I met my wonderful wife 15 years ago today.
billhike posted:I met my wonderful wife 15 years ago today.
Time to celebrate!!
Napa, speaking of hypocrites.....
"If I win I may never see my property -- I may never see these places again," Trump said at an August 2016 campaign event. "But because I'm going to be working for you, I'm not going to have time to go golfing, believe me. Believe me. Believe me, folks."
Days Trump has spent at Mar a Lago:
87
Cost of flights to Mar a Lago (23 so far):*
~$45,232,000
Days Trump has spent at Bedminster:
58
Cost of flights to Bedminster (19 so far):*
~$14,392,000
Trump has visited his clubs once every this many days since his inauguration:
4.9
Projected visits to golf clubs in four years:
297
Projected visits in eight years:
593
Total times Obama played golf during his eight year Presidency:
306
bman posted:Napa, speaking of hypocrites.....
"If I win I may never see my property -- I may never see these places again," Trump said at an August 2016 campaign event. "But because I'm going to be working for you, I'm not going to have time to go golfing, believe me. Believe me. Believe me, folks."
Days Trump has spent at Mar a Lago:
87
Cost of flights to Mar a Lago (23 so far):*
~$45,232,000
Days Trump has spent at Bedminster:
58
Cost of flights to Bedminster (19 so far):*
~$14,392,000
Trump has visited his clubs once every this many days since his inauguration:
4.9
Projected visits to golf clubs in four years:
297
Projected visits in eight years:
593
Total times Obama played golf during his eight year Presidency:
306
Agree...that is out of line in my opinion.
Now having said that, he has still outperformed President ("get used to it, this is the new Norm") Obama on the Economy and a multitude of many other success stories.
Congrats Billhike.
napacat posted:The Old Man posted:napacat post: How could anyone vote for a democrat. It just strains common sense.How could anyone, of any party, vote for a bigoted racist sexist know-nothing demagogue of a president like the pussy-grabber in chief? It strains common decency.
You're kidding. Do you happen to recall what the other choice was? I have never seen a more anti-american group than the present Democrats. Just disgusting. They care zero for what they espouse...just try to build a dependent voter base.
So you don't want to address your hero's racism, bigotry, sexism, lack of knowledge of basic facts, nor his self-confessed pussy grabbing? I left out his record-breaking daily lies, his admiration of dictators, and his support for white nationalists. But...but...Hillary. That's the best you've got? Pathetic.
The Old Man posted:napacat posted:The Old Man posted:napacat post: How could anyone vote for a democrat. It just strains common sense.How could anyone, of any party, vote for a bigoted racist sexist know-nothing demagogue of a president like the pussy-grabber in chief? It strains common decency.
You're kidding. Do you happen to recall what the other choice was? I have never seen a more anti-american group than the present Democrats. Just disgusting. They care zero for what they espouse...just try to build a dependent voter base.
So you don't want to address your hero's racism, bigotry, sexism, lack of knowledge of basic facts, nor his self-confessed pussy grabbing? I left out his record-breaking daily lies, his admiration of dictators, and his support for white nationalists. But...but...Hillary. That's the best you've got? Pathetic.
+1
I would add that now that it's known that Trump overruled 25 proper and correct (according to long-standing procedures) decisions to refuse high-level security clearances to his family and cronies, many of whom apparently went on to use private cell phones to send classified messages, and all while he and his Trumpanzees continue to chant "lock her up" because Hillary used a private server for some messages, the level of hypocrisy has reached epic levels, even for him!
He doesn't play golf. He hits a ball, and the cheats provide him a score.
Putin’s Bitch has sagely pointed out the need to investigate the orange industry’s complicity in the Mueller investigation. Otherwise known as proof number 1 billion that Putin’s Bitch is mentally handicapped.........
The Old Man posted:napacat posted:The Old Man posted:napacat post: How could anyone vote for a democrat. It just strains common sense.How could anyone, of any party, vote for a bigoted racist sexist know-nothing demagogue of a president like the pussy-grabber in chief? It strains common decency.
