Bwoo-ha-ha: Resistance inside the Trump regime itself
Tollorin wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Try reading what I actually write. Chomsky is right wing is he? Glenn Greenwald? Chris Hedges? Ignorance leads people to calling others crazy because they can't be bothered to educate themselves. Don't worry the mainstream media will tell you all you need to know
There is zero evidence of "collusion" in the 2016 US election. Iraq was based on a pack of lies cobbled together by politicians, lobbyists and the war industry in general. Same with the lies before the first Gulf War. The whole escalation of Vietnam and South East Asia was based on an event that didn't happen. Operation Northwoods, 1962. The DOD and Joint Chief of Staffs planned for the CIA to carry out terrorist attacks on military and civilians installations. Luckily JFK rejected the plan. I doubt LBJ would have given his compliance in the USS Liberty attack. The whole Skripal case has fallen apart. The 'gas attack' in Syria this year didn't even happen. Joke is on you guys but it isn't funny anymore.
There is zero evidence of "collusion" in the 2016 US election. Iraq was based on a pack of lies cobbled together by politicians, lobbyists and the war industry in general. Same with the lies before the first Gulf War. The whole escalation of Vietnam and South East Asia was based on an event that didn't happen. Operation Northwoods, 1962. The DOD and Joint Chief of Staffs planned for the CIA to carry out terrorist attacks on military and civilians installations. Luckily JFK rejected the plan. I doubt LBJ would have given his compliance in the USS Liberty attack. The whole Skripal case has fallen apart. The 'gas attack' in Syria this year didn't even happen. Joke is on you guys but it isn't funny anymore.
Who fabricated the lies for the Iraq war again? Isn't the side that is today with Donald Trump?
Peoples are always shooting "liberal medias", yet US medias obviously weren't liberal in 2003.
They weren't liberal at any time.
To the extent that there actually is a "deep state" it was established by Nixon, who as Ike's veep in the early to mid-50s was given the task of heading up intelligence and made the CIA his personal puppet. Nixon was no liberal and he established the Southern Strategy for the GOP that put southern racists in places of Republican power.
Wherever the "Deep State" has evidenced itself - such as
claims that E. Howard Hunt was seen in the photos of JFK's assassination; such as
the bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident that never happened; such as
what is probably the best and most infamous example - the CIA operatives found burgling the Watergate Hotel in support of Nixon's CREEP (the Committee to Re-Elect the President); such as
various operations against Cuba and so on.
If there is a "deep state" it is a thoroughly Republican one. That "deep state" might indeed oppose Trump because that "deep state" is a very anti-Russian one and Trump is obviously a Russian tool serving Putin.
Biscuitman wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
There is zero evidence of "collusion" in the 2016 US election
Unless you are inside the investigation and privy to what has been said during official interviews you cannot say this.
Anyone right now on the outside trying to state as fact whether there has or hasn't been 'collusion' is just stating what they want the outcome to be
Needless to say the same can be said for all of those who are certain there was collusion.
Biscuitman
Veteran
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers
EzraS wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
There is zero evidence of "collusion" in the 2016 US election
Unless you are inside the investigation and privy to what has been said during official interviews you cannot say this.
Anyone right now on the outside trying to state as fact whether there has or hasn't been 'collusion' is just stating what they want the outcome to be
Needless to say the same can be said for all of those who are certain there was collusion.
Absolutely, that is why I said 'has or hasn't'. Certain kind of people will just rage on that something is x or isn't x without having a clue, it's nothing more than people desperately wanting their desired outcome to be the actual outcome. These people are different sides of the same deluded coin.
Why not wait and see the outcome of the investigation before we talk in definitives.
With Trump in crisis, Pence waits in his shadow
Quote:
The grave possibility of a crisis that ends the scandal-scarred Trump presidency could explain the vice president's remarkable record of praising the chaotic commander-in-chief while making himself scarce at moments of crisis. Between his sycophancy, which moved George Will to say that Pence could be "America's most repulsive figure," and his widely noted absences, Pence has established a record that would make him blameless but also acceptable as a successor...
