The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[indiucky]

That's not exactly what I meant. The woman in question was a relative unknown when she wore that dress. She put it on, gained a fair bit of celebrity, took it off, and returned to obscurity. She understood the gimmick, and returning to the well to replay the gimmick. Jay-Z, Beyonce, Lady GaGa, Ryan Gosling, Jackeé, Paris Jackson, and Ryan Phillipe hardly need the notoriety fro such a gimmick, as their fame is well documented through their work. The others, like the chick with the Obama dress, Heidi and Spense, and the other unknowns, valid comparison....IF..... they have tried to make hay out of their first display by attempting to do it again.

She's been around a spell.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_Villa

[h=2]Entertainment Career[edit][/h]Villa has worked as an actress and producer. From age 14 to 16, she was with Youth Network TV on Comcast Television. With the exception of Hobgoblins 2,[SUP][3][/SUP] her acting career mostly consists of minor, uncredited appearances on television. These roles include an umbrella-wielding carny in the Heroes Season 4 episode "Orientation", and other appearances on CSI: NY, The Valley Girls and MTV Next.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That's not exactly what I meant. The woman in question was a relative unknown when she wore that dress. She put it on, gained a fair bit of celebrity, took it off, and returned to obscurity. She understood the gimmick, and returning to the well to replay the gimmick. Jay-Z, Beyonce, Lady GaGa, Ryan Gosling, Jackeé, Paris Jackson, and Ryan Phillipe hardly need the notoriety fro such a gimmick, as their fame is well documented through their work. The others, like the chick with the Obama dress, Heidi and Spense, and the other unknowns, valid comparison....IF..... they have tried to make hay out of their first display by attempting to do it again.

You know whom all those people are?

Pop culture is completely lost on me...

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;gwEpGr-nvCg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwEpGr-nvCg[/video]

 

[hoosierdoc]

Give it up, he doesn't care he says things that aren't true.

I've not seen a single detailed timeline to support this... all timelines with details indicate that a Republican concern funded Fusion GPS oppo research, but DNC/Clinton took over in April of 2016 and that Steele was hired AFTER that... and his first report of "findings" was in June 2016. The "Republican concern" was the Free Beacon... which released this statement:



The pee-pee memo was wholely funded by Clinton and the DNC after it became apparent Trump would clinch the nomination. Dems have known and lied about that for over a year now... that is the disinformation campaign... one that is falling apart on their heads.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Give it up, he doesn't care he says things that aren't true.

I wouldn't say that about him. There are two others here who absolutely continue repeating false narratives (also known as propaganda or fake news) even after the objective facts prove whatever juicy tidbit of the moment that is appealing to their worldview to be false. And they later resurrect them as part of their overall opinions, slipping them in here and there, repeatedly. I have given up on engaging them and employed the ignore feature.

Repeatedly spreading known and proven falsehoods garners one a scarlet L with me, whether it be an individual, news source or opinion source. This is one of those issues where news sources that "spin" the narrative that the dossier was started by Republicans show their penchant towards false narratives and propaganda. It's just too good of a story for them to let go of, even if it is false. Big L and treat accordingly.

So, although I have repeatedly disagreed, sometimes heatedly, with the canine-one, I do not recall an instance where he repeated objectively false facts (as opposed to differing opinions, which are subjective) after the objective facts are known. So, he retains my respect and I continue to debate him... in other words, we simply disagree on opinions.

He's "next level" purple IMHO.

Which makes him a worthy debating opponent.

 

[Alpo]

I wouldn't say that about him. There are two others here who absolutely continue repeating false narratives (also known as propaganda or fake news) even after the objective facts prove whatever juicy tidbit of the moment that is appealing to their worldview to be false. And they later resurrect them as part of their overall opinions, slipping them in here and there, repeatedly. I have given up on engaging them and employed the ignore feature.

Repeatedly spreading known and proven falsehoods garners one a scarlet L with me, whether it be an individual, news source or opinion source. This is one of those issues where news sources that "spin" the narrative that the dossier was started by Republicans show their penchant towards false narratives and propaganda. It's just too good of a story for them to let go of, even if it is false. Big L and treat accordingly.

