JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[6ftstick]

Patently false?

Playing that game?

https://nypost.com/2020/05/11/obamas-to ... nder-oath/

Yes. Playing that game.

Serious question: how do we know that there was no direct evidence of Trump and collusion with Russia, Six?

How do we know? Answer that question, and you'll see why FoxNation is playing a stupid game, and you're buying it.

Because every Obama administration/intelligence officer says so under oath.

Correct.

Next question: How does US intel know that they didn't find direct evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump?

your being as ridiculous as TLD

No. I'm not. You just don't want to hear what you're complaining about is absurd.

The REASON that US intel knows that they didn't find direct evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump?

Is that they ran an investigation. Do you see the problem now?

1. You're complaining that US intel investigated Russian ties with the Trump Campaign
2. The "evidence" that the investigation should not have take place at all is (drumroll)
3. US intel telling you that they investigated TeamTrump, and didn't find direct evidence of collusion.

So after this, what's your complaint?

Your complaint is: why did US Intel investigate TeamTrump if there was no direct evidence of collusion?

Do you REALLY not understand how logically absurd your complaint is, 6ft?

To my point: How the F is US intel supposed to not find direct evidence of collusion without investigating TeamTrump?

Magic 8 Ball? Tea leaves? Ask Sean Hannity?

Watch my lips.

Once they all knew there was no evidence and after they all testified that there was no evidence—They continued to lie that there was evidence.

Then they turned Mueller loose for two additional years.

[6ftstick]

Patently false?

Playing that game?

https://nypost.com/2020/05/11/obamas-to ... nder-oath/

Yes. Playing that game.

Serious question: how do we know that there was no direct evidence of Trump and collusion with Russia, Six?

How do we know? Answer that question, and you'll see why FoxNation is playing a stupid game, and you're buying it.

Because every Obama administration/intelligence officer says so under oath.

Correct.

Next question: How does US intel know that they didn't find direct evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump?

your being as ridiculous as TLD

No. I'm not. You just don't want to hear what you're complaining about is absurd.

The REASON that US intel knows that they didn't find direct evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump?

Is that they ran an investigation. Do you see the problem now?

1. You're complaining that US intel investigated Russian ties with the Trump Campaign
2. The "evidence" that the investigation should not have take place at all is (drumroll)
3. US intel telling you that they investigated TeamTrump, and didn't find direct evidence of collusion.

So after this, what's your complaint?

Your complaint is: why did US Intel investigate TeamTrump if there was no direct evidence of collusion?

Do you REALLY not understand how logically absurd your complaint is, 6ft?

To my point: How the F is US intel supposed to not find direct evidence of collusion without investigating TeamTrump?

Magic 8 Ball? Tea leaves? Ask Sean Hannity?

How do we know there's no evidence you beat your wife without investigating you?

[a fan]

Once they all knew there was no evidence and after they all testified that there was no evidence—They continued to lie that there was evidence.

You've cited this before. And you're moving the goalposts.

But I'm more than happy to tear this line of thinking apart again: give me two examples of this happening.

And remember, we're operating in your TrumpWorld, where you've told us that if it's not illegal, it's fine.

Then they turned Mueller loose for two additional years.

And by "They", you mean the Republican-appointed TrumpAdministration. Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller, a fellow Republican.

Ya gonna complain about that?

Or do you think it's ok for someone getting investigated to fire the guy investigating him?

[Typical Lax Dad]

“We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term,” Mueller added. “Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.”

So where was there “no evidence” mentioned?

[cradleandshoot]

These are two serious players, in spite of the Left's teen-girl histrionics. Mark Levin interviewing Bill Barr, with no one talking over one another, no one trying to 'reclaim time'. You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy. The differences between these two guys and what we have seen from our mainstream media and their preferred narrative is striking.

If you have the time and if you have half a synapse still firing in your head, I'd suggest you watch and listen. If you're a shrill partisan without the ability to learn any longer, probably best to skip it...it will merely anger you like an elementary age boy whose emotions preclude his ability to pay attention and so his brain malfunctions when asked to sit still and learn.

For those who are legitimately vested in America, I highly suggest a listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV_3wXqf-ns

Thanks for posting.

Yeah, thanks for posting. This is a piece of gross and servile propaganda, which would be funny except for the fact that the Attorney General is the interviewee, whose whole purpose is to broadly demonize an entire political party with cute allusions to political philosophies that sound highfalutin to the sort of listener Levin gets. "You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy." Jesus, this is just laughable and sad.

"elections have consequences" Blame your Party.

They sure do!!



Republicans didn’t vote for Trump, Democrats did!

Your Party gave you Hillary...silly man.

Trump ran unopposed in the Republican primaries, silly man?
I am independent. You can look at my voting record. Won’t vote for a single Republican this time.

Correct me if I am wrong, I remember like 16 other Republican chuckleheads out there running against trump when the primaries started.

Yes. So republicans had plenty of opportunities to pick someone else.

You would have to ask MD to explain that one. That is a mind boggling thing I don't understand to this day.

The rational wing of the GOP was diffused across many candidates, never coalesced around one clear, moderate candidate, while the idiots and chumps and the haters were attracted immediately to Trump's celebrity and rhetorical anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim flourishes. As he gathered momentum, other haters who had backed candidates like Cruz rallied to Trump rather than oppose him. So, Trump kept winning primaries with less than a majority of GOP voters, until all others became irrelevant.

