Political Roundtable Part XX

[gtn130]

Fake news.

From the article:

While aides have urged the president to swap out the Twitter phone on a monthly basis, Trump has resisted their entreaties, telling them it was “too inconvenient,” the same administration official said.

The president has gone as long as five months without having the phone checked by security experts. It is unclear how often Trump’s call-capable phones, which are essentially used as burner phones, are swapped out.

President Barack Obama handed over his White House phones every 30 days to be examined by telecommunications staffers for hacking and other suspicious activity, according to an Obama administration official.

This is an egregious breach of protocol that is putting our national security at risk. Trump is doing this so he can do treason.

Lock him up! Lock him up! Lock him up!

[stilldropin20]

It takes money to make money.

Think you lost me there... if you put 100% of your money into the military - how much would you make - zero.

Think this through - don't just be a defender of terrible policy. This administration is a disaster - time to move on.

wait, are you saying that every single political dynasty that ever existed was not built around the strongest military? And in the last 500 years built around the strongest navy? and in the last 100 years, dominating the skies as well?

Is this still not the deterrent that prevent invasions? And strongly influences political victories? Is the development of Nukes NOT(potentially) bringing NK to the table?


I just cant follow this narrative where spending on military does NOT pay off.

[JWizmentality]

Read on Twitter

This is significant.

The Washington Post reported that, "The professor's interactions with Trump advisers began a few weeks before the opening of the investigation, when Page met the professor at the British symposium."

A few weeks before the opening of the investigation — those are the words that have raised eyebrows among Hill investigators. If it was before the investigation, then what was an FBI informant doing gathering undercover information when there was not yet an investigation?

The question has pointed investigators back to the issue of when the probe began — not when a piece of paper was formally signed but when the FBI, and perhaps other U.S. intelligence agencies, began investigating the Trump campaign.

And that has taken them back to March 21, 2016, when candidate Donald Trump met with the editorial board of the Washington Post.

At the time of that meeting, Trump had been under criticism for not having the sort of lists of distinguished advisers that most top-level campaigns routinely assemble. That was particularly true in the area of foreign policy. A frustrated Trump ordered his team to compile a list of foreign-affairs advisers.

Trump was preparing to announce his advisory board when he met with the Post. The paper's publisher asked Trump if he would reveal the names of his new team.

"Well, I hadn't thought of doing it, but if you want I can give you some of the names," Trump said. He then read a brief list, among them Page and Papadopoulos.

Trump's announcement did not go unnoticed at the FBI and Justice Department. The bureau knew Page from a previous episode in which Russian agents had tried, unsuccessfully, to recruit him. It's not clear what the FBI knew about the others. But then-Director James Comey and number-two Andrew McCabe personally briefed Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the list of newly-named Trump foreign policy advisers, including Page, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Lynch told the House Intelligence Committee that she, Comey, and McCabe discussed whether to provide a "defensive briefing" to the Trump campaign. That would entail having an FBI official meet with a senior campaign official "to alert them to the fact that … there may be efforts to compromise someone with their campaign," Lynch said.

It didn't happen, even though it was discussed again when Comey briefed the National Security Council principals committee about Page in the "late spring" of 2016, according to Lynch's testimony.

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.

[Dat2U]

SD20, you can't even source any of this garbage because it's all right wing fan fiction.

The hilarious thing is that the latest narrative is "yes yes you caught us doing a bunch of illegal stuff...but you spied on us!!!"

they din't get caught doing anything. No crimes were committed on the campaign trail. None. zippo. zero. nilch nada. nothing.

You cant point to one single crime of collusion or anything like collusion to anyone. even lowlife barely connected douchebags like papadopolos and page. and you know this. so why do you keep pretending that Trump was involved.

all you keep pointing to are 1 meeting where Don Jr was offered dirt. That dirt never changed hands and Don jr never offered anything back in return. And that's why no one has been charge with any kind of crime while campaining.

papadoplos lied about something and plead guilty. as did gates in regard to stuff him and manaforte did in 2005. stuff nothing to do with the campaign. Flynn lied about something that was legal and plead out about lying to make it go away.

So you "got" nothing. But you continue to insist you got something. Why? Its weird.

But more and more and more and more defintive evidence keeps coming out that the Obama DOJ and CIA spied on the trump campaign for political purposes. Something that Nixon got impeached for.

You should hold your breath for the day Obama & Clinton both get thrown in jail. I'm sure it's coming... just keeping holding it until it does.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

This is significant.

The Washington Post reported that, "The professor's interactions with Trump advisers began a few weeks before the opening of the investigation, when Page met the professor at the British symposium."

A few weeks before the opening of the investigation — those are the words that have raised eyebrows among Hill investigators. If it was before the investigation, then what was an FBI informant doing gathering undercover information when there was not yet an investigation?

The question has pointed investigators back to the issue of when the probe began — not when a piece of paper was formally signed but when the FBI, and perhaps other U.S. intelligence agencies, began investigating the Trump campaign.

And that has taken them back to March 21, 2016, when candidate Donald Trump met with the editorial board of the Washington Post.