You're kidding. Do you happen to recall what the other choice was? I have never seen a more anti-american group than the present Democrats. Just disgusting. They care zero for what they espouse...just try to build a dependent voter base.
So you don't want to address your hero's racism, bigotry, sexism, lack of knowledge of basic facts, nor his self-confessed pussy grabbing? I left out his record-breaking daily lies, his admiration of dictators, and his support for white nationalists. But...but...Hillary. That's the best you've got? Pathetic.
Why bother...you just repeat what the media wants you to think. All of the above is the narrative they have spouted from day one. You love Bill Clinton and suspend all morality for him...then hold everyone else accountable. Let's leave it as is....we're not changing anyone's minds. You should however, refund any monetary gains during Trump's presidency in protest. Send it into the treasury. Funds will be needed to help all of the illegals attempting to come in.
napacat posted:The Old Man posted:napacat posted:The Old Man posted:napacat post: How could anyone vote for a democrat. It just strains common sense.How could anyone, of any party, vote for a bigoted racist sexist know-nothing demagogue of a president like the pussy-grabber in chief? It strains common decency.
You're kidding. Do you happen to recall what the other choice was? I have never seen a more anti-american group than the present Democrats. Just disgusting. They care zero for what they espouse...just try to build a dependent voter base.
So you don't want to address your hero's racism, bigotry, sexism, lack of knowledge of basic facts, nor his self-confessed pussy grabbing? I left out his record-breaking daily lies, his admiration of dictators, and his support for white nationalists. But...but...Hillary. That's the best you've got? Pathetic.
Why bother...you just repeat what the media wants you to think. All of the above is the narrative they have spouted from day one. You love Bill Clinton and suspend all morality for him...then hold everyone else accountable. Let's leave it as is....we're not changing anyone's minds. You should however, refund any monetary gains during Trump's presidency in protest. Send it into the treasury. Funds will be needed to help all of the illegals attempting to come in.
What the media wants me to think and not what I've seen him say and do with my own eyes. You're are truly deluded and your support for this slimeball is despicable.
But...but...Bill Clinton. Here's a link to the Soviet's favorite tack, and now apparently yours, it's the logical fallacy known as whataboutism. Again, you have no real response to defending the low-life in chief. And though you tried to make it all about sex I mentioned some of his many other deep, and anti-democratic, flaws.
And for what it's worth I not only don't love Bill Clinton, I don't even like him.
You are a very poor and weak arguer. Sad.
You should however, refund any monetary gains during Trump's presidency in protest. Send it into the treasury.
Due to the Putin Bitch tax cut, we did as you suggested. Sent money in, no refund for first time in 15 years
The Old Man posted:napacat posted:The Old Man posted:napacat posted:The Old Man posted:napacat post: How could anyone vote for a democrat. It just strains common sense.How could anyone, of any party, vote for a bigoted racist sexist know-nothing demagogue of a president like the pussy-grabber in chief? It strains common decency.
You're kidding. Do you happen to recall what the other choice was? I have never seen a more anti-american group than the present Democrats. Just disgusting. They care zero for what they espouse...just try to build a dependent voter base.
So you don't want to address your hero's racism, bigotry, sexism, lack of knowledge of basic facts, nor his self-confessed pussy grabbing? I left out his record-breaking daily lies, his admiration of dictators, and his support for white nationalists. But...but...Hillary. That's the best you've got? Pathetic.
Why bother...you just repeat what the media wants you to think. All of the above is the narrative they have spouted from day one. You love Bill Clinton and suspend all morality for him...then hold everyone else accountable. Let's leave it as is....we're not changing anyone's minds. You should however, refund any monetary gains during Trump's presidency in protest. Send it into the treasury. Funds will be needed to help all of the illegals attempting to come in.
What the media wants me to think and not what I've seen him say and do with my own eyes. You're are truly deluded and your support for this slimeball is despicable.
But...but...Bill Clinton. Here's a link to the Soviet's favorite tack, and now apparently yours, it's the logical fallacy known as whataboutism. Again, you have no real response to defending the low-life in chief. And though you tried to make it all about sex I mentioned some of his many other deep, and anti-democratic, flaws.