2016 was a 'change election', with any of the reasonable moderate R candidates who could win the national popular vote, eg Jeb or Kasich, left behind. Indeed these candidates would very likely have won both the popular vote and the Electoral College versus the Dem candidate Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton was uniquely capable of losing to Trump, someone who a majority of the country thought was not qualified, dishonest, disgusting. She brought unique baggage of her own, though was undoubtedly 'qualified'...voters cared far less about qualifications than simply "change" and disruption of the status quo.

But now they're faced with 4 years of demonstrated corruption and incompetence in governance.

Thank you for the reply MD. IMO it would be easier to prove that unicorns exist than it would be to prove that there is a rational wing of the republican party. Mitt is a republican I believe fits your description of rational. I hope you remember how Mitt was treated by the not so rational democrat party and how poor mittens was eviscerated on this forum. The problem with "rational" republicans is they lose elections. They are more worried about playing nice and not hurting peoples feelings than they are about winning elections. You do remember that humiliating moment at the Romney/Obama debate when BHO dressed him down with his the 80s just called, they want their foreign policy back. Mitt could have come back at him and hit that response out of the park. What did "rational" Mitt do? He stood their with his tail tucked squarely between his legs and allowed BHO to walk all over him that night. IMO the problem with the rational wing of the republican party... when they really need balls all they have between their legs are twinkies. What is that saying? Nice guys always finish last. Rational republicans have not yet adapted to the new reality that their new democratic opponents are light years away from being rational, reasonable or anything else for that matter.

[6ftstick]

Once they all knew there was no evidence and after they all testified that there was no evidence—They continued to lie that there was evidence.

You've cited this before. And you're moving the goalposts.

But I'm more than happy to tear this line of thinking apart again: give me two examples of this happening.

And remember, we're operating in your TrumpWorld, where you've told us that if it's not illegal, it's fine.

Then they turned Mueller loose for two additional years.

And by "They", you mean the Republican-appointed TrumpAdministration. Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller, a fellow Republican.

Ya gonna complain about that?

Or do you think it's ok for someone getting investigated to fire the guy investigating him?

You pretend for your own convenience. Labels? Parties?

here's more than two

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has emerged as a staunch Trump critic and paid-CNN contributor since leaving his government role, told the committee during a July 2017 interview that he “never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting [or] conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election.”

Former CIA Director John Brennan testified on Tuesday that after viewing all of the evidence that was available to him on the Russia probe he is not aware of any collusion between Russia and members of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee that investigators had not been able to verify claims made in the Steele dossier. “Well, as I tried to explain before, there is a lot of information in the Steele reporting. We have not been able to prove the accuracy of all the information,” he answered.

Pressed further to confirm that he did not know if Christopher Steele’s dossier was true, McCabe said, “That’s correct.”

When asked under oath by House investigators if he had any evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, Ben Rhodes said he did not.

“Every day @realDonaldTrump finds new ways to compensate Vladimir Putin for his election interference. And every day Putin gains additional incentive to interfere again on Trump’s behalf in 2020,” she wrote on Twitter in November of last year. But when speaking under oath to House investigators, Samantha Powers sang a different tune. Asked whether she had seen evidence of Russian interference, she said, “I am not in possession of anything.

Susan Rice told House investigators that she hadn’t seen evidence proving then-candidate Trump coordinated or colluded with Russia to take the 2016 election. “I don’t recall intelligence that I would consider evidence to that effect that I saw prior…to my departure,” she said when being questioned by former Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).

[a fan]

here's more than two

That's not how this works, 6ft.

To refresh, here's your claim: Once they all knew there was no evidence and after they all testified that there was no evidence—They continued to lie that there was evidence.

So give me, for example Clapper in his own words, with full context available, and the date when it happeend, where he:

1. said that he didn't see any direct evidence of collusion with Russia

2. And then later, claimed that there was evidence of collusion.


You have that? I'm all ears.

[MDlaxfan76]

The rational wing of the GOP was diffused across many candidates, never coalesced around one clear, moderate candidate, while the idiots and chumps and the haters were attracted immediately to Trump's celebrity and rhetorical anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim flourishes. As he gathered momentum, other haters who had backed candidates like Cruz rallied to Trump rather than oppose him. So, Trump kept winning primaries with less than a majority of GOP voters, until all others became irrelevant.

2016 was a 'change election', with any of the reasonable moderate R candidates who could win the national popular vote, eg Jeb or Kasich, left behind. Indeed these candidates would very likely have won both the popular vote and the Electoral College versus the Dem candidate Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton was uniquely capable of losing to Trump, someone who a majority of the country thought was not qualified, dishonest, disgusting. She brought unique baggage of her own, though was undoubtedly 'qualified'...voters cared far less about qualifications than simply "change" and disruption of the status quo.

But now they're faced with 4 years of demonstrated corruption and incompetence in governance.

You still don't get it. In 2016, it was the message, not the messenger(s). Bannon was right.
Your globalist, free trading, new world order, global cop, GOP is gone & it's not coming back.

Sure Salty, you and a few dozen other isolationist, Luv me some Vlad types, can keep telling yourself that nonsense was what drove Trump's ascendance...but it's indeed a tiny portion of Trump's appeal.

That said, I agree that there's no telling what the GOP will ever look like going forward, if the party even survives the coming ignominy.

My personal view is that it's going to take multiple cycles to regain any sort of credibility again as a party other than for haters, but here's hoping that it does. The haters need to be rejected wholesale.

[MDlaxfan76]

These are two serious players, in spite of the Left's teen-girl histrionics. Mark Levin interviewing Bill Barr, with no one talking over one another, no one trying to 'reclaim time'. You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy. The differences between these two guys and what we have seen from our mainstream media and their preferred narrative is striking.

