Time to get on the TRUMP train

[sonatine]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...lumn/98779170/

real news

In the past, Reynolds has called for the assassination of Iranian scientists and clerics,[6] and advocated the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea "if they start anything."[7]

In 2016, on his Twitter account, Reynolds suggested running over protesters objecting to the fatal shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte, North Carolina. In his tweet he wrote, "run them down" next to a link to a news story about the protests.[8]


Weird... a guy who advocates mass murder of civilians is on Trump's side?

[Lord of the Fraud]

I'm happy for the UK to sit this one out.

Good luck tho.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/839038367954259969

[sonatine]

note that a) i have total faith that someone somewhere went after Trump with a FISA warrant because if you have that many clear connections to Russian arch criminals, you're catching a FISA warrant and b) we are talking about an administration where at least one journalist had classified material hidden deliberately on their laptop via malware in an effort to frame them.

b) is not a great look, obama, but honestly i always took that as FBI agents being dicks, not some white house level conspiracy.

[LegallyNonBindingPosts]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...lumn/98779170/

real news

[GringoStar]

There isn't any proof that Guccifer ever hacked Clintons email server. It would be very atypical of him to not release any emails he supposedly got out of the hack. Only thing that exist is his claim without a shred of evidence and if he had done what he claimed he could have very easily proven it.

He did hack Sydney Blumenthal and he got his hands on emails Blumenthal sent to Clinton. He leaked Sydney Blumenthal emails. No one leaked Hillary Clintons emails. That would be the objective truth.

The point i'm making is merely a response to these statements that you made...

"you are merely demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about the information that was leaked through the Clinton's personal servers"

"And to demolish your final point, we DO know a good amount of what was on Clintons emails you moron. In case you haven't been following the election you seem to think is still in progress, her emails were leaked."

...oh and a little bit this...

"I don't want to hear shit from you until you actually spend more than 2 seconds looking into the facts of this topic!"...

...and now that you've spent 2 seconds looking into the facts of this topic we can move on with our lives.

I don't think Pence and Hillary are in the same ballpark regarding their emails. The way they handled their shit served the same purpose. I don't really care about guessing their motives in either case. The end result of their actions was the same. In that it hindered record keeping and generally hid stuff from the public. It was/is a bi-partisan practice, but only one party seems to think people should be locked up for it while at the same time fully embracing the practice themselves. That's the part i don't like.

Well done, a more worthy opponent than you initially appeared. Here's the issue. You seem to know just enough to refute small details, but your case for why the Clinton servers are equivalent to Pence's AOL email account is non-existent and OF COURSE intent factors into this, regardless of your level of care with regard to motive. Also, lack of evidence works well in court for a defendant, but when trying to determine objective truth, in this case, we must also take into account that there was a team of people dedicated to trying to erase evidence for the VERY PURPOSE of being able to point to the lack of evidence, after-the-fact.

Take a look at these docs (https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton). The entire investigation is a joke, as there are many provable lies throughout her interview, which are crimes. I am not big on law and order, but I think she should do jail time if others have done time for less. And frankly, if you are right about Pence's offence being on the same level, he should do time too.

You may have been right about the details of who was first to FOIA request the emails that the FBI obtained, but they ultimately stemmed from a hack which was referred to The inspectors general for the State Department and Intelligence Community. On July 2015, they reviewed 40 of Clinton’s emails and found that four did contain classified information, referring the case to the FBI for what they called an investigation into the “potential compromise of classified information."

Despite your intuition that it would be atypical for Guccifer to not release hacked emails, here is what James Comey, someone who probably knows better than the both of us, said about the matter:

“Given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

This has kind of turned into a dick-measuring contest. I'm realizing we both think that they should face some kind of punitive measures. Our only disagreement is on the equivalency of the offense and the potential for the Clinton servers to have been hacked into.

I could speculate on the MANY reasons why/how the Clinton servers could be hacked and we would not be aware of the contents (even though the hacks ultimately breadcrumbed the FBI into attaining about half of them). Someone who held onto the other half (that are presumably more damning) would have one HELL of a bargaining chip and that chip loses all value once it's exposed. Again, that's more subjective speculation.

[handicapme]

There isn't any proof that Guccifer ever hacked Clintons email server. It would be very atypical of him to not release any emails he supposedly got out of the hack. Only thing that exist is his claim without a shred of evidence and if he had done what he claimed he could have very easily proven it.

He did hack Sydney Blumenthal and he got his hands on emails Blumenthal sent to Clinton. He leaked Sydney Blumenthal emails. No one leaked Hillary Clintons emails. That would be the objective truth.