And for what it's worth I not only don't love Bill Clinton, I don't even like him.
You are a very poor and weak arguer. Sad.
I'll give it a shot...it's not about "whataboutism"...it is rather just pointing out the pure hypocrisy. That is what is truly sad. I don't see Trump as a racist. The immigration issue is a complete joke the way the media portrays it. Trump never said he had a problem with immigrants. In fact, he said he welcomes all who come legally...as we all do. I have a huge problem with illegals. In fact it should make everyone upset when they see these people on TV stating..."we are coming and you cannot stop us". The media calls them immigrants. Which they are not. They are illegal aliens. Come legally and you are then an immigrant.
The Charlottesville thing...saying there are good people on both sides, that was blown out of proportion completely. There are, I'm sure very good people on both sides indeed, some who want to defend and keep the Confederate flag.
Sexism...ok I think you got me there. The tape was pretty bad. Cheating on your new wife is far worse and I think that is terrible. I actually have no respect for men that do that.
At the end of the day though...he won the primary and I could never bring myself to vote for a democrat, as I just don't believe anything they stand for. And the thing is...neither do they. They need to put people into groups and pit the other side (republicans) against them. It's the only way they can get people to vote for them.. Surely it cannot be based on their ideas...
Open Borders, reparations, Abolish ICE, Carbon Tax, more income tax...on and on with nonsense.
There are very good people in the white supremacy movement? The ones marching with torches chanting anti-Jewish slogans?
Your parents really fucked up.
billhike posted:There are very good people in the white supremacy movement? The ones marching with torches chanting anti-Jewish slogans?
Your parents really fucked up.
Wondering how Napa knows so much about people in the white supremacist movement....
Immigration policy is a total mess, with 100,000 people illegally crossing the border this month. The illegals used to be just men looking for work, now it is families or purported families that cross and claim asylum. With current laws, they get released into the US never to be seen again. The Dems need to admit there is a serious problem and work with Repubs to fix it.
thistlintom posted:Immigration policy is a total mess, with 100,000 people illegally crossing the border this month. The illegals used to be just men looking for work, now it is families or purported families that cross and claim asylum. With current laws, they get released into the US never to be seen again. The Dems need to admit there is a serious problem and work with Repubs to fix it.
Absolutely a mess, and kicked down the road for too long. But I can’t help feeling that Trump’s rhetoric on the issue impedes progress. Not that Congress needs help being inefficient.
napacat posted:The Old Man posted:napacat posted:The Old Man posted:napacat posted:The Old Man posted:napacat post: How could anyone vote for a democrat. It just strains common sense.How could anyone, of any party, vote for a bigoted racist sexist know-nothing demagogue of a president like the pussy-grabber in chief? It strains common decency.
You're kidding. Do you happen to recall what the other choice was? I have never seen a more anti-american group than the present Democrats. Just disgusting. They care zero for what they espouse...just try to build a dependent voter base.
So you don't want to address your hero's racism, bigotry, sexism, lack of knowledge of basic facts, nor his self-confessed pussy grabbing? I left out his record-breaking daily lies, his admiration of dictators, and his support for white nationalists. But...but...Hillary. That's the best you've got? Pathetic.
Why bother...you just repeat what the media wants you to think. All of the above is the narrative they have spouted from day one. You love Bill Clinton and suspend all morality for him...then hold everyone else accountable. Let's leave it as is....we're not changing anyone's minds. You should however, refund any monetary gains during Trump's presidency in protest. Send it into the treasury. Funds will be needed to help all of the illegals attempting to come in.
What the media wants me to think and not what I've seen him say and do with my own eyes. You're are truly deluded and your support for this slimeball is despicable.
But...but...Bill Clinton. Here's a link to the Soviet's favorite tack, and now apparently yours, it's the logical fallacy known as whataboutism. Again, you have no real response to defending the low-life in chief. And though you tried to make it all about sex I mentioned some of his many other deep, and anti-democratic, flaws.
