Political Roundtable Part XX

stilldropin20 · Post #821 » by **stilldropin20** » Tue May 22, 2018 9:23 pm

?s=21

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

JWizmentality · Post #822 » by **JWizmentality** » Tue May 22, 2018 10:33 pm

nate33 wrote:
JWizmentality wrote:
nate33 wrote:

Read on Twitter

This is significant.

So, the most generous explanation for the start of the spying was that the FBI became concerned when Trump announced his foreign policy team would include Carter Page, a man on the FBI's radar, which raised legitimate concerns. But rather than inform Trump's people that Page was potentially sketchy, the Obama DOJ instead uses it as a pretext to spy on the Trump campaign. This is the part that is inexcusable. I don't see any other way to view this. Rather than make a simple phone call out of concern for national security, the DOJ used this as an opportunity to try and take out the opposing party's candidate. Everything done after this point, the spying, the constant leaks to the media, the outright false articles, the sketchy FISA warrant, the threats of prosecuting people for violating the freaking Logan Act, was all done with an intent to harm Trump - either to prevent him from being elected, or to impeach after the election. This is third world dictatorship stuff - using the apparatus of the government to destroy the opposition.

Well done Obama!!! Too bad he decided to be a decent human being and keep his mouth shut when he should've blown the lid on this from day 1.

Tick tock mofos.

Tick tock to what? You obviously don't grasp the significance of this. There is zero chance of impeachment at this point. Even Never Trumpers and some Democrats will not vote to impeach Trump when it is this obvious to everyone that the entire investigation was started on a malicious, fraudulent basis.

At worst, the Trump campaign got some dirt on Hillary from the Russians (and I'm by no means ceding that this is in fact the case). But that's no different that the dirt Hillary got on Trump from the Brits. But on the other side of the equation, we have very real, tangible evidence of significant corruption within the FBI and Obama-DOJ where the power of government was maliciously used against the opposition's candidate.

Whatever helps you sleep at night homie.

Post #823 » by **nate33** » Tue May 22, 2018 11:20 pm

gtn130 wrote:Also I thought all polls were fake news except Rasmussen because they had Trump winning?

There's a difference between polls being false and polls merely being skewed. You can still believe in polls while having the understanding that they are typically slanted in the Democrat direction early on in the election season. It merely means that when a Democrat advantage drops from +6 to +4, the reality might be their advantage dropped from +2 to 0. The trend changes are still useful information.

Also, the polls always shift towards Republicans in the final week as the pollsters seek to post accurate results just before the election.

gtn130 · Post #824 » by **gtn130** » Wed May 23, 2018 12:20 am

nate33 wrote:
gtn130 wrote:Also I thought all polls were fake news except Rasmussen because they had Trump winning?

There's a difference between polls being false and polls merely being skewed. You can still believe in polls while having the understanding that they are typically slanted in the Democrat direction early on in the election season. It merely means that when a Democrat advantage drops from +6 to +4, the reality might be their advantage dropped from +2 to 0. The trend changes are still useful information.

Also, the polls always shift towards Republicans in the final week as the pollsters seek to post accurate results just before the election.

Feel free to provide any evidence whatsoever of this. You realize Democrats in special elections have been consistently performing 15+ point better than Hillary did in those districts in 2016.

These are results from the special election in Arizona in late April:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/25/us/politics/special-election-results-shift-democratic.html

stilldropin20 · Post #825 » by **stilldropin20** » Wed May 23, 2018 1:59 am

gtn130 wrote:
nate33 wrote:
gtn130 wrote:Also I thought all polls were fake news except Rasmussen because they had Trump winning?

There's a difference between polls being false and polls merely being skewed. You can still believe in polls while having the understanding that they are typically slanted in the Democrat direction early on in the election season. It merely means that when a Democrat advantage drops from +6 to +4, the reality might be their advantage dropped from +2 to 0. The trend changes are still useful information.

Also, the polls always shift towards Republicans in the final week as the pollsters seek to post accurate results just before the election.

Feel free to provide any evidence whatsoever of this.

i thought you would never ask. try these on for size. Its straight up worth all 7 hours of your time.

And soooooooooooooooo much better the 2nd time around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=44&v=d_BUxdoSWrI

closg00 · Post #826 » by **closg00** » Wed May 23, 2018 2:13 am

stilldropin20 wrote:

Read on Twitter
?s=21

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Of-course what Levin doesn't mention is that over at MSNBC, they are doing quite well against despite having to compete with CNN as-well while Fox is all alone on an island.
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/the-top-cable-news-programs-in-april-2018-were/363447

gtn130 · Post #827 » by **gtn130** » Wed May 23, 2018 3:44 am

Read on Twitter

Pretty bad look for the Dems

stilldropin20 · Post #828 » by **stilldropin20** » Wed May 23, 2018 4:36 am

Read on Twitter

stilldropin20 · Post #829 » by **stilldropin20** » Wed May 23, 2018 4:39 am

Read on Twitter

closg00 · Post #830 » by **closg00** » Wed May 23, 2018 12:53 pm

Read on Twitter

closg00 · Post #831 » by **closg00** » Wed May 23, 2018 12:55 pm

Read on Twitter

dckingsfan · Post #832 » by **dckingsfan** » Wed May 23, 2018 1:00 pm

gtn130 wrote:Pretty bad look for the Dems

Well, pretty bad look originally (Elizabeth Warren's view) when they implemented the "fix" to the banking system. It really wasn't. I said back then it would just make the biggest banks bigger and not help create new small banks. (Elizabeth Warren is one of my ultra villains - sorry, I just really hate her decision making).