The point i'm making is merely a response to these statements that you made...

"you are merely demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about the information that was leaked through the Clinton's personal servers"

"And to demolish your final point, we DO know a good amount of what was on Clintons emails you moron. In case you haven't been following the election you seem to think is still in progress, her emails were leaked."

...oh and a little bit this...

"I don't want to hear shit from you until you actually spend more than 2 seconds looking into the facts of this topic!"...

...and now that you've spent 2 seconds looking into the facts of this topic we can move on with our lives.

I don't think Pence and Hillary are in the same ballpark regarding their emails. The way they handled their shit served the same purpose. I don't really care about guessing their motives in either case. The end result of their actions was the same. In that it hindered record keeping and generally hid stuff from the public. It was/is a bi-partisan practice, but only one party seems to think people should be locked up for it while at the same time fully embracing the practice themselves. That's the part i don't like.

Well done, a more worthy opponent than you initially appeared. Here's the issue. You seem to know just enough to refute small details, but your case for why the Clinton servers are equivalent to Pence's AOL email account is non-existent and OF COURSE intent factors into this, regardless of your level of care with regard to motive. Also, lack of evidence works well in court for a defendant, but when trying to determine objective truth, in this case, we must also take into account that there was a team of people dedicated to trying to erase evidence for the VERY PURPOSE of being able to point to the lack of evidence, after-the-fact.

Take a look at these docs (https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton). The entire investigation is a joke, as there are many provable lies throughout her interview, which are crimes. I am not big on law and order, but I think she should do jail time if others have done time for less. And frankly, if you are right about Pence's offence being on the same level, he should do time too.

You may have been right about the details of who was first to FOIA request the emails that the FBI obtained, but they ultimately stemmed from a hack which was referred to The inspectors general for the State Department and Intelligence Community. On July 2015, they reviewed 40 of Clinton’s emails and found that four did contain classified information, referring the case to the FBI for what they called an investigation into the “potential compromise of classified information."

Despite your intuition that it would be atypical for Guccifer to not release hacked emails, here is what James Comey, someone who probably knows better than the both of us, said about the matter:

“Given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

This has kind of turned into a dick-measuring contest. I'm realizing we both think that they should face some kind of punitive measures. Our only disagreement is on the equivalency of the offense and the potential for the Clinton servers to have been hacked into.

I could speculate on the MANY reasons why/how the Clinton servers could be hacked and we would not be aware of the contents (even though the hacks ultimately breadcrumbed the FBI into attaining about half of them). Someone who held onto the other half (that are presumably more damning) would have one HELL of a bargaining chip and that chip loses all value once it's exposed. Again, that's more subjective speculation.

Shut up Garrett / The Mumbles fuck.

[gimmick]

There isn't any proof that Guccifer ever hacked Clintons email server. It would be very atypical of him to not release any emails he supposedly got out of the hack. Only thing that exist is his claim without a shred of evidence and if he had done what he claimed he could have very easily proven it.

He did hack Sydney Blumenthal and he got his hands on emails Blumenthal sent to Clinton. He leaked Sydney Blumenthal emails. No one leaked Hillary Clintons emails. That would be the objective truth.

The point i'm making is merely a response to these statements that you made...

"you are merely demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about the information that was leaked through the Clinton's personal servers"

"And to demolish your final point, we DO know a good amount of what was on Clintons emails you moron. In case you haven't been following the election you seem to think is still in progress, her emails were leaked."

...oh and a little bit this...

"I don't want to hear shit from you until you actually spend more than 2 seconds looking into the facts of this topic!"...

...and now that you've spent 2 seconds looking into the facts of this topic we can move on with our lives.

I don't think Pence and Hillary are in the same ballpark regarding their emails. The way they handled their shit served the same purpose. I don't really care about guessing their motives in either case. The end result of their actions was the same. In that it hindered record keeping and generally hid stuff from the public. It was/is a bi-partisan practice, but only one party seems to think people should be locked up for it while at the same time fully embracing the practice themselves. That's the part i don't like.

Well done, a more worthy opponent than you initially appeared. Here's the issue. You seem to know just enough to refute small details, but your case for why the Clinton servers are equivalent to Pence's AOL email account is non-existent and OF COURSE intent factors into this, regardless of your level of care with regard to motive. Also, lack of evidence works well in court for a defendant, but when trying to determine objective truth, in this case, we must also take into account that there was a team of people dedicated to trying to erase evidence for the VERY PURPOSE of being able to point to the lack of evidence, after-the-fact.