And for what it's worth I not only don't love Bill Clinton, I don't even like him.
You are a very poor and weak arguer. Sad.
I'll give it a shot...it's not about "whataboutism"...it is rather just pointing out the pure hypocrisy. That is what is truly sad. I don't see Trump as a racist. The immigration issue is a complete joke the way the media portrays it. Trump never said he had a problem with immigrants. In fact, he said he welcomes all who come legally...as we all do. I have a huge problem with illegals. In fact it should make everyone upset when they see these people on TV stating..."we are coming and you cannot stop us". The media calls them immigrants. Which they are not. They are illegal aliens. Come legally and you are then an immigrant.
The Charlottesville thing...saying there are good people on both sides, that was blown out of proportion completely. There are, I'm sure very good people on both sides indeed, some who want to defend and keep the Confederate flag.
Sexism...ok I think you got me there. The tape was pretty bad. Cheating on your new wife is far worse and I think that is terrible. I actually have no respect for men that do that.
At the end of the day though...he won the primary and I could never bring myself to vote for a democrat, as I just don't believe anything they stand for. And the thing is...neither do they. They need to put people into groups and pit the other side (republicans) against them. It's the only way they can get people to vote for them.. Surely it cannot be based on their ideas...
Open Borders, reparations, Abolish ICE, Carbon Tax, more income tax...on and on with nonsense.
I'd like to leave you to your delusions, but as I said you're such a poor arguer, I'm afraid I can't.
Let's see how your handle Trump's long history of racism and bigotry (BTW saying that Mexico is sending rapists and murderers and SOME fine people is the pure definition of bigotry.) Your argument against, "I don't see Trump as a racist." Very nuanced response. I can give example and example (Restricting renting apartments to blacks, leading the movement to falsely claim the first black president was born in Kenya, etc.) But your brilliant retort, "I don't see Trump as a racist" shows your depth of thinking.
"The Charlottesville thing" (I love your name for this sick day in America.) Let's look at some of the groups that were there shall we? At the Unite the Right rally were, "members of the far-right and included self-identified members of the alt-right, neo-Confederates, neo-fascists,[ white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen,and various militias. The marchers chanted racist and antisemitic slogans, carried semi-automatic rifles, Nazi and neo-Nazi symbols (such as the swastika, Odal rune, Black Sun, and Iron Cross), the Valknut, Confederate battle flags, Deus Vult crosses, flags and other symbols of various past and present anti-Muslim and antisemitic groups. Within the Charlottesville area, the rally is often known as The organizers' stated goals included unifying the American white nationalist movement and to oppose removing a statue of Robert E. Lee from Charlottesville's Lee Park."
So I guess you and the president are saying those opposed to removing statues are the fine people. But let me ask you this, whatever your cause, would it drive you to march with people flying swastikas and shouting, "Jews will not replace us"? Your man/child in chief has always had a problem calling out anyone who likes him, even neo-Nazis. But he has no problem attacking black athletes and actors.
"Sexism...ok I think you got me there. The tape was pretty bad. Cheating on your new wife is far worse and I think that is terrible."
That kind of says it there, is it far worse to cheat on your wife than to sexually assault women? In the tape he says that's exactly what he does and almost 20 women have said that he has. But of course they're all lying. I really don't care about his martial problems, that's whoever is his current wife's problem, but sexual assault (you know like your supposed to be so concerned about like Clinton) is terrible. Also what kind of man agrees with someone (in this case the yucky Howard Stern) that is daughter his a "great piece of ass"?
Anyway, you're horrible at debating so please don't type more inane things that I have to spend time on correcting.
billhike posted:There are very good people in the white supremacy movement? The ones marching with torches chanting anti-Jewish slogans?
Your parents really fucked up.
This...right here is why no-one can ever say anything that is not 100% mainstream with you thought police. Not one word did I stick up for white supremacists or in favor of what they stand for. I think there were good people marching in favor of not having statues torn down and for the Confederate flag. And by saying that...you extrapolate it out into non-sense.
billhike posted:thistlintom posted:Immigration policy is a total mess, with 100,000 people illegally crossing the border this month. The illegals used to be just men looking for work, now it is families or purported families that cross and claim asylum. With current laws, they get released into the US never to be seen again. The Dems need to admit there is a serious problem and work with Repubs to fix it.