If you have the time and if you have half a synapse still firing in your head, I'd suggest you watch and listen. If you're a shrill partisan without the ability to learn any longer, probably best to skip it...it will merely anger you like an elementary age boy whose emotions preclude his ability to pay attention and so his brain malfunctions when asked to sit still and learn.

For those who are legitimately vested in America, I highly suggest a listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV_3wXqf-ns

Thanks for posting.

Yeah, thanks for posting. This is a piece of gross and servile propaganda, which would be funny except for the fact that the Attorney General is the interviewee, whose whole purpose is to broadly demonize an entire political party with cute allusions to political philosophies that sound highfalutin to the sort of listener Levin gets. "You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy." Jesus, this is just laughable and sad.

"elections have consequences" Blame your Party.

They sure do!!



Republicans didn’t vote for Trump, Democrats did!

Your Party gave you Hillary...silly man.

Trump ran unopposed in the Republican primaries, silly man?
I am independent. You can look at my voting record. Won’t vote for a single Republican this time.

Correct me if I am wrong, I remember like 16 other Republican chuckleheads out there running against trump when the primaries started.

Yes. So republicans had plenty of opportunities to pick someone else.

You would have to ask MD to explain that one. That is a mind boggling thing I don't understand to this day.

The rational wing of the GOP was diffused across many candidates, never coalesced around one clear, moderate candidate, while the idiots and chumps and the haters were attracted immediately to Trump's celebrity and rhetorical anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim flourishes. As he gathered momentum, other haters who had backed candidates like Cruz rallied to Trump rather than oppose him. So, Trump kept winning primaries with less than a majority of GOP voters, until all others became irrelevant.

2016 was a 'change election', with any of the reasonable moderate R candidates who could win the national popular vote, eg Jeb or Kasich, left behind. Indeed these candidates would very likely have won both the popular vote and the Electoral College versus the Dem candidate Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton was uniquely capable of losing to Trump, someone who a majority of the country thought was not qualified, dishonest, disgusting. She brought unique baggage of her own, though was undoubtedly 'qualified'...voters cared far less about qualifications than simply "change" and disruption of the status quo.

But now they're faced with 4 years of demonstrated corruption and incompetence in governance.

Thank you for the reply MD. IMO it would be easier to prove that unicorns exist than it would be to prove that there is a rational wing of the republican party. Mitt is a republican I believe fits your description of rational. I hope you remember how Mitt was treated by the not so rational democrat party and how poor mittens was eviscerated on this forum. The problem with "rational" republicans is they lose elections. They are more worried about playing nice and not hurting peoples feelings than they are about winning elections. You do remember that humiliating moment at the Romney/Obama debate when BHO dressed him down with his the 80s just called, they want their foreign policy back. Mitt could have come back at him and hit that response out of the park. What did "rational" Mitt do? He stood their with his tail tucked squarely between his legs and allowed BHO to walk all over him that night. IMO the problem with the rational wing of the republican party... when they really need balls all they have between their legs are twinkies. What is that saying? Nice guys always finish last. Rational republicans have not yet adapted to the new reality that their new democratic opponents are light years away from being rational, reasonable or anything else for that matter.

Both Bush presidents and Reagan were from what I'd describe as the "rational" wing of the party. 20 out of 28 years winning the White House from 1980 to 2008, then lost two terms to the first African American President, a guy I'd say was from the "rational wing" of the Dem Party.

That's a lot of winning. Also gained a majority of both houses of Congress for a time, huge reversal from nearly 40 years of Dem dominance.
Not to mention Governors etc...almost entirely from the "rational wing" of the GOP, though with some exceptions including an increasingly "southern white and/or less educated white" demographic. Seeds of destruction.

Then we get this nutcase in response to the African American POTUS.

[jhu72]

Bad day for Citizen Flynn.

[old salt]

The rational wing of the GOP was diffused across many candidates, never coalesced around one clear, moderate candidate, while the idiots and chumps and the haters were attracted immediately to Trump's celebrity and rhetorical anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim flourishes. As he gathered momentum, other haters who had backed candidates like Cruz rallied to Trump rather than oppose him. So, Trump kept winning primaries with less than a majority of GOP voters, until all others became irrelevant.

2016 was a 'change election', with any of the reasonable moderate R candidates who could win the national popular vote, eg Jeb or Kasich, left behind. Indeed these candidates would very likely have won both the popular vote and the Electoral College versus the Dem candidate Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton was uniquely capable of losing to Trump, someone who a majority of the country thought was not qualified, dishonest, disgusting. She brought unique baggage of her own, though was undoubtedly 'qualified'...voters cared far less about qualifications than simply "change" and disruption of the status quo.

But now they're faced with 4 years of demonstrated corruption and incompetence in governance.

You still don't get it. In 2016, it was the message, not the messenger(s). Bannon was right.
Your globalist, free trading, new world order, global cop, GOP is gone & it's not coming back.

Sure Salty, you and a few dozen other isolationist, Luv me some Vlad types, can keep telling yourself that nonsense was what drove Trump's ascendance...but it's indeed a tiny portion of Trump's appeal.

That said, I agree that there's no telling what the GOP will ever look like going forward, if the party even survives the coming ignominy.

My personal view is that it's going to take multiple cycles to regain any sort of credibility again as a party other than for haters, but here's hoping that it does. The haters need to be rejected wholesale.

Make sure you work in the hate & Russophobia. I was for Jeb in 2016 & thought Bannon was just some irrelevant crackpot at Brietbart.
I thought Pat Buchanan & I were the only remaining (R)'s with latent populist & isolationist tendencies.
At least I can admit I didn't see Trump & his (& Bannon's) agenda coming in 2016.
Prepare youself. After Trump it will be Pence, Pompeo, Haley, Cruz, Graham, Cotton & Hawley.