Take a look at these docs (https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton). The entire investigation is a joke, as there are many provable lies throughout her interview, which are crimes. I am not big on law and order, but I think she should do jail time if others have done time for less. And frankly, if you are right about Pence's offence being on the same level, he should do time too.

You may have been right about the details of who was first to FOIA request the emails that the FBI obtained, but they ultimately stemmed from a hack which was referred to The inspectors general for the State Department and Intelligence Community. On July 2015, they reviewed 40 of Clinton’s emails and found that four did contain classified information, referring the case to the FBI for what they called an investigation into the “potential compromise of classified information."

Despite your intuition that it would be atypical for Guccifer to not release hacked emails, here is what James Comey, someone who probably knows better than the both of us, said about the matter:

“Given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

This has kind of turned into a dick-measuring contest. I'm realizing we both think that they should face some kind of punitive measures. Our only disagreement is on the equivalency of the offense and the potential for the Clinton servers to have been hacked into.

I could speculate on the MANY reasons why/how the Clinton servers could be hacked and we would not be aware of the contents (even though the hacks ultimately breadcrumbed the FBI into attaining about half of them). Someone who held onto the other half (that are presumably more damning) would have one HELL of a bargaining chip and that chip loses all value once it's exposed. Again, that's more subjective speculation.

Yea let's hear what Comey has to say about this, “He did not [gain access to Clinton's server], he admitted that was a lie”. Clearly that's just a small detail.

And yes when i said that I don't think Pence and Hillary are in the same ballpark regarding their emails you correctly understood (most likely by accident) that my case for equivalency is non-existent.

I don't think rest of the paragraphs really need a response. There's a collection of straw grasping, randomly trying to guess people's motives while spouting more nonsense about objective truth and the good ol i totally could speculate about whatever but i choose not to.

[Mintjewlips]

The deep state has a nigga buggin.

[tyde]

Page 802 sucks n-word balls

;tldr

[GringoStar]

Yea let's hear what Comey has to say about this, “He did not [gain access to Clinton's server], he admitted that was a lie”. Clearly that's just a small detail.

And yes when i said that I don't think Pence and Hillary are in the same ballpark regarding their emails you correctly understood (most likely by accident) that my case for equivalency is non-existent.

I don't think rest of the paragraphs really need a response. There's a collection of straw grasping, randomly trying to guess people's motives while spouting more nonsense about objective truth and the good ol i totally could speculate about whatever but i choose not to.

1) You take another quote from Comey that is him reporting what Guccifer said. So he contradicted himself, which ultimately makes all of his claims suspect, instead of proving he did not gain access to the server.

2) You speculate, only you didn't openly say it as I did. You referred to the actions (or lack of action) of Guccifer as atypical of him, as if you really have any understanding of his hacking history and what he has done, historically, with the information he has gained access to.

3) You conveniently glossed over the main point of my quoting Comey, which is that most security experts and people in the intelligence space who have looked closely at the evidence (most of which is not public record) have concluded that it is extremely likely that the servers were compromised by hacking AND THAT IF THEY WERE THEY WOULD LIKELY BE NO EVIDENCE LEFT, BY DESIGN. Unfortunately, this leaves only people who are capable of reading between the lines and making some educated speculation to decipher the possibilities and potential leaks that could have occurred.

But I see your tactic of finding one sentence from July where Comey claims that Guccifer redacted his claims (from jail) and did not at all address the more likely possibility that she got her self hacked while overseas with a Blackberry or iPad.

You're being a little disingenuous and you are not really making any headway by saying that my last few sentences are speculation, when they were introduced as such. I appreciate that you like to stick to the facts, but you are also cherry picking facts for a quick, impact-free quip, while clearly losing the big picture argument to anyone who has been paying attention.

So what is your point again? You backtracked on Pence's email situation being just as damning and illegal as the Clinton server debacle. Then you kind of made it seem like the your whole viewpoint was actually just an effort to pinpoint errors, or find parts of my argument that wouldn't hold up in court, to prove that you know a little bit about the subject. You've gotten some proofreading and Snopes-research points, but I don't see you using your collection of factoids to make an actual point.

[Mintjewlips]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...lumn/98779170/

real news

In the past, Reynolds has called for the assassination of Iranian scientists and clerics,[6] and advocated the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea "if they start anything."[7]

In 2016, on his Twitter account, Reynolds suggested running over protesters objecting to the fatal shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte, North Carolina. In his tweet he wrote, "run them down" next to a link to a news story about the protests.[8]


Weird... a guy who advocates mass murder of civilians is on Trump's side?

Please tell me you didn't know this by memory?