At the time of that meeting, Trump had been under criticism for not having the sort of lists of distinguished advisers that most top-level campaigns routinely assemble. That was particularly true in the area of foreign policy. A frustrated Trump ordered his team to compile a list of foreign-affairs advisers.

Trump was preparing to announce his advisory board when he met with the Post. The paper's publisher asked Trump if he would reveal the names of his new team.

"Well, I hadn't thought of doing it, but if you want I can give you some of the names," Trump said. He then read a brief list, among them Page and Papadopoulos.

Trump's announcement did not go unnoticed at the FBI and Justice Department. The bureau knew Page from a previous episode in which Russian agents had tried, unsuccessfully, to recruit him. It's not clear what the FBI knew about the others. But then-Director James Comey and number-two Andrew McCabe personally briefed Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the list of newly-named Trump foreign policy advisers, including Page, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Lynch told the House Intelligence Committee that she, Comey, and McCabe discussed whether to provide a "defensive briefing" to the Trump campaign. That would entail having an FBI official meet with a senior campaign official "to alert them to the fact that … there may be efforts to compromise someone with their campaign," Lynch said.

It didn't happen, even though it was discussed again when Comey briefed the National Security Council principals committee about Page in the "late spring" of 2016, according to Lynch's testimony.

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.

This. Pretty much this sums up my entire thoughts on the matter.

And everyone involved that has been investigating this considers this a generous version of the events. Many feel that the FBI injected spies so as to persuade page and especially papadapolos to talk on subjects that would justify the additional spying.

All to make it look like it was done "by the book."

And in the end this is exactly how the NOT to do things by the book. This is how we do things to bad actors in other countries. Not to our own people.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

It takes money to make money.

Think you lost me there... if you put 100% of your money into the military - how much would you make - zero.

Think this through - don't just be a defender of terrible policy. This administration is a disaster - time to move on.

wait, are you saying that every single political dynasty that ever existed was not built around the strongest military? And in the last 500 years built around the strongest navy? and in the last 100 years, dominating the skies as well?

Is this still not the deterrent that prevent invasions? And strongly influences political victories? Is the development of Nukes NOT(potentially) bringing NK to the table?

I just cant follow this narrative where spending on military does NOT pay off.

There are several things to infer from your post - you want us to be a dynasty. The ruler of the world if you will. In that case - the military is far to small. If you are going to go and TAKE assets to pay for the military spending... well, count me out.

If you are trying to create sustainable government - then you don't fund you military past what you need.

Then to answer your questions.

1) Is this still not the deterrent that prevent invasions?
No, this funding wasn't to prevent incursions it was to fund our incursions.

2) And strongly influences political victories?
No, this would take an equally strong State Department - that we don't have.

3) Is the development of Nukes NOT(potentially) bringing NK to the table?
Nope, and you know that one. We already have 6,000+ nuclear weapons of which 1,800 are currently deployed. Building a few more will NOT bring NK to the table. And they have already rejected giving up their nukes. So there is that.

The point is - allocating more that what we have currently allocated to defense will neither bring us a greater GDP, create greater growth or make us more sustainable.

To add insult to injury, even the DoD didn't think we needed that type of funding. This is the kind of deep state interests that Trump is fully engaged with... he is one of the swamp creatures.

[stilldropin20]

SD20, you can't even source any of this garbage because it's all right wing fan fiction.

The hilarious thing is that the latest narrative is "yes yes you caught us doing a bunch of illegal stuff...but you spied on us!!!"

they din't get caught doing anything. No crimes were committed on the campaign trail. None. zippo. zero. nilch nada. nothing.

You cant point to one single crime of collusion or anything like collusion to anyone. even lowlife barely connected douchebags like papadopolos and page. and you know this. so why do you keep pretending that Trump was involved.

all you keep pointing to are 1 meeting where Don Jr was offered dirt. That dirt never changed hands and Don jr never offered anything back in return. And that's why no one has been charge with any kind of crime while campaining.

papadoplos lied about something and plead guilty. as did gates in regard to stuff him and manaforte did in 2005. stuff nothing to do with the campaign. Flynn lied about something that was legal and plead out about lying to make it go away.

So you "got" nothing. But you continue to insist you got something. Why? Its weird.

But more and more and more and more defintive evidence keeps coming out that the Obama DOJ and CIA spied on the trump campaign for political purposes. Something that Nixon got impeached for.

You should hold your breath for the day Obama & Clinton both get thrown in jail. I'm sure it's coming... just keeping holding it until it does.

ok. i'll do it if you do. Go!!!!

[stilldropin20]

Think you lost me there... if you put 100% of your money into the military - how much would you make - zero.

Think this through - don't just be a defender of terrible policy. This administration is a disaster - time to move on.

wait, are you saying that every single political dynasty that ever existed was not built around the strongest military? And in the last 500 years built around the strongest navy? and in the last 100 years, dominating the skies as well?

Is this still not the deterrent that prevent invasions? And strongly influences political victories? Is the development of Nukes NOT(potentially) bringing NK to the table?

I just cant follow this narrative where spending on military does NOT pay off.