[old salt]

Nonsense. Biden and Harris will absolutely not “govern to the right of” Trump.

Wanna bet? They're not in Congress, so you can look at two major things: what they do overseas, and what bills they sign or veto.

-What do you think will happen with NATO? Will Biden look to repair that relationship, or will they act like lefties, and continue to pull troops?
I predict a freeze. He'll halt any Germany drawdown that hasn't already started, although he may follow through on bringing home the Stryker Brgade (& replacing it with constant rotational deployment). Otherwise -- status quo in Germany & everywhere else.

-Will Biden close more military bases?
I doubt it.

-Will Biden withdraw further from our role as the World's Cop
Just the opposite

You know the answer to every question, Doc. Biden will move America further to the right overseas.
Yep. We be Globocop again.

As for the rest of the Executive Branch activities....crime, DoJ, FBI, etc.? Have you seen Kamala's record? She's not a lefty, Doc.
She goes whichever way the wind is blowing. Wall St is relieved it's not Warren.
She'll become Miss Congeniality, prepping for her next run in 4 years, maybe as the incumbent.

Yep. You're seeing exactly what I'm seeing------Biden will govern center right. This is not a complicated call.

Biden is an empty vessel. He will govern as he's told to govern.

Here ya go. In 4 parts {shifted from Election thread}
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/0 ... ns/166559/

This from a link in Part 2 :
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-end-of ... 1590155833

The end of America's era of military primacy

The core problem is that the decades-old assumptions underlying the U.S. military are increasingly obsolete. We have long assumed that no adversary would be able to overmatch us technologically and deny our ability to project military power world-wide. As a result, we have built our force around small numbers of large, expensive, manpower-intensive and hard-to-replace platforms: ships, aircraft, satellites and vehicles. Our political, military and industrial leaders have continuously directed most defense resources to these traditional platforms. And nothing—not even the 2009 recession and the painful budget “sequestration” that followed it—has altered the demands of our defense establishment for more of the same.

As the U.S. has doubled down on old priorities, China’s military has surged forward over the past three decades and is now aggressively embracing new technologies such as artificial intelligence, advanced drones and hypersonic missiles. Beijing’s new arsenal is focused not on confronting the U.S. military directly but on undermining the way it operates—what China calls “systems destruction warfare.”

This doesn’t mean that China is 10 feet tall. But it does mean that the U.S. is playing a losing game. And we cannot spend ourselves out of our predicament. We must pursue a more limited and achievable goal: denying military dominance to China.
To change course, we must first redefine our objectives. If China continues to grow in wealth, technology and power, it will become a peer competitor to the U.S. Recovering our global military primacy is no longer a practical goal. We must instead pursue a more limited and achievable goal: denying military dominance to China. The U.S. military will have to focus less on projecting power and controlling territory than on preventing China (and other competitors) from projecting power themselves and committing acts of aggression beyond their borders. We must create defense without dominance.

This will require us to think differently about modernizing the U.S. military. The goal cannot be to accumulate more and better versions of traditional platforms in the expensive pursuit of a 355-ship Navy or a 386-squadron Air Force. We must focus instead on developing networks of systems that enable U.S. commanders to understand the battle-space, make decisions and act—the process that our military calls “the kill chain”—and to do so better, faster and more dynamically than our adversaries. This battle network, not platforms alone, creates real military advantage.

The military we need will be rooted in emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, distributed networking and advanced manufacturing. Our current force won’t survive on future battlefields. A truly digital force must be built around large networks of smaller, cheaper, more expendable, more autonomous systems.

Producing this military will require a defense industrial base very different from the insular and consolidated one we now have. In 1991, according to a paper from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), there were 107 major defense firms; a decade later, there were five. In the 15 years that followed, nearly 80% of new entrants that sought to work for the U.S. government eventually quit, as another CSIS report has noted. Some 17,000 companies left the defense business between 2011 and 2015 alone. And while more than 100 U.S. startups have grown into billion-dollar “unicorns” in recent years, barely any have been in the defense sector.

As a result, the U.S. military is shockingly behind the commercial world in many critical technologies. For example, the AI-enabling computers in self-driving commercial vehicles can be hundreds of times more capable than the “flying supercomputer” on the F-35 combat aircraft.

This shortfall didn’t just happen. It was the result of incentives that Washington created, especially its failure to develop new technologies into large-scale military programs.

Reversing this dangerous situation will require hard choices. We must shift much of our military spending from the traditional military of yesterday to the advanced battle networks and capabilities of tomorrow. Such a change cannot happen all at once. It must be a process of experimentation. We must concentrate our limited resources on core strategic goals, ensure that programs are in constant competition with each other, pick winners, rapidly scale up the most promising new capabilities and cancel those that underperform.

The U.S. can make this transition, even with smaller defense budgets, but only if our political leaders understand that the short-term pain of these choices pales in comparison to the consequences of failing to change, such as losing a future war. These changes were long overdue before the Covid-19 crisis created new budget constraints. Now they are nonnegotiable.

[DocBarrister]

While we are all debating our orange, incompetent, traitorous commander in chief ...

... on the other side of the world, the eminently competent South Koreans are going to build their first light aircraft carrier, and will equip it with 20 or so F-35B stealth jets.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/12/asia/sou ... index.html

The carrier is supposedly intended to keep North Korea in line. However, South Korea has never needed its own aircraft carriers to contain North Korea.

No ... South Korea is building their new massive warship to contain the same adversary that Japan is eyeing ... China.