[gimmick]

Yea let's hear what Comey has to say about this, “He did not [gain access to Clinton's server], he admitted that was a lie”. Clearly that's just a small detail.

And yes when i said that I don't think Pence and Hillary are in the same ballpark regarding their emails you correctly understood (most likely by accident) that my case for equivalency is non-existent.

I don't think rest of the paragraphs really need a response. There's a collection of straw grasping, randomly trying to guess people's motives while spouting more nonsense about objective truth and the good ol i totally could speculate about whatever but i choose not to.

1) You take another quote from Comey that is him reporting what Guccifer said. So he contradicted himself, which ultimately makes all of his claims suspect, instead of proving he did not gain access to the server.

2) You speculate, only you didn't openly say it as I did. You referred to the actions (or lack of action) of Guccifer as atypical of him, as if you really have any understanding of his hacking history and what he has done, historically, with the information he has gained access to.

3) You conveniently glossed over the main point of my quoting Comey, which is that most security experts and people in the intelligence space who have looked closely at the evidence (most of which is not public record) have concluded that it is extremely likely that the servers were compromised by hacking AND THAT IF THEY WERE THEY WOULD LIKELY BE NO EVIDENCE LEFT, BY DESIGN. Unfortunately, this leaves only people who are capable of reading between the lines and making some educated speculation to decipher the possibilities and potential leaks that could have occurred.

But I see your tactic of finding one sentence from July where Comey claims that Guccifer redacted his claims (from jail) and did not at all address the more likely possibility that she got her self hacked while overseas with a Blackberry or iPad.

You're being a little disingenuous and you are not really making any headway by saying that my last few sentences are speculation, when they were introduced as such. I appreciate that you like to stick to the facts, but you are also cherry picking facts for a quick, impact-free quip, while clearly losing the big picture argument to anyone who has been paying attention.

So what is your point again? You backtracked on Pence's email situation being just as damning and illegal as the Clinton server debacle. Then you kind of made it seem like the your whole viewpoint was actually just an effort to pinpoint errors, or find parts of my argument that wouldn't hold up in court, to prove that you know a little bit about the subject. You've gotten some proofreading and Snopes-research points, but I don't see you using your collection of factoids to make an actual point.

Is there a course in advanced mouth breathing that's being offered some where that keeps spawning people like you?

1) Yea the only barely almost credible claim that existed was redacted.

2) I'm not saying you're speculating. I'm saying you're such a faggot that you would actually type this sentence, "I could speculate on the MANY reasons why/how the Clinton servers could be hacked". It's on a similar level of faggotry as this sentence, "I won't waste time educating you on information that I can't believe you've managed to avoid".

3) The main point of the Comey quote was "we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account". That is all. Absolutely no mention of it's likelihood besides it being above 0.

I didn't backtrack anything. You're confusing 2 strawmen you created no longer agreeing with each other as something that i had any involvement with.

What's my point?

"you are merely demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about the information that was leaked through the Clinton's personal servers"...

...and my answer...

..."the reason i know absolutely nothing about the information that was leaked through the Clinton's personal servers is because neither does anyone else"

[blake]

can we take a minute to laugh at republicans that talked about repealing obamacare, when their replacement plan is just another form of government subsidized health insurance (but in the form of tax credits). rand paul and other conservatives are calling it obamacare lite. it won’t even pass in the senate in its current form.

all of conservative radio seems to hate it but trump tweeted it was “wonderful.”

what this means is that obama and the democrats were proven correct in thinking that if they could get a new entitlement in place, republicans would never have the balls to take it away. honestly, if this house republican bill had been proposed by obama in 2009, it would have received 100% democratic support and 100% republican opposition.

[blake]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/839206197756559360

this will be the first time that trump faces real opposition from conservatives. can't wait to see how this plays out

[JimmyG_415]

can we take a minute to laugh at republicans that talked about repealing obamacare, when their replacement plan is just another form of government subsidized health insurance (but in the form of tax credits). rand paul and other conservatives are calling it obamacare lite. it won’t even pass in the senate in its current form.

all of conservative radio seems to hate it but trump tweeted it was “wonderful.”

what this means is that obama and the democrats were proven correct in thinking that if they could get a new entitlement in place, republicans would never have the balls to take it away. honestly, if this house republican bill had been proposed by obama in 2009, it would have received 100% democratic support and 100% republican opposition.

Why do they even want it repealed? Because it would give Obama a legacy?