There are several things to infer from your post - you want us to be a dynasty. The ruler of the world if you will. In that case - the military is far to small. If you are going to go and TAKE assets to pay for the military spending... well, count me out.

If you are trying to create sustainable government - then you don't fund you military past what you need.

Then to answer your questions.

1) Is this still not the deterrent that prevent invasions?
No, this funding wasn't to prevent incursions it was to fund our incursions.

2) And strongly influences political victories?
No, this would take an equally strong State Department - that we don't have.

3) Is the development of Nukes NOT(potentially) bringing NK to the table?
Nope, and you know that one. We already have 6,000+ nuclear weapons of which 1,800 are currently deployed. Building a few more will NOT bring NK to the table. And they have already rejected giving up their nukes. So there is that.

The point is - allocating more that what we have currently allocated to defense will neither bring us a greater GDP, create greater growth or make us more sustainable.

To add insult to injury, even the DoD didn't think we needed that type of funding. This is the kind of deep state interests that Trump is fully engaged with... he is one of the swamp creatures.

i am fully on board with wealth redistribution. and in the harshest of ways. I want all "american wealth to be forced to remain in american markets and banks. and then all loop holes and carve outs fully closed. and then a death tax imposed on all wealth in personal, corporate, and trust/foundation accounts. Wealth should be made to move around and exchange hands and families not be hoarded.

You guys, the liberals, are against it! You are afraid to (legally) confiscate wealth via harsh taxes for the elites.


I'm all for it.

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

This is significant.

The Washington Post reported that, "The professor's interactions with Trump advisers began a few weeks before the opening of the investigation, when Page met the professor at the British symposium."

A few weeks before the opening of the investigation — those are the words that have raised eyebrows among Hill investigators. If it was before the investigation, then what was an FBI informant doing gathering undercover information when there was not yet an investigation?

The question has pointed investigators back to the issue of when the probe began — not when a piece of paper was formally signed but when the FBI, and perhaps other U.S. intelligence agencies, began investigating the Trump campaign.

And that has taken them back to March 21, 2016, when candidate Donald Trump met with the editorial board of the Washington Post.

At the time of that meeting, Trump had been under criticism for not having the sort of lists of distinguished advisers that most top-level campaigns routinely assemble. That was particularly true in the area of foreign policy. A frustrated Trump ordered his team to compile a list of foreign-affairs advisers.

Trump was preparing to announce his advisory board when he met with the Post. The paper's publisher asked Trump if he would reveal the names of his new team.

"Well, I hadn't thought of doing it, but if you want I can give you some of the names," Trump said. He then read a brief list, among them Page and Papadopoulos.

Trump's announcement did not go unnoticed at the FBI and Justice Department. The bureau knew Page from a previous episode in which Russian agents had tried, unsuccessfully, to recruit him. It's not clear what the FBI knew about the others. But then-Director James Comey and number-two Andrew McCabe personally briefed Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the list of newly-named Trump foreign policy advisers, including Page, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Lynch told the House Intelligence Committee that she, Comey, and McCabe discussed whether to provide a "defensive briefing" to the Trump campaign. That would entail having an FBI official meet with a senior campaign official "to alert them to the fact that … there may be efforts to compromise someone with their campaign," Lynch said.

It didn't happen, even though it was discussed again when Comey briefed the National Security Council principals committee about Page in the "late spring" of 2016, according to Lynch's testimony.

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.

[dckingsfan]

It's not about impeachment - it is that this administration hasn't moved us forward - time to move on...

[nate33]

It's not about impeachment - it is that this administration hasn't moved us forward - time to move on...

Moved us forward to where? To where liberals want to be? I'm thankful that he hasn't moved us in that direction.

[nate33]

From Reuters

[dckingsfan]

It's not about impeachment - it is that this administration hasn't moved us forward - time to move on...

Moved us forward to where? To where liberals want to be? I'm thankful that he hasn't moved us in that direction.

Ah... here we go. We suck but we are better than the liberals. nice.

[dckingsfan]

From Reuters

Or another way to look at it...
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

[nate33]

From Reuters

Or another way to look at it...
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Pretty much says the same thing doesn't it? The most recent poll, this one by Ipsos, also shows a massive, recent surge for Republicans (or more accurately, a massive decline for Democrats).

[dckingsfan]

From Reuters

Or another way to look at it...
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Pretty much says the same thing doesn't it? The most recent poll, this one by Ipsos, also shows a massive, recent surge for Republicans (or more accurately, a massive decline for Democrats).

yep, sinusoidal. Let's wait and see

[gtn130]

From Reuters

Or another way to look at it...
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-generic-ballot-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Pretty much says the same thing doesn't it? The most recent poll, this one by Ipsos, also shows a massive, recent surge for Republicans (or more accurately, a massive decline for Democrats).

The May 3-7 Ipsos poll was Dems +2, so the recent poll doesn't actually show a massive surge. Looking at individual polls is never correct.

Regarding the midterms - the polls don't show voter intensity, which is pretty important here. Republicans should be more optimistic than they were in December, and they could still hold onto the House, but the Dems are still favored.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[gtn130]

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