All these new weapons in East Asia are not a good sign.

DocBarrister

[cradleandshoot]

These are two serious players, in spite of the Left's teen-girl histrionics. Mark Levin interviewing Bill Barr, with no one talking over one another, no one trying to 'reclaim time'. You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy. The differences between these two guys and what we have seen from our mainstream media and their preferred narrative is striking.

If you have the time and if you have half a synapse still firing in your head, I'd suggest you watch and listen. If you're a shrill partisan without the ability to learn any longer, probably best to skip it...it will merely anger you like an elementary age boy whose emotions preclude his ability to pay attention and so his brain malfunctions when asked to sit still and learn.

For those who are legitimately vested in America, I highly suggest a listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV_3wXqf-ns

Thanks for posting.

Yeah, thanks for posting. This is a piece of gross and servile propaganda, which would be funny except for the fact that the Attorney General is the interviewee, whose whole purpose is to broadly demonize an entire political party with cute allusions to political philosophies that sound highfalutin to the sort of listener Levin gets. "You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy." Jesus, this is just laughable and sad.

"elections have consequences" Blame your Party.

They sure do!!



Republicans didn’t vote for Trump, Democrats did!

Your Party gave you Hillary...silly man.

Trump ran unopposed in the Republican primaries, silly man?
I am independent. You can look at my voting record. Won’t vote for a single Republican this time.

Correct me if I am wrong, I remember like 16 other Republican chuckleheads out there running against trump when the primaries started.

Yes. So republicans had plenty of opportunities to pick someone else.

You would have to ask MD to explain that one. That is a mind boggling thing I don't understand to this day.

The rational wing of the GOP was diffused across many candidates, never coalesced around one clear, moderate candidate, while the idiots and chumps and the haters were attracted immediately to Trump's celebrity and rhetorical anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim flourishes. As he gathered momentum, other haters who had backed candidates like Cruz rallied to Trump rather than oppose him. So, Trump kept winning primaries with less than a majority of GOP voters, until all others became irrelevant.

2016 was a 'change election', with any of the reasonable moderate R candidates who could win the national popular vote, eg Jeb or Kasich, left behind. Indeed these candidates would very likely have won both the popular vote and the Electoral College versus the Dem candidate Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton was uniquely capable of losing to Trump, someone who a majority of the country thought was not qualified, dishonest, disgusting. She brought unique baggage of her own, though was undoubtedly 'qualified'...voters cared far less about qualifications than simply "change" and disruption of the status quo.

But now they're faced with 4 years of demonstrated corruption and incompetence in governance.

Thank you for the reply MD. IMO it would be easier to prove that unicorns exist than it would be to prove that there is a rational wing of the republican party. Mitt is a republican I believe fits your description of rational. I hope you remember how Mitt was treated by the not so rational democrat party and how poor mittens was eviscerated on this forum. The problem with "rational" republicans is they lose elections. They are more worried about playing nice and not hurting peoples feelings than they are about winning elections. You do remember that humiliating moment at the Romney/Obama debate when BHO dressed him down with his the 80s just called, they want their foreign policy back. Mitt could have come back at him and hit that response out of the park. What did "rational" Mitt do? He stood their with his tail tucked squarely between his legs and allowed BHO to walk all over him that night. IMO the problem with the rational wing of the republican party... when they really need balls all they have between their legs are twinkies. What is that saying? Nice guys always finish last. Rational republicans have not yet adapted to the new reality that their new democratic opponents are light years away from being rational, reasonable or anything else for that matter.

Both Bush presidents and Reagan were from what I'd describe as the "rational" wing of the party. 20 out of 28 years winning the White House from 1980 to 2008, then lost two terms to the first African American President, a guy I'd say was from the "rational wing" of the Dem Party.

That's a lot of winning. Also gained a majority of both houses of Congress for a time, huge reversal from nearly 40 years of Dem dominance.
Not to mention Governors etc...almost entirely from the "rational wing" of the GOP, though with some exceptions including an increasingly "southern white and/or less educated white" demographic. Seeds of destruction.

Then we get this nutcase in response to the African American POTUS.

GWB spent 8 years being ridiculed as an "illegitimate president" GWB spent 8 years being mocked and ridiculed as being dumb and stupid. I guess that is the price you pay for being a "rational" member of the republican party? I hope you understand that no matter what turnip your party nominates for POTUS post trump they will be given the same nasty treatment by the democrats. You seem to have a notion that being "rational" equates to earning the respect of the other side. It will never make a difference how "rational" you are. The democrats in general will always hate your guts. There is not enough "rational" on the planet to appease those folks that despise your political ideology. It would be refreshing if your candidates could occasionally be assertive and stop cowering in the corner when the democrats criticize you.

I was embarrassed for Mitt when Obama took him out behind the woodshed and made him look like a fool during their last debate. If that is what being "rational" buys you, then you should prepare to keep losing elections. Your party today is a cluster fudge of rational and irrational people that don't have the slightest inkling about how to join together to win elections. Maybe I am more cynical because I see the bunch of chicken chit republicans that pretend to be a political party in NYS. The NYS democrats have kicked their tails to the point they have become irrelevant as a political force in NYS. NYS republicans have also tried their damndest to be "rational" it sure has not worked for them one little bit.

BTW, GHWB was being "rational" when he broke his "read my lips" pledge. Do I have to remind you how that worked out for him? He sure earned the respect of the democrats on that one. His being rational helped lose him his bid to be re-elected.