Absolutely a mess, and kicked down the road for too long. But I can’t help feeling that Trump’s rhetoric on the issue impedes progress. Not that Congress needs help being inefficient.
Well that may be part of it. The other problems include many on the progressive left who want to see illegal immigration (tear down walls, eliminate ICE) and many Democrats who are more focused on taking down Trump and will oppose him regardless of the issue and the need for a fix.
napacat posted:billhike posted:There are very good people in the white supremacy movement? The ones marching with torches chanting anti-Jewish slogans?
Your parents really fucked up.
This...right here is why no-one can ever say anything that is not 100% mainstream with you thought police. Not one word did I stick up for white supremacists or in favor of what they stand for. I think there were good people marching in favor of not having statues torn down and for the Confederate flag. And by saying that...you extrapolate it out into non-sense.
As I said, what kind of fine people, no matter how good their cause (and this isn't a very good cause), would march with neo-Nazis flying swastikas, chanting racist and anti-semitic slogans? I believe I can state, without contradiction, that anyone who marches with these types of people is not a fine person.
billhike posted:thistlintom posted:Immigration policy is a total mess, with 100,000 people illegally crossing the border this month. The illegals used to be just men looking for work, now it is families or purported families that cross and claim asylum. With current laws, they get released into the US never to be seen again. The Dems need to admit there is a serious problem and work with Repubs to fix it.
Absolutely a mess, and kicked down the road for too long. But I can’t help feeling that Trump’s rhetoric on the issue impedes progress. Not that Congress needs help being inefficient.
As long as Trump insistes on billions for his wall, immigration reform will be stalled. The two parties had a deal to fund the wall and give Dreamers status but Trump pulled the rug out at the last minute due to shrieking from the usual Fox News suspects. Two of the country's best ever political tacticians lead the House and Senate and could probably craft a bipartisan deal if only Trump would get on board. And even if he did, why go to all that trouble when the only thing he can be depended upon to do is screw it up?
As for the demographic change in the largely Central American movement of refugee claimants to the US, it is not surprise to me. nor is it a bad thing. I worked as a visa/refugee officer for 6 years in Central America, over a 26 year period (1986-2012) . In the 80s and 90s young men and women were fleeing because they were the targets of recruiters on both sides in the various civil wars. Now the issue is rampant crime, which affects whole families and so they are the ones fleeing. And I say that it is not a bad thing that the movement has changed from young single people to families because young children assimilate much better than adults and their parents will still be filling the gaps in the labour market that they have always filled. And parents with children are less likely to turn to crime than young single men and women.
The Old Man posted:napacat posted:billhike posted:There are very good people in the white supremacy movement? The ones marching with torches chanting anti-Jewish slogans?
Your parents really fucked up.
This...right here is why no-one can ever say anything that is not 100% mainstream with you thought police. Not one word did I stick up for white supremacists or in favor of what they stand for. I think there were good people marching in favor of not having statues torn down and for the Confederate flag. And by saying that...you extrapolate it out into non-sense.
As I said, what kind of fine people, no matter how good their cause (and this isn't a very good cause), would march with neo-Nazis flying swastikas, chanting racist and anti-semitic slogans? I believe I can state, without contradiction, that anyone who marches with these types of people is not a fine person.
Not to belabor this too much - but as this descent into lunacy has proceeded, I have always said that whoever the KKK and neo-Nazis and white supremacists are aligned with/support - choosing the opposite should be a simple decision - but that is just me
thistlintom posted:billhike posted:thistlintom posted:Immigration policy is a total mess, with 100,000 people illegally crossing the border this month. The illegals used to be just men looking for work, now it is families or purported families that cross and claim asylum. With current laws, they get released into the US never to be seen again. The Dems need to admit there is a serious problem and work with Repubs to fix it.