So, although I have repeatedly disagreed, sometimes heatedly, with the canine-one, I do not recall an instance where he repeated objectively false facts (as opposed to differing opinions, which are subjective) after the objective facts are known. So, he retains my respect and I continue to debate him... in other words, we simply disagree on opinions.

He's "next level" purple IMHO.

Which makes him a worthy debating opponent.

Thank you....I think.

It is sometimes difficult to debate any subject because there is a tendency to pick apart a specific not-nearly-so-important aspect of a reply, or strawman an argument.

I think the Uranium One argument is pretty much put to bed at this point. I haven't seen anything from the "But Obama, Benghazi" types in a page or two suggesting that they have new information supporting an indictment related to Uranium One. So much for believing Fox News.

Now, on the "dossier" and its precursors: I will repeat--let us await an indictment, if any might arise, before picking the nits out of each other's hair. There is lots of conjecture, and I'm sure some believe they have the "facts". These are also the same people who, at times, suggest that 9-11 was a US government conspiracy and the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition.

 

[jamil]

I kinda doubt there'll be any indictments concerning the "dossier" if it involves democrats or establishment Republicans. That seems pretty far out of scope for this investigation from what I've seen so far. This smells every bit as much a witch hunt as Kenneth Star's investigation of the Clintons. Star was just there to dig **** up that Republicans could use to impeach the Clintons. All they could find was Clinton lying about getting a ******* in the Oval Office from an intern. So they went with that.

I think the bar will be even lower for Trump.

 

[Alpo]

I don't know. Perhaps there is something in Trump's undisclosed financial documentation that could rise to a level of an indictable offense. Perhaps not.

I kinda see Mueller taking out the support players. If Kushner, Ivanka, Don Jr. get rolled into an indictment, who knows where the politics might lead? It could be bloody. Or, perhaps some form of "pre-indictment diversion" trade is made. I don't think Mueller is the horse-trading type however.

 

[indiucky]

So, although I have repeatedly disagreed, sometimes heatedly, with the canine-one, I do not recall an instance where he repeated objectively false facts (as opposed to differing opinions, which are subjective) after the objective facts are known. So, he retains my respect and I continue to debate him... in other words, we simply disagree on opinions.

He's "next level" purple IMHO.

Which makes him a worthy debating opponent.

I agree...Plus he has pretty good taste in music and women...

 

[Leadeye]

I don't know who any of those people in the pictures are, must be modern celebs.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Me either. I am extremely anti-celebrity. Except trump. Love that guy.

I don't know who any of those people in the pictures are, must be modern celebs.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Thank you....I think.

Yes, and you are welcome. I can say with no purple meant or implied that "Next level purple" is a high compliment.

It is sometimes difficult to debate any subject because there is a tendency to pick apart a specific not-nearly-so-important aspect of a reply, or strawman an argument.

I think the Uranium One argument is pretty much put to bed at this point. I haven't seen anything from the "But Obama, Benghazi" types in a page or two suggesting that they have new information supporting an indictment related to Uranium One. So much for believing Fox News.

I think the money to the Clintons and their Foundation in relation to Uranium One is "old news". That there were FBI findings that Putin-connected Russian interests had a campaign of bribery and extortion surrounding the deal is not... and puts the previously known Clinton involvement into a wholely new context. Ditto burying the bribery/extortion surrounding the purchase which should have brought the purchase to a screeching halt, IMO.

Now, on the "dossier" and its precursors: I will repeat--let us await an indictment, if any might arise, before picking the nits out of each other's hair. There is lots of conjecture, and I'm sure some believe they have the "facts". These are also the same people who, at times, suggest that 9-11 was a US government conspiracy and the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition.

The whole the "Republicans" financed the dossier first false narrative is meant to give the unsubstantiated oppo dirt dig more credence than it deserves on it's face... that is until and unless any parts of it that are important are substantiated. Without that tidbit, people in general would likely give it no more credence than some hidden nugget of truth that might reside in say the pages of the National Enquirer, which is about the level of the dossier, IMO.