[MDlaxfan76]

The rational wing of the GOP was diffused across many candidates, never coalesced around one clear, moderate candidate, while the idiots and chumps and the haters were attracted immediately to Trump's celebrity and rhetorical anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim flourishes. As he gathered momentum, other haters who had backed candidates like Cruz rallied to Trump rather than oppose him. So, Trump kept winning primaries with less than a majority of GOP voters, until all others became irrelevant.

2016 was a 'change election', with any of the reasonable moderate R candidates who could win the national popular vote, eg Jeb or Kasich, left behind. Indeed these candidates would very likely have won both the popular vote and the Electoral College versus the Dem candidate Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton was uniquely capable of losing to Trump, someone who a majority of the country thought was not qualified, dishonest, disgusting. She brought unique baggage of her own, though was undoubtedly 'qualified'...voters cared far less about qualifications than simply "change" and disruption of the status quo.

But now they're faced with 4 years of demonstrated corruption and incompetence in governance.

You still don't get it. In 2016, it was the message, not the messenger(s). Bannon was right.
Your globalist, free trading, new world order, global cop, GOP is gone & it's not coming back.

Sure Salty, you and a few dozen other isolationist, Luv me some Vlad types, can keep telling yourself that nonsense was what drove Trump's ascendance...but it's indeed a tiny portion of Trump's appeal.

That said, I agree that there's no telling what the GOP will ever look like going forward, if the party even survives the coming ignominy.

My personal view is that it's going to take multiple cycles to regain any sort of credibility again as a party other than for haters, but here's hoping that it does. The haters need to be rejected wholesale.

Make sure you work in the hate & Russophobia. I was for Jeb in 2016 & thought Bannon was just some irrelevant crackpot at Brietbart.
I thought Pat Buchanan & I were the only remaining (R)'s with latent populist & isolationist tendencies.
At least I can admit I didn't see Trump & his (& Bannon's) agenda coming in 2016.
Prepare youself. After Trump it will be Pence, Pompeo, Haley, Cruz, Graham, Cotton & Hawley.

Prepare yourself, it will be Biden, then Harris, then...

You are indeed quite lonely in the 'luv you some Vlad' category, except for those getting their palms greased, but I do think we will have some concerns about geopolitical involvement, which is going to provide a lot of running room for China.

It'll be interesting to see where each party falls, eventually, in how best to compete geopolitically over the next 50 years.

[MDlaxfan76]

These are two serious players, in spite of the Left's teen-girl histrionics. Mark Levin interviewing Bill Barr, with no one talking over one another, no one trying to 'reclaim time'. You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy. The differences between these two guys and what we have seen from our mainstream media and their preferred narrative is striking.

If you have the time and if you have half a synapse still firing in your head, I'd suggest you watch and listen. If you're a shrill partisan without the ability to learn any longer, probably best to skip it...it will merely anger you like an elementary age boy whose emotions preclude his ability to pay attention and so his brain malfunctions when asked to sit still and learn.

For those who are legitimately vested in America, I highly suggest a listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV_3wXqf-ns

Thanks for posting.

Yeah, thanks for posting. This is a piece of gross and servile propaganda, which would be funny except for the fact that the Attorney General is the interviewee, whose whole purpose is to broadly demonize an entire political party with cute allusions to political philosophies that sound highfalutin to the sort of listener Levin gets. "You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy." Jesus, this is just laughable and sad.

"elections have consequences" Blame your Party.

They sure do!!



Republicans didn’t vote for Trump, Democrats did!

Your Party gave you Hillary...silly man.

Trump ran unopposed in the Republican primaries, silly man?
I am independent. You can look at my voting record. Won’t vote for a single Republican this time.

Correct me if I am wrong, I remember like 16 other Republican chuckleheads out there running against trump when the primaries started.

Yes. So republicans had plenty of opportunities to pick someone else.

You would have to ask MD to explain that one. That is a mind boggling thing I don't understand to this day.

The rational wing of the GOP was diffused across many candidates, never coalesced around one clear, moderate candidate, while the idiots and chumps and the haters were attracted immediately to Trump's celebrity and rhetorical anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim flourishes. As he gathered momentum, other haters who had backed candidates like Cruz rallied to Trump rather than oppose him. So, Trump kept winning primaries with less than a majority of GOP voters, until all others became irrelevant.

2016 was a 'change election', with any of the reasonable moderate R candidates who could win the national popular vote, eg Jeb or Kasich, left behind. Indeed these candidates would very likely have won both the popular vote and the Electoral College versus the Dem candidate Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton was uniquely capable of losing to Trump, someone who a majority of the country thought was not qualified, dishonest, disgusting. She brought unique baggage of her own, though was undoubtedly 'qualified'...voters cared far less about qualifications than simply "change" and disruption of the status quo.

But now they're faced with 4 years of demonstrated corruption and incompetence in governance.

Thank you for the reply MD. IMO it would be easier to prove that unicorns exist than it would be to prove that there is a rational wing of the republican party. Mitt is a republican I believe fits your description of rational. I hope you remember how Mitt was treated by the not so rational democrat party and how poor mittens was eviscerated on this forum. The problem with "rational" republicans is they lose elections. They are more worried about playing nice and not hurting peoples feelings than they are about winning elections. You do remember that humiliating moment at the Romney/Obama debate when BHO dressed him down with his the 80s just called, they want their foreign policy back. Mitt could have come back at him and hit that response out of the park. What did "rational" Mitt do? He stood their with his tail tucked squarely between his legs and allowed BHO to walk all over him that night. IMO the problem with the rational wing of the republican party... when they really need balls all they have between their legs are twinkies. What is that saying? Nice guys always finish last. Rational republicans have not yet adapted to the new reality that their new democratic opponents are light years away from being rational, reasonable or anything else for that matter.