All you hear is "it failed" "its horrible" , never a reason why. .......................Oh wait "It has death panels".
If the reason it failed is because premiums went up, how do they solve that? Replace it w/something where the premiums never rise?
Premiums went up before Obama care, during Obama care, and they will go up after (if there is an after)
Or Because you can't keep your Dr? Well I'm w/Kaiser, my Dr retired, I don't get to keep him.

Seems to me it would better off for the GOP to keep it, then they can bitch about it for the rest of their lives.
Typical GOP BS, DEMs are live and let live,
GOP is live and I'll tell you how to live your life, too.

[blake]

to really mess with republicans, I hope obama comes out and endorses the bill

[sonatine]

can we take a minute to laugh at republicans that talked about repealing obamacare, when their replacement plan is just another form of government subsidized health insurance (but in the form of tax credits). rand paul and other conservatives are calling it obamacare lite. it won’t even pass in the senate in its current form.

all of conservative radio seems to hate it but trump tweeted it was “wonderful.”

what this means is that obama and the democrats were proven correct in thinking that if they could get a new entitlement in place, republicans would never have the balls to take it away. honestly, if this house republican bill had been proposed by obama in 2009, it would have received 100% democratic support and 100% republican opposition.

Why do they even want it repealed? Because it would give Obama a legacy?

All you hear is "it failed" "its horrible" , never a reason why. .......................Oh wait "It has death panels".
If the reason it failed is because premiums went up, how do they solve that? Replace it w/something where the premiums never rise?
Premiums went up before Obama care, during Obama care, and they will go up after (if there is an after)
Or Because you can't keep your Dr? Well I'm w/Kaiser, my Dr retired, I don't get to keep him.

Seems to me it would better off for the GOP to keep it, then they can bitch about it for the rest of their lives.
Typical GOP BS, DEMs are live and let live,
GOP is live and I'll tell you how to live your life, too.

Someone here (a made nigga) PMd me during one of my rants about the merits of obamacare and casually mentioned that his rates were something like $1200 a month under ACA. Thats fucking absurd and it really took the wind out of my sails.

I still consider ACA to be nothing close to the fuckmare the right wing has chosen to paint it as, simply because the right wing aggressively tars and feathers anything the left champions, but some good people _do_ get fucked over by ACA.

Trumpcare however is seriously one of the worst bills I've ever seen and it fucks over the exact people that the republicans gas lit into voting for them, so thats why the right wing is Losing Their Shit Totally about it. There is no way to convince poor white trash this bill isnt going to wreck them, or that it isnt going to put more cash in rich honkeys pockets.

[blake]

wow even breitbart and sean hannity are against the bill that trump called "wonderful."

listening to guys like rand paul and mike lee, i'm not sure that the far right of the party will ever get behind any bill that considers health care an entitlement, or one that doesn't completely remove the federal government from health care entirely. on the flip side, there's no way that trump wants to sign a bill that will be viewed as taking away health care from poor people.

meanwhile, charles krauthammer is saying that if conservatives don't back down, trump's presidency is over.

Charles Krauthammer explained that the newly announced Obamacare replacement legislation might lead to the destruction of the Trump presidency unless conservative Republicans fell “on the their swords” and accepted the entitlements involved. He made the comments Monday on “Special Report” on Fox News.

“In the end the Republicans are gonna have to essentially, the conservatives, the ones who are more conservative, are gonna have to fall on their swords,” Krauthammer explained. “This is the signature event for the new administration. If they were to, in the end, eliminate the entitlement and put it down, I think it would destroy the presidency.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03...ps-presidency/

[Wiganer]

This is getting back to the roots of America, settlers who were fucking mentalists.

[hongkonger]

can we take a minute to laugh at republicans that talked about repealing obamacare, when their replacement plan is just another form of government subsidized health insurance (but in the form of tax credits). rand paul and other conservatives are calling it obamacare lite. it won’t even pass in the senate in its current form.

all of conservative radio seems to hate it but trump tweeted it was “wonderful.”

what this means is that obama and the democrats were proven correct in thinking that if they could get a new entitlement in place, republicans would never have the balls to take it away. honestly, if this house republican bill had been proposed by obama in 2009, it would have received 100% democratic support and 100% republican opposition.

They're also trying to rush it through without debate just like they accused the Democrats of doing when it was passed in the first place. And without the CBO even crunching the numbers first. That's because everyone will hate it: their blue collar voters like having insurance, but this bill will reduce coverage and increase costs even more than Obamacare did. And the hard-core conservatives who pay their bills and shill for them in the media hate it because they want a full repeal, people's health care be damned.

The Republicans are stuck because they control the White House and both houses of congress, so there's no excuse. It's hard to actually govern rather than just criticize and obstruct, isn't it?