Pence is building a coast-to-coast network of operatives who could deploy immediately to support his presidency.
During Pence's unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 1990, staffers in Coats' US Senate office secretly created a fake grassroots environmental group that then lodged false accusations against Pence's opponent, Phil Sharp. Eventually the perpetrators were fired after Coats requested an investigation. Coats and Pence said they did not know anything about the subterfuge...
The perspective evidenced by Anonymous would be familiar to anyone who followed Pence over the years and is consistent with the views he espoused prior to joining Trump on the national ticket for the election of 2016. As a calm and highly religious man, Pence is deemed to be a counterweight to the impetuous and profane Trump. He was, for some voters, a sort of guarantee that the President wouldn't do anything too extreme and that should the worst come to pass, the country would be in steady hands.
In the role of loyal but often absent vice president, Pence has retained the support of the Trump base, which means there would be no great uprising if he assumes the presidency. Calm would prevail and no proof would be found linking him to the Resistance.
Pence is building a coast-to-coast network of operatives who could deploy immediately to support his presidency.
During Pence's unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 1990, staffers in Coats' US Senate office secretly created a fake grassroots environmental group that then lodged false accusations against Pence's opponent, Phil Sharp. Eventually the perpetrators were fired after Coats requested an investigation. Coats and Pence said they did not know anything about the subterfuge...
The perspective evidenced by Anonymous would be familiar to anyone who followed Pence over the years and is consistent with the views he espoused prior to joining Trump on the national ticket for the election of 2016. As a calm and highly religious man, Pence is deemed to be a counterweight to the impetuous and profane Trump. He was, for some voters, a sort of guarantee that the President wouldn't do anything too extreme and that should the worst come to pass, the country would be in steady hands.
In the role of loyal but often absent vice president, Pence has retained the support of the Trump base, which means there would be no great uprising if he assumes the presidency. Calm would prevail and no proof would be found linking him to the Resistance.
Speaking of the "Deep State"...
Tollorin wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Try reading what I actually write. Chomsky is right wing is he? Glenn Greenwald? Chris Hedges? Ignorance leads people to calling others crazy because they can't be bothered to educate themselves. Don't worry the mainstream media will tell you all you need to know
There is zero evidence of "collusion" in the 2016 US election. Iraq was based on a pack of lies cobbled together by politicians, lobbyists and the war industry in general. Same with the lies before the first Gulf War. The whole escalation of Vietnam and South East Asia was based on an event that didn't happen. Operation Northwoods, 1962. The DOD and Joint Chief of Staffs planned for the CIA to carry out terrorist attacks on military and civilians installations. Luckily JFK rejected the plan. I doubt LBJ would have given his compliance in the USS Liberty attack. The whole Skripal case has fallen apart. The 'gas attack' in Syria this year didn't even happen. Joke is on you guys but it isn't funny anymore.
There is zero evidence of "collusion" in the 2016 US election. Iraq was based on a pack of lies cobbled together by politicians, lobbyists and the war industry in general. Same with the lies before the first Gulf War. The whole escalation of Vietnam and South East Asia was based on an event that didn't happen. Operation Northwoods, 1962. The DOD and Joint Chief of Staffs planned for the CIA to carry out terrorist attacks on military and civilians installations. Luckily JFK rejected the plan. I doubt LBJ would have given his compliance in the USS Liberty attack. The whole Skripal case has fallen apart. The 'gas attack' in Syria this year didn't even happen. Joke is on you guys but it isn't funny anymore.
Who fabricated the lies for the Iraq war again? Isn't the side that is today with Donald Trump?
Peoples are always shooting "liberal medias", yet US medias obviously weren't liberal in 2003.
The liberals were pushing the Iraq war too but wanted a more global war against Iraq. They pushed for the war in Libya and Syria when Obama was in power. All part of the same game. Just see how the liberals were crowing for the psychotic killer McCain.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
Biscuitman wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
There is zero evidence of "collusion" in the 2016 US election
Unless you are inside the investigation and privy to what has been said during official interviews you cannot say this.