Both Bush presidents and Reagan were from what I'd describe as the "rational" wing of the party. 20 out of 28 years winning the White House from 1980 to 2008, then lost two terms to the first African American President, a guy I'd say was from the "rational wing" of the Dem Party.

That's a lot of winning. Also gained a majority of both houses of Congress for a time, huge reversal from nearly 40 years of Dem dominance.
Not to mention Governors etc...almost entirely from the "rational wing" of the GOP, though with some exceptions including an increasingly "southern white and/or less educated white" demographic. Seeds of destruction.

Then we get this nutcase in response to the African American POTUS.

GWB spent 8 years being ridiculed as an "illegitimate president" GWB spent 8 years being mocked and ridiculed as being dumb and stupid. I guess that is the price you pay for being a "rational" member of the republican party? I hope you understand that no matter what turnip your party nominates for POTUS post trump they will be given the same nasty treatment by the democrats. You seem to have a notion that being "rational" equates to earning the respect of the other side. It will never make a difference how "rational" you are. The democrats in general will always hate your guts. There is not enough "rational" on the planet to appease those folks that despise your political ideology. It would be refreshing if your candidates could occasionally be assertive and stop cowering in the corner when the democrats criticize you.

I was embarrassed for Mitt when Obama took him out behind the woodshed and made him look like a fool during their last debate. If that is what being "rational" buys you, then you should prepare to keep losing elections. Your party today is a cluster fudge of rational and irrational people that don't have the slightest inkling about how to join together to win elections. Maybe I am more cynical because I see the bunch of chicken chit republicans that pretend to be a political party in NYS. The NYS democrats have kicked their tails to the point they have become irrelevant as a political force in NYS. NYS republicans have also tried their damndest to be "rational" it sure has not worked for them one little bit.

BTW, GHWB was being "rational" when he broke his "read my lips" pledge. Do I have to remind you how that worked out for him? He sure earned the respect of the democrats on that one. His being rational helped lose him his bid to be re-elected.

Cradle, I'm not concerned about "respect of Democrats" and I'm certainly not in the whiner crowd who expects good deeds not to be 'punished' politically or to be treated gently politically because of "rational" decisions.

I'm interested in good, rational governance, be it R or D.
The nut jobs and haters, on either side, will never provide good, rational government.

Right now we're being governed by nut jobs and haters, the corrupt and the incompetent.
I'll take change, please.

[6ftstick]

here's more than two

That's not how this works, 6ft.

To refresh, here's your claim: Once they all knew there was no evidence and after they all testified that there was no evidence—They continued to lie that there was evidence.

So give me, for example Clapper in his own words, with full context available, and the date when it happeend, where he:

1. said that he didn't see any direct evidence of collusion with Russia

2. And then later, claimed that there was evidence of collusion.


You have that? I'm all ears.

FEB 20, 2019
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said he agreed with former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s assessment that President Donald Trump could be a Russian asset. McCabe told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Tuesday that the possibility of Trump being a Russian asset was why the FBI signed off on special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible Trump campaign collusion.

MAY 7, 2020
Schiff (D-California) published on Thursday afternoon more than 50 interviews his committee had conducted over the past three years in pursuit of proof that Trump “colluded” with Russia to win the presidency in 2016.

When asked under oath in 2017 whether he had any direct evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia, Clapper said no. "I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election."

In addition to Clapper, the transcripts include interviews with Obama administration advisers Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power; former attorneys general Loretta Lynch and Jeff Sessions, as well as former acting AG Sally Yates; former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe and Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta; as well as Donald Trump Jr, and several people present at the Trump Tower meeting with ‘Russian lawyer’ Natalia Veselnitskaya, among others.

Rice, Rhodes, Lynch, Yates and Power likewise all admitted they hadn’t seen any specific evidence of “collusion” between Trump and Russia.

[jhu72]

US going it alone again. Undoubtedly this will work out well.

[cradleandshoot]

These are two serious players, in spite of the Left's teen-girl histrionics. Mark Levin interviewing Bill Barr, with no one talking over one another, no one trying to 'reclaim time'. You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy. The differences between these two guys and what we have seen from our mainstream media and their preferred narrative is striking.

If you have the time and if you have half a synapse still firing in your head, I'd suggest you watch and listen. If you're a shrill partisan without the ability to learn any longer, probably best to skip it...it will merely anger you like an elementary age boy whose emotions preclude his ability to pay attention and so his brain malfunctions when asked to sit still and learn.

For those who are legitimately vested in America, I highly suggest a listen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV_3wXqf-ns

Thanks for posting.

Yeah, thanks for posting. This is a piece of gross and servile propaganda, which would be funny except for the fact that the Attorney General is the interviewee, whose whole purpose is to broadly demonize an entire political party with cute allusions to political philosophies that sound highfalutin to the sort of listener Levin gets. "You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy." Jesus, this is just laughable and sad.

"elections have consequences" Blame your Party.

They sure do!!



Republicans didn’t vote for Trump, Democrats did!

Your Party gave you Hillary...silly man.

Trump ran unopposed in the Republican primaries, silly man?
I am independent. You can look at my voting record. Won’t vote for a single Republican this time.

Correct me if I am wrong, I remember like 16 other Republican chuckleheads out there running against trump when the primaries started.

Yes. So republicans had plenty of opportunities to pick someone else.

You would have to ask MD to explain that one. That is a mind boggling thing I don't understand to this day.

