What to make of the election?

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:47 pm

That Bolton as Milton thing turned out to be prescient.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:55 pm

How is Bolton involved?

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Wed Oct 16, 2019 3:19 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:55 pm How is Bolton involved?

Fiona Hill, in her testimony, quoted Bolton as to how he would have no part of the Mulvaney/Perry/Sondland "drug deal", and notified the WH lawyers of the shady doings. To get in on record.

Good news on the tax document front. Pro Publica got hold of some tax docs thanks to various legal avenues, and of course they show Trump is a corrupt fraud. But his detractors and his supporters knew this, so not sure this is really news.

It is, however, likely a crime.

https://www.propublica.org/article/trum ... ssion=true

ProPublica obtained the property tax documents using New York’s Freedom of Information Law. The documents were public because Trump appealed his property tax bill for the buildings every year for nine years in a row, the extent of the available records. We compared the tax records with loan records that became public when Trump’s lender, Ladder Capital, sold the debt on his properties as part of mortgage-backed securities.

Heh

Financial information for the Trump International Hotel and Tower raises similar questions. Trump owns only a small portion of the building, which is located on Columbus Circle: two commercial spaces, which he rents out to a restaurant and a parking garage. Trump’s company told New York City tax officials it made about $822,000 renting space to commercial tenants there in 2017, records show. The company told loan officials it took in $1.67 million that year — more than twice as much. In eight years of data ProPublica examined for the Columbus Circle property, Trump’s company reported gross income to tax authorities that was typically only about 81% of what it reported to the lender.

Trump appeared to omit from tax documents income his company received from leasing space on the roof for television antennas, a ProPublica review found. The line on tax appeal forms for income from such communications equipment is blank on nine years of tax filings, even as loan documents listed the antennas as major sources of income.

Wonder who he'll throw under the bus on this one.

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:48 pm

Mulvaney just launched the "Yeah it was a quid pro quo so what" defense in a press conference.

Alfred_E._Neuman · Post by **Alfred_E._Neuman** » Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:29 pm

So apparently anyone who doesn't toe the Clinton/DNC line is smeared as a Russian asset. Nothing like a cackling bitch who funneled millions of dollars from Russia into her family's "foundation" calling out someone else as a Russian puppet.
The DNC is looking more like a shit show every day, and the MSM is helping them air it 24/7.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:40 pm

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:29 pm So apparently anyone who doesn't toe the Clinton/DNC line is smeared as a Russian asset. Nothing like a cackling bitch who funneled millions of dollars from Russia into her family's "foundation" calling out someone else as a Russian puppet.
The DNC is looking more like a shit show every day, and the MSM is helping them air it 24/7.

Clinton isn’t running and Tulsi is polling in sub-single digits. We know who wins from this cat fight.

A 3rd party challenger is the kiss of death for whichever party that challenger comes from. I still remember Ross Perot well.

Alfred_E._Neuman · Post by **Alfred_E._Neuman** » Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:42 pm

I think Tulsi would probably pull more votes from the Republicans than the Democrats, hurting Trump much more than Warren or Bernie (I'm assuming Biden is toast from being exposed for the next 12 months of impeachment back and forth).

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:12 pm

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:42 pm I think Tulsi would probably pull more votes from the Republicans than the Democrats...

No way

Look who is giving this candidate with sub-single digits polling press time. That tells you everything you need to know.

She has ZERO chance to win the Dem nomination. Along with Beto.

Crabs in a bucket.

Alfred_E._Neuman · Post by **Alfred_E._Neuman** » Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:07 am

nafod wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:12 pm
Alfred_E._Neuman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 10:42 pm I think Tulsi would probably pull more votes from the Republicans than the Democrats...
No way

Look who is giving this candidate with sub-single digits polling press time. That tells you everything you need to know.

She has ZERO chance to win the Dem nomination. Along with Beto.

Crabs in a bucket.

I'm talking about Clinton insinuating the Russians want Tulsi to run as a 3rd party candidate as some scheme to hurt the eventual Democratic nominee. That makes no sense to me because Tulsi would pull more of the independents that would ordinarily lean Trump but would jump at the opportunity to vote for a more moderate candidate. The progressive independents are going to vote for Warren or Bernie and probably wouldn't consider Tulsi. So I think she hurts Trump more than the Dems as a 3rd party nominee.

