragedy, got together and conspired to invent and spread an identical
story that would someday embarrass her. Or that this is somehow the
result of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Journalists, if they are more interested in determining the truth than
in making sure Clinton is elected president, should ask her if she
believes any of these things.

There’s another area where journalists ought to be pressing Clinton for
answers. On December 3 a New Hampshire voter — not a journalist — asked
her, “You say that all rape victims should be believed. But would you
say that Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones be
believed as well?” All three in the 1990s accused Bill Clinton of acts
that constitute sexual assault or harassment.

“Well,” replied Hillary Clinton, “I would say that everyone should be
believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”

The obvious follow-up is: What evidence? Anything beyond Bill Clinton’s
denials? Even after he had to retract his denials of sex with Monica
Lewinsky and chose to settle a lawsuit brought by Paula Jones?
0

Some may argue that these are peripheral matters. But the
video-made-them-do-it distraction was clearly designed to help secure
the reelection of President Obama. The purpose of Hillary Clinton’s
decision to stand by her husband and denigrate those making charges
against him was clearly to keep him in the White House.

Hillary Clinton has not answered all the legitimate questions that can
be asked about these matters. Legitimate journalists should keep asking
them until she does.

https://www.lyingcrookedhillary.com/lie/hillary-lies-to-benghazi-families/

One family member, Charles Woods – father of Tyrone Woods, a retired
Navy Seal killed in the Benghazi attacks on September 11, 2012 –recalls
that Hillary told him, “We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who
was responsible for the death of your son.” Patricia Smith, grieving
mother of victim Sean Smith, remembers clearly what Hillary told her as
well and says she never received a real explanation from Clinton or the
Obama administration on what happened.

The truth is that massive security failures at the highest levels of the
Obama administration and Clinton’s State Department put the Benghazi
mission at grave risk as terrorist threats grew daily. Her incompetence
cost lives and her attempt to cover up the truth is an indignity on the
memory of the fallen heroes in Benghazi.

> but acknowledge that she
> was so badly damaged over the years that Bernie would have been a more
> pragmatic choice.  We get only two choices for all practical purposes
> and I voted for the person who was best qualified to do the job
> (Hillary) and I would do it again.

That's because you are a dangerously deluded traitor to this nation, you
exterminable scumbag!

> By the time we are through all this, I expect you to change your mind.
> You have demonstrated in the past that you are big enough to admit it
> when you make a mistake.

And YOU are a brainwashed useful idiot - PERIOD!

[Errant Field]

On 2/25/2018 7:48 AM, islander wrote:
> The indictments keep piling up as Mueller's team circles ever closer to
> Trump.

-------yaaaaaaawwwwwnnn--------

[Errant Field]

On 2/25/2018 9:12 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 06:48:23 -0800, islander <no...@priracy.com> wrote:
>> On 2/24/2018 11:44 PM, El Castor wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>>> As I've said before, I voted for Ronald Reagan in the primary. The day
>>> will NEVER come when I would, or will, vote for Bernie or Hillary --
>>> or wish that I had. So far, I'm fine with Trump.
>>>
>> Then you haven't been paying attention. The indictments keep piling up
>> as Mueller's team circles ever closer to Trump. In the face of the
>> indictments, guilty pleas are also increasing. The rats are turning on
>> each other and this is going to be a lot worse than Nixon.
>>
>
>
> And then we'll get Pense instead. Wonderful.

Superb even!

> Maybe we should hold off on going after Trump.

Leftard crocodile tears...

> Can we get rid of Trump and Pense at the same time,
> and then install Bernie as prez?

Nope.

https://heavy.com/news/2017/01/donald-trump-administration-cabinet-line-of-succession-white-house-vice-president-take-over-speaker-secretary-names-list/

2. Paul Ryan (Speaker of the House)

3. Orin Hatch (President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate)

4. Rex Tillerson (Secretary of State)

5. Steven Mnuchin (Secretary of the Treasury)

6. James Mattis (Secretary of Defense)

7. Jeff Sessions (Attorney General)

>If so, count me IN!

Says the MORON.

> We'd have to send most of the Republicans in congress
> to Guantanamo though, or Bernie wouldn't be able to
> get anything passed. No problem, they're more guilty
> than the hundreds of people known to be innocent who
> have been in Guantanamo for 20 years or more.
> https://tinyurl.com/y9psmnok
>

Ut oh, looks like we have an al Qaeda/ISIL operative posting here....

[occupado]

On 2/25/2018 9:26 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> If Ryan went at the same time, who would come after that?

[islander]

On 2/25/2018 8:12 AM, rumpelstiltskin wrote:

The best strategy for the Democrats is to elect a Democratic Congress in
November. It is unlikely that the current Republican House would vote
to impeach anyway. Even with a majority in the Senate, tho, it takes a
2/3 vote to convict. Given a Democratic majority in either of the two
houses, however, we can put an end to the chicanery in the Executive
office no matter who is in the White House.

[occupado]

On 2/25/2018 1:09 PM, islander wrote:
> we can put an end to the chicanery in the Executive office no matter who
> is in the White House.

You DemoTards ARE chicanery defined!

[rumpelstiltskin]

Impeachment is possible, but it would take a lot more than
we've seen so far, and if we end up with Pense as prez,
that's just jumping out of they frying pan into the fire.

I am cautiously optimistic that the Democrats will
recapture congress in the next election, although now under
"Citizens United", that may just be exchanging one set of
bribees for another - not much change at all really - just
a minor kink in the progress toward oligarchy.

[occupado]

Enjoy, asshole!

> I am cautiously optimistic that the Democrats will
> recapture congress in the next election, although now under
> "Citizens United", that may just be exchanging one set of
> bribees for another - not much change at all really - just
> a minor kink in the progress toward oligarchy.

Dems are statists, yes.