But yes, allowing any banks (even if they have assets less than $10 billion) to not have to comply with the Volcker Rule isn't a good thing, IMO - and silly for the Ds at this point.

This bill doesn't really clean things up... it is like the tax bill - it just makes things more complicated, difficult to govern and less sustainable. The Rs are just kicking the can down the aisle.

Post #833 » by **nate33** » Wed May 23, 2018 1:02 pm

It really appears that the great Andrew McCarthy may be reading my posts on this board. His column today says exactly what I said yesterday:

Read on Twitter

The spying on Trump began when Carter Page was announced as one of Trump's foreign policy advisers. Obama's National Security Counsel discussed the matter (including Obama, Biden, Rice, Clapper, Lynch and Brennan, though we don't know if all were present) and concluded that, rather than simply inform Trump about Page's potential shadiness, that this was a good opportunity to spy on Trump, dig up as much dirt as possible, and spin any revelations in the most negative manner possible.

I'm telling you people, this is HUGE. People are going to go to jail over this. You simply can't do this in a functioning democracy.

Post #834 » by **nate33** » Wed May 23, 2018 1:11 pm

closg00 wrote:

Read on Twitter

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

James Clapper? This guy is running point on disinformation regarding this whole affair. He has already been caught in bold faced lies on multiple occasions, changing his story every time he is on CNN. He is the guy who leaked that Trump was briefed on the Piss Dosier so CNN could run with the story, and then lied about the leak. This is the guy who committed obvious perjury in 2013 when he lied about the Deep State's use of mass surveillance.

gtn130 · Post #835 » by **gtn130** » Wed May 23, 2018 1:57 pm

Nate, why on earth did all of these Obama Deep State Operatives say nothing before the election then if their goal was to take down Trump? You have no answer to that and it completely destroys your narrative.

gtn130 · Post #836 » by **gtn130** » Wed May 23, 2018 1:59 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
gtn130 wrote:Pretty bad look for the Dems

Well, pretty bad look originally (Elizabeth Warren's view) when they implemented the "fix" to the banking system. It really wasn't. I said back then it would just make the biggest banks bigger and not help create new small banks. (Elizabeth Warren is one of my ultra villains - sorry, I just really hate her decision making).

But yes, allowing any banks (even if they have assets less than $10 billion) to not have to comply with the Volcker Rule isn't a good thing, IMO - and silly for the Ds at this point.

This bill doesn't really clean things up... it is like the tax bill - it just makes things more complicated, difficult to govern and less sustainable. The Rs are just kicking the can down the aisle.

Not defending Dodd-Frank. I just see no justification for rolling back regulations without an actual solution in hand.

Post #837 » by **nate33** » Wed May 23, 2018 2:03 pm

gtn130 wrote:Nate, why on earth did all of these Obama Deep State Operatives say nothing before the election then if their goal was to take down Trump? You have no answer to that and it completely destroys your narrative.

Say nothing? They floated "Russian collusion" throughout the campaign!

The problem was, despite all of their spying on Trump and his people, they could never find any evidence of a crime.

gtn130 · Post #838 » by **gtn130** » Wed May 23, 2018 2:09 pm

nate33 wrote:
gtn130 wrote:Nate, why on earth did all of these Obama Deep State Operatives say nothing before the election then if their goal was to take down Trump? You have no answer to that and it completely destroys your narrative.

Say nothing? They floated "Russian collusion" throughout the campaign!

The problem was, despite all of their spying on Trump and his people, they could never find any evidence of a crime.

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html

closg00 · Post #839 » by **closg00** » Wed May 23, 2018 2:38 pm

nate33 wrote:
gtn130 wrote:Nate, why on earth did all of these Obama Deep State Operatives say nothing before the election then if their goal was to take down Trump? You have no answer to that and it completely destroys your narrative.

Say nothing? They floated "Russian collusion" throughout the campaign!

The problem was, despite all of their spying on Trump and his people, they could never find any evidence of a crime.

"Spying" The new Republican narrative. What were U.S. Intelligence agencies supposed to do when an ally (Australia) comes to them with information that someone from the Trump campaign knew about the stolen emails, before the information was public?
Nate, how was it that the Trump campaign came to know that Russia had this information? Also, why did Trump people lie about their contacts with Russians, including Trump himself. Please explain

stilldropin20 · Post #840 » by **stilldropin20** » Wed May 23, 2018 2:39 pm

i cant believe how dense some of you are being. Are you really this stupid? or is this just purposeful?

if this kind of behavior by any given current administration does NOT get checked then it will be open season on any political opponents.

Fox News is already killing it in ratings. Imagine when trumps DOJ, NSA, CIA begin to spy on the next grass roots political opponents and leaks to Fox??

Worse yet, implant spies, to offer up dirt. Then when the political opponent accepts a meeting to see the dirt, tell them that it comes from a foreign government which makes it illegal (or shady) if you accept in some sort of quid pro quo. Then, even if that opponent ACCEPTS NO DIRT and offers NO quid pro quo...even then..."leak it" that they even took the meeting!!! That your effing planted spies suggested. and then launches a 2-3 year "official" investigation on your candidate.

You guys think thats ok, huh?