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:31 am

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:07 am I'm talking about Clinton insinuating the Russians want Tulsi to run as a 3rd party candidate as some scheme to hurt the eventual Democratic nominee. That makes no sense to me because Tulsi would pull more of the independents that would ordinarily lean Trump but would jump at the opportunity to vote for a more moderate candidate. The progressive independents are going to vote for Warren or Bernie and probably wouldn't consider Tulsi. So I think she hurts Trump more than the Dems as a 3rd party nominee.

She’s pro Putin and pro Assad. She won’t disavow Russian help. She’s not running unless she’s playing the Nader/Stein role

DrDonkeyLove... · Post by **DrDonkeyLove...** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:34 am

Rorschach test.
I see a failing nation.

Alfred_E._Neuman · Post by **Alfred_E._Neuman** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:41 am

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:31 am
Alfred_E._Neuman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:07 am I'm talking about Clinton insinuating the Russians want Tulsi to run as a 3rd party candidate as some scheme to hurt the eventual Democratic nominee. That makes no sense to me because Tulsi would pull more of the independents that would ordinarily lean Trump but would jump at the opportunity to vote for a more moderate candidate. The progressive independents are going to vote for Warren or Bernie and probably wouldn't consider Tulsi. So I think she hurts Trump more than the Dems as a 3rd party nominee.
She’s pro Putin and pro Assad. She won’t disavow Russian help. She’s not running unless she’s playing the Nader/Stein role

Big difference between being "pro" Assad and and not wanting to commit US military to yet another quagmire of a regime change war. She called the man a brutal dictator. But that doesn't mean we need to spend another decade and a trillion dollars to do anything about it.
The left attacking anti-war politicians from the right is funny as hell. And shows that the only real intention of either party is to continue to siphon taxpayer money into the MIC.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:51 pm

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:41 am
Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:31 am
Alfred_E._Neuman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:07 am I'm talking about Clinton insinuating the Russians want Tulsi to run as a 3rd party candidate as some scheme to hurt the eventual Democratic nominee. That makes no sense to me because Tulsi would pull more of the independents that would ordinarily lean Trump but would jump at the opportunity to vote for a more moderate candidate. The progressive independents are going to vote for Warren or Bernie and probably wouldn't consider Tulsi. So I think she hurts Trump more than the Dems as a 3rd party nominee.
She’s pro Putin and pro Assad. She won’t disavow Russian help. She’s not running unless she’s playing the Nader/Stein role
Big difference between being "pro" Assad and and not wanting to commit US military to yet another quagmire of a regime change war.

* sigh *

We didn't go into Syria to do regime change. The Syrians did that themselves, in a civil war that extended out from the Arab Spring, and were gassed by Assad for it. We've done a good job of not getting involved in that.

We are in Syria because that is where ISIS was, and now soon to be "is" again.

We are in Syria because we left Iraq too fast, leaving a vacuum that got filled with chaos. Exactly what is going to happen in Syria again. ISIS loves chaos.

Think the Kurds will help us next time?

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:12 pm

Alfred_E._Neuman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:41 am
Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:31 am
Alfred_E._Neuman wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 12:07 am I'm talking about Clinton insinuating the Russians want Tulsi to run as a 3rd party candidate as some scheme to hurt the eventual Democratic nominee. That makes no sense to me because Tulsi would pull more of the independents that would ordinarily lean Trump but would jump at the opportunity to vote for a more moderate candidate. The progressive independents are going to vote for Warren or Bernie and probably wouldn't consider Tulsi. So I think she hurts Trump more than the Dems as a 3rd party nominee.
She’s pro Putin and pro Assad. She won’t disavow Russian help. She’s not running unless she’s playing the Nader/Stein role
Big difference between being "pro" Assad and and not wanting to commit US military to yet another quagmire of a regime change war.

Nope. Congress had a vote condemning Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people. Seems like kind of a lay down vote. Literally 99% of the House voted in favor across party lines. One Democrat didn't. Guess who.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:19 pm

nafod wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:51 pm * sigh *

We didn't go into Syria to do regime change. The Syrians did that themselves, in a civil war that extended out from the Arab Spring, and were gassed by Assad for it. We've done a good job of not getting involved in that.