Anyone right now on the outside trying to state as fact whether there has or hasn't been 'collusion' is just stating what they want the outcome to be
I know there is zero evidence. I know it has nothing to do with justice. I know Mueller is a crook. I know the FBI colluded with the DNC to try and stop Trump. If there was any evidence Trump would be gone already. It is just propaganda until the midterms. Unless Trump does well. Then that would blow another liberal establishment gasket.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 76,382
Location: Portland, Oregon
JohnPowell wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
There is zero evidence of "collusion" in the 2016 US election
Unless you are inside the investigation and privy to what has been said during official interviews you cannot say this.
Anyone right now on the outside trying to state as fact whether there has or hasn't been 'collusion' is just stating what they want the outcome to be
I know there is zero evidence. I know it has nothing to do with justice. I know Mueller is a crook. I know the FBI colluded with the DNC to try and stop Trump. If there was any evidence Trump would be gone already. It is just propaganda until the midterms. Unless Trump does well. Then that would blow another liberal establishment gasket.
What is your logic that the FBI "worked with" the DNC to make sure Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election and what connections do you see between the media and the Mueller investigation?
_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
There is zero evidence of "collusion" in the 2016 US election
Unless you are inside the investigation and privy to what has been said during official interviews you cannot say this.
Anyone right now on the outside trying to state as fact whether there has or hasn't been 'collusion' is just stating what they want the outcome to be
I know there is zero evidence. I know it has nothing to do with justice. I know Mueller is a crook. I know the FBI colluded with the DNC to try and stop Trump. If there was any evidence Trump would be gone already. It is just propaganda until the midterms. Unless Trump does well. Then that would blow another liberal establishment gasket.
What is your logic that the FBI "worked with" the DNC to make sure Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election and what connections do you see between the media and the Mueller investigation?
The fake dossier by Christopher Steele. Christopher Steele worked for the same company as Pablo Miller who was Sergey Skripal's MI6 handler. The press has had a D-Notice put on them not to mention Miller. Look at Clinton and the DNC cheating Sanders out of the nomination.
The media seem to have forgotten that Mueller helped cover up the fake Anthrax attacks. If the media were serious they would be asking why Clinton isn't being investigated for her collusion in the mentioned above events. Plus her taking money from the Saudis when she admits in her emails she knows they fund ISIS.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 76,382
Location: Portland, Oregon
JohnPowell wrote:
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
There is zero evidence of "collusion" in the 2016 US election
Unless you are inside the investigation and privy to what has been said during official interviews you cannot say this.
Anyone right now on the outside trying to state as fact whether there has or hasn't been 'collusion' is just stating what they want the outcome to be
I know there is zero evidence. I know it has nothing to do with justice. I know Mueller is a crook. I know the FBI colluded with the DNC to try and stop Trump. If there was any evidence Trump would be gone already. It is just propaganda until the midterms. Unless Trump does well. Then that would blow another liberal establishment gasket.
What is your logic that the FBI "worked with" the DNC to make sure Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election and what connections do you see between the media and the Mueller investigation?
The fake dossier by Christopher Steele. Christopher Steele worked for the same company as Pablo Miller who was Sergey Skripal's MI6 handler. The press has had a D-Notice put on them not to mention Miller. Look at Clinton and the DNC cheating Sanders out of the nomination.
The media seem to have forgotten that Mueller helped cover up the fake Anthrax attacks. If the media were serious they would be asking why Clinton isn't being investigated for her collusion in the mentioned above events. Plus her taking money from the Saudis when she admits in her emails she knows they fund ISIS.
BTW, do you think Hillary Clinton would have won the 2016 election if she named Bernie Sanders as her running mate?
_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!
SZWell wrote:
Not "the resistence" as it pertains to the entirety of the GOP and the crimes committed against democracy. This sounds more like someone covering for their own self-interest and future cowardice
I heard somewhere that the most likely probability is that it was Pence. Ivanka was another possibility. Though if Trump is impeached, a Pence administration doesn't fill me with hope as an alternative.