 

[jamil]

I don't know. Perhaps there is something in Trump's undisclosed financial documentation that could rise to a level of an indictable offense. Perhaps not.

I kinda see Mueller taking out the support players. If Kushner, Ivanka, Don Jr. get rolled into an indictment, who knows where the politics might lead? It could be bloody. Or, perhaps some form of "pre-indictment diversion" trade is made. I don't think Mueller is the horse-trading type however.

No. Not the horse trading type if he can dig up a charge for the ones he really wants to nail. Who knows. Maybe Trump will purger himself about getting a ******* from some intern and that's all Mueller can get him on. Not likely though. Trump may actually boast about that.

 

[hoosierdoc]

"Show me the person and I'll show you the crime" - Stalin's Russia

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...rump-stalinist-show-man-ill-show-crime-video/

our system does not allow investigation of a person to determine if they committed a crime. You have to have evidence a crime happened and then search for someone who did it.

Everyone commits felonies. Just happens. Most are unintentional.

this is an absurd witch hunt trying, by any means, to reverse the election by impeaching trump. It is a coup.

 

[BugI02]

Thank you....I think.

It is sometimes difficult to debate any subject because there is a tendency to pick apart a specific not-nearly-so-important aspect of a reply, or strawman an argument.

I think the Uranium One argument is pretty much put to bed at this point. I haven't seen anything from the "But Obama, Benghazi" types in a page or two suggesting that they have new information supporting an indictment related to Uranium One. So much for believing Fox News.

Now, on the "dossier" and its precursors: I will repeat--let us await an indictment, if any might arise, before picking the nits out of each other's hair. There is lots of conjecture, and I'm sure some believe they have the "facts". These are also the same people who, at times, suggest that 9-11 was a US government conspiracy and the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition.

In this arena I just don't find indictments (or their lack) terribly compelling

"A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if that's what you wanted" - Sol Wachtler

So the question becomes what does Mueller want? I don't think the answer is the truth

 

[Hawkeye]

"Show me the person and I'll show you the crime" - Stalin's Russia

FLASHBACK: Dershowitz: Current Investigation on Trump is Stalinist - "Show Me the Man and I'll Show You the Crime" (VIDEO)

our system does not allow investigation of a person to determine if they committed a crime. You have to have evidence a crime happened and then search for someone who did it.

Everyone commits felonies. Just happens. Most are unintentional.

this is an absurd witch hunt trying, by any means, to reverse the election by impeaching trump. It is a coup.

Assuming they are successful, it doesn't really reverse the election. Hilary does not get to be president. Pence does as VP. Then Ryan, Hatch, Tillerson - and eventually MAD DOG MATTIS!

 

[hoosierdoc]

I know, but they just want trump gone since he stole it from her and he's an outsider

 

[Hawkeye]

I know, but they just want trump gone since he stole it from her and he's an outsider

Sounds rather nihilistic. The politics of destruction?

 

[Alpo]

In this arena I just don't find indictments (or their lack) terribly compelling

"A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich if that's what you wanted" - Sol Wachtler

So the question becomes what does Mueller want? I don't think the answer is the truth

In general, I would agree. But an indictment is at least 3 levels above anything on cable news or the blogosphere. In Mueller's case, I see him on the side of civilization vs. chaos.

 

[Alpo]

The whole the "Republicans" financed the dossier first false narrative is meant to give the unsubstantiated oppo dirt dig more credence than it deserves on it's face... that is until and unless any parts of it that are important are substantiated. Without that tidbit, people in general would likely give it no more credence than some hidden nugget of truth that might reside in say the pages of the National Enquirer, which is about the level of the dossier, IMO.

Knowing how things have worked in my employment in the past, I think it might fair to extrapolate a bit. Fusion found out more than the republicans bargained for in their agreement. That information was then available to the opposition, who might have then requested further corroboration through Steele. Steele's raw intelligence then would need further corroboration. But, I think I see a start to a string of dominoes. Who knows whether there are more facts to validate the raw intelligence or whether these were the ramblings of some vodka-soaked apparatchik.

It is a doorway to nowhere at the moment. But, it might eventually lead somewhere. Arrests sometimes yield facts not discoverable through normal investigation.