We are in Syria because that is where ISIS was, and now soon to be "is" again.

We are in Syria because we left Iraq too fast, leaving a vacuum that got filled with chaos. Exactly what is going to happen in Syria again. ISIS loves chaos.

Think the Kurds will help us next time?

*sigh*

We absolutely and unequivocally did go into Syria with the objective of regime change. "Assad must go" was Hillary's mantra as Secretary of State for the Obama Administration.

Obama, "Assad must go.": https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Clinton, "Assad must go.":

In the great wisdom of the Democratic party, we aligned ourselves with ISIS and al-Qaeda in trying to overthrow the only guarantor of plurality in Syria, which is of course the Assad government. As for "next time" only the mentally defective Democrats and Neocon shills for the global faggot order want there to be a next time. After all, Syria has NOTHING for us, never did, and never will.

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:29 pm

Fat Cat wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:19 pm
nafod wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:51 pm * sigh *

We didn't go into Syria to do regime change. The Syrians did that themselves, in a civil war that extended out from the Arab Spring, and were gassed by Assad for it. We've done a good job of not getting involved in that.

We are in Syria because that is where ISIS was, and now soon to be "is" again.

We are in Syria because we left Iraq too fast, leaving a vacuum that got filled with chaos. Exactly what is going to happen in Syria again. ISIS loves chaos.

Think the Kurds will help us next time?
*sigh*

We absolutely and unequivocally did go into Syria with the objective of regime change.

????

I missed the 4th Infantry Division storming into Syria from either Iraq or Turkey, or the full brunt of our Navy and Air Force assets executing a sustained one month bombing campaign prior.

We didn't get boots on the ground until we chased ISIS into Syria to root them out, and we had a minimal footprint throughout. That is hardly a "regime change war". We've done two of them recently (Iraq and Afghanistan). That is how it is done.

Fat Cat · Post by **Fat Cat** » Tue Oct 22, 2019 5:29 pm

duncecap.jpg

By your logic our goal wasn't regime change in Libya either.

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:03 pm

Rep Matt Gaetz has stormed the SCIF with an unsecured phone and is tweeting. A few reasons why this is quite bad:

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:15 pm

I've brought a phone into a SCIF before. It got the cybersecurity version of prison sex before I got it back.

There's already a bunch of republicans in the SCIF anyway.
Devin Nunes, California, Ranking Member
Mike Conaway, Texas
Mike Turner, Ohio
Brad Wenstrup, Ohio
Chris Stewart, Utah
Rick Crawford, Arkansas
Elise Stefanik, New York
Will Hurd, Texas
John Ratcliffe, Texas
Ex officio
Kevin McCarthy, California

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:15 am

nafod wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:15 pm I've brought a phone into a SCIF before. It got the cybersecurity version of prison sex before I got it back.

You're looking at it in the wrong context.

This is millenial Sparta!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:14 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:03 pm Rep Matt Gaetz has stormed the SCIF with an unsecured phone and is tweeting. A few reasons why this is quite bad:

I call shenanigans. Is it really a SCIF if you can tweet over wireless from inside?

nafod · Post by **nafod** » Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:20 pm

Turdacious wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:14 pm
Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 4:03 pm Rep Matt Gaetz has stormed the SCIF with an unsecured phone and is tweeting. A few reasons why this is quite bad:

I call shenanigans. Is it really a SCIF if you can tweet over wireless from inside?

It depends. We used to be able to bring in approved passive pagers that only received, for example. So not a complete "Faraday cage". Just highly controlled what goes in and out.

Computers in them are required to not emanate a signal beyond the SCIF, so no one could eavesdrop. But if a knucklehead Congressman's hacked phone got in there and listened and picked up signals though...

Grandpa's Spells · Post by **Grandpa's Spells** » Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:55 pm

Roger Stone off to prison.

Gene · Post by **Gene** » Sat Nov 16, 2019 11:24 am

Grandpa's Spells wrote: ↑Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:55 pm Roger Stone off to prison.

Selective Outrage is a powerful too, Troy.

IGX

What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?

Re: What to make of the election?