The rational wing of the GOP was diffused across many candidates, never coalesced around one clear, moderate candidate, while the idiots and chumps and the haters were attracted immediately to Trump's celebrity and rhetorical anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim flourishes. As he gathered momentum, other haters who had backed candidates like Cruz rallied to Trump rather than oppose him. So, Trump kept winning primaries with less than a majority of GOP voters, until all others became irrelevant.

2016 was a 'change election', with any of the reasonable moderate R candidates who could win the national popular vote, eg Jeb or Kasich, left behind. Indeed these candidates would very likely have won both the popular vote and the Electoral College versus the Dem candidate Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton was uniquely capable of losing to Trump, someone who a majority of the country thought was not qualified, dishonest, disgusting. She brought unique baggage of her own, though was undoubtedly 'qualified'...voters cared far less about qualifications than simply "change" and disruption of the status quo.

But now they're faced with 4 years of demonstrated corruption and incompetence in governance.

Thank you for the reply MD. IMO it would be easier to prove that unicorns exist than it would be to prove that there is a rational wing of the republican party. Mitt is a republican I believe fits your description of rational. I hope you remember how Mitt was treated by the not so rational democrat party and how poor mittens was eviscerated on this forum. The problem with "rational" republicans is they lose elections. They are more worried about playing nice and not hurting peoples feelings than they are about winning elections. You do remember that humiliating moment at the Romney/Obama debate when BHO dressed him down with his the 80s just called, they want their foreign policy back. Mitt could have come back at him and hit that response out of the park. What did "rational" Mitt do? He stood their with his tail tucked squarely between his legs and allowed BHO to walk all over him that night. IMO the problem with the rational wing of the republican party... when they really need balls all they have between their legs are twinkies. What is that saying? Nice guys always finish last. Rational republicans have not yet adapted to the new reality that their new democratic opponents are light years away from being rational, reasonable or anything else for that matter.

Both Bush presidents and Reagan were from what I'd describe as the "rational" wing of the party. 20 out of 28 years winning the White House from 1980 to 2008, then lost two terms to the first African American President, a guy I'd say was from the "rational wing" of the Dem Party.

That's a lot of winning. Also gained a majority of both houses of Congress for a time, huge reversal from nearly 40 years of Dem dominance.
Not to mention Governors etc...almost entirely from the "rational wing" of the GOP, though with some exceptions including an increasingly "southern white and/or less educated white" demographic. Seeds of destruction.

Then we get this nutcase in response to the African American POTUS.

GWB spent 8 years being ridiculed as an "illegitimate president" GWB spent 8 years being mocked and ridiculed as being dumb and stupid. I guess that is the price you pay for being a "rational" member of the republican party? I hope you understand that no matter what turnip your party nominates for POTUS post trump they will be given the same nasty treatment by the democrats. You seem to have a notion that being "rational" equates to earning the respect of the other side. It will never make a difference how "rational" you are. The democrats in general will always hate your guts. There is not enough "rational" on the planet to appease those folks that despise your political ideology. It would be refreshing if your candidates could occasionally be assertive and stop cowering in the corner when the democrats criticize you.

I was embarrassed for Mitt when Obama took him out behind the woodshed and made him look like a fool during their last debate. If that is what being "rational" buys you, then you should prepare to keep losing elections. Your party today is a cluster fudge of rational and irrational people that don't have the slightest inkling about how to join together to win elections. Maybe I am more cynical because I see the bunch of chicken chit republicans that pretend to be a political party in NYS. The NYS democrats have kicked their tails to the point they have become irrelevant as a political force in NYS. NYS republicans have also tried their damndest to be "rational" it sure has not worked for them one little bit.

BTW, GHWB was being "rational" when he broke his "read my lips" pledge. Do I have to remind you how that worked out for him? He sure earned the respect of the democrats on that one. His being rational helped lose him his bid to be re-elected.

Cradle, I'm not concerned about "respect of Democrats" and I'm certainly not in the whiner crowd who expects good deeds not to be 'punished' politically or to be treated gently politically because of "rational" decisions.

I'm interested in good, rational governance, be it R or D.
The nut jobs and haters, on either side, will never provide good, rational government.

Right now we're being governed by nut jobs and haters, the corrupt and the incompetent.
I'll take change, please.

"I'm interested in good, rational governance, be it R or D."

You may as well be wishing for unicorns to be real. The days of good rational governance are long dead and gone my friend. The extremists of both parties are running the show. They don't want good government, they want their agenda rammed through with no concessions made whatsoever. Please let me know when you find that unicorn your looking for. Here in realville where I live, they don't exist.

[old salt]

While we are all debating our orange, incompetent, traitorous commander in chief ...

... on the other side of the world, the eminently competent South Koreans are going to build their first light aircraft carrier, and will equip it with 20 or so F-35B stealth jets.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/12/asia/sou ... index.html

The carrier is supposedly intended to keep North Korea in line. However, South Korea has never needed its own aircraft carriers to contain North Korea.

No ... South Korea is building their new massive warship to contain the same adversary that Japan is eyeing ... China.

All these new weapons in East Asia are not a good sign.

DocBarrister

Good to see Doc acknowledge Trump's success in persuading allies to invest more in our shared defense, buying interoperable US made aircraft.

These light aircraft carriers, operating the F-35B (replacing AV-8B Harriers, currently in service), are the wave of the future. The US has 9 of them (2 new ones with expanded F-35 capacity). In addition to Japan & S Korea, the UK has 2 under construction. Italy has 1 under construction. The UK, Italy & Spain already operate Harriers from older ships of this size. Spain is eyeing the F-35B to replace the Harrier. F-35B orders : UK -- 138, Italy -- 62. Australia would be a good candidate to follow suit. Turkey was also a candidate before Erdogan went rogue.

Lightning Carrier