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
AnonymousAnonymous wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
There is zero evidence of "collusion" in the 2016 US election
Unless you are inside the investigation and privy to what has been said during official interviews you cannot say this.
Anyone right now on the outside trying to state as fact whether there has or hasn't been 'collusion' is just stating what they want the outcome to be
I know there is zero evidence. I know it has nothing to do with justice. I know Mueller is a crook. I know the FBI colluded with the DNC to try and stop Trump. If there was any evidence Trump would be gone already. It is just propaganda until the midterms. Unless Trump does well. Then that would blow another liberal establishment gasket.
What is your logic that the FBI "worked with" the DNC to make sure Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election and what connections do you see between the media and the Mueller investigation?
The fake dossier by Christopher Steele. Christopher Steele worked for the same company as Pablo Miller who was Sergey Skripal's MI6 handler. The press has had a D-Notice put on them not to mention Miller. Look at Clinton and the DNC cheating Sanders out of the nomination.
The media seem to have forgotten that Mueller helped cover up the fake Anthrax attacks. If the media were serious they would be asking why Clinton isn't being investigated for her collusion in the mentioned above events. Plus her taking money from the Saudis when she admits in her emails she knows they fund ISIS.
BTW, do you think Hillary Clinton would have won the 2016 election if she named Bernie Sanders as her running mate?
Clinton could have named every Angel from the Holy Bible and she still would have lost. The US can get rid of Trump and learn nothing. But then there will be worse storms to come.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
AspE wrote:
If we went with the popular vote (otherwise known as Democracy), Hillary would have won.
The US have never had that system and if never heard a complaint about the system until Trump won. The UK system is much more flawed than the US I think.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
JohnPowell wrote:
AspE wrote:
If we went with the popular vote (otherwise known as Democracy), Hillary would have won.
The US have never had that system and if never heard a complaint about the system until Trump won. The UK system is much more flawed than the US I think.
You never heard a complaint about the system until Trump won?
Either you're too young, or perhaps you haven't been paying attention.
There was plenty of criticism of it after Gore won the 2000 presidential election by 500,000 votes but lost it in the "Electoral College".
Long before Gore, the Electoral College faced condemnation.
Maine and Nebraska have actually gone so far as to mandate a form of proportional representation of the electors in their states. Perhaps other states will someday follow and that could go a long way toward ending the disparity between the will of the people and the will of the "electors".
Biscuitman
Veteran
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers
thoughtbeast wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
AspE wrote:
If we went with the popular vote (otherwise known as Democracy), Hillary would have won.
The US have never had that system and if never heard a complaint about the system until Trump won. The UK system is much more flawed than the US I think.
You never heard a complaint about the system until Trump won?
Either you're too young, or perhaps you haven't been paying attention.
There was plenty of criticism of it after Gore won the 2000 presidential election by 500,000 votes but lost it in the "Electoral College"
Yeah I do remember the Gore result being quite a big deal at the time.
By all means politiicians should campaign to change a voting system to a more fair model but complaining after the event, when they were happy to enter under those rules at the beginning, does them no favours at all
thoughtbeast wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
AspE wrote:
If we went with the popular vote (otherwise known as Democracy), Hillary would have won.
The US have never had that system and if never heard a complaint about the system until Trump won. The UK system is much more flawed than the US I think.
You never heard a complaint about the system until Trump won?
Either you're too young, or perhaps you haven't been paying attention.
There was plenty of criticism of it after Gore won the 2000 presidential election by 500,000 votes but lost it in the "Electoral College".
Long before Gore, the Electoral College faced condemnation.
Maine and Nebraska have actually gone so far as to mandate a form of proportional representation of the electors in their states. Perhaps other states will someday follow and that could go a long way toward ending the disparity between the will of the people and the will of the "electors".
So the dems had 8 years of power then complained about the system when they lost in 2000. They had 8 years of power then complained about the system when they lost in 2016. Think I see a pattern
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