Absolutely a mess, and kicked down the road for too long. But I can’t help feeling that Trump’s rhetoric on the issue impedes progress. Not that Congress needs help being inefficient.
Well that may be part of it. The other problems include many on the progressive left who want to see illegal immigration (tear down walls, eliminate ICE) and many Democrats who are more focused on taking down Trump and will oppose him regardless of the issue and the need for a fix.
I don’t disagree with your reply. And FWIW, I’m not fully aligned with either party’s ideology. 
The Old Man posted:napacat posted:billhike posted:There are very good people in the white supremacy movement? The ones marching with torches chanting anti-Jewish slogans?
Your parents really fucked up.
This...right here is why no-one can ever say anything that is not 100% mainstream with you thought police. Not one word did I stick up for white supremacists or in favor of what they stand for. I think there were good people marching in favor of not having statues torn down and for the Confederate flag. And by saying that...you extrapolate it out into non-sense.
As I said, what kind of fine people, no matter how good their cause (and this isn't a very good cause), would march with neo-Nazis flying swastikas, chanting racist and anti-semitic slogans? I believe I can state, without contradiction, that anyone who marches with these types of people is not a fine person.
To you it is not a good cause...who are you to determine that? Any good people in the BLM movement?
bman posted:billhike posted:thistlintom posted:Immigration policy is a total mess, with 100,000 people illegally crossing the border this month. The illegals used to be just men looking for work, now it is families or purported families that cross and claim asylum. With current laws, they get released into the US never to be seen again. The Dems need to admit there is a serious problem and work with Repubs to fix it.
Absolutely a mess, and kicked down the road for too long. But I can’t help feeling that Trump’s rhetoric on the issue impedes progress. Not that Congress needs help being inefficient.
As long as Trump insistes on billions for his wall, immigration reform will be stalled. The two parties had a deal to fund the wall and give Dreamers status but Trump pulled the rug out at the last minute due to shrieking from the usual Fox News suspects. Two of the country's best ever political tacticians lead the House and Senate and could probably craft a bipartisan deal if only Trump would get on board. And even if he did, why go to all that trouble when the only thing he can be depended upon to do is screw it up?
As for the demographic change in the largely Central American movement of refugee claimants to the US, it is not surprise to me. nor is it a bad thing. I worked as a visa/refugee officer for 6 years in Central America, over a 26 year period (1986-2012) . In the 80s and 90s young men and women were fleeing because they were the targets of recruiters on both sides in the various civil wars. Now the issue is rampant crime, which affects whole families and so they are the ones fleeing. And I say that it is not a bad thing that the movement has changed from young single people to families because young children assimilate much better than adults and their parents will still be filling the gaps in the labour market that they have always filled. And parents with children are less likely to turn to crime than young single men and women.
Great...come legally. If you don't, you should be turned away at the border immediately.
napacat posted:The Old Man posted:napacat posted:billhike posted:There are very good people in the white supremacy movement? The ones marching with torches chanting anti-Jewish slogans?
Your parents really fucked up.
This...right here is why no-one can ever say anything that is not 100% mainstream with you thought police. Not one word did I stick up for white supremacists or in favor of what they stand for. I think there were good people marching in favor of not having statues torn down and for the Confederate flag. And by saying that...you extrapolate it out into non-sense.
As I said, what kind of fine people, no matter how good their cause (and this isn't a very good cause), would march with neo-Nazis flying swastikas, chanting racist and anti-semitic slogans? I believe I can state, without contradiction, that anyone who marches with these types of people is not a fine person.
To you it is not a good cause...who are you to determine that? Any good people in the BLM movement?
God, you're an ignorant fool or just terrible at deflection. I said, "no matter how GOOD their cause is..." (And yes I personally don't think it's a good one, but let's pretend you do.) Why would would you ever march with people wearing and waving Nazi symbols (you know Nazis, like in Hitler) and chanting racist and anti-semitic chants? Again, to get through your thick skull, no matter what your cause it's never right to march with neo-Nazis and White Supremacists. You are not a fine person, however righteous your cause is, if you march with this group of scumballs. Is that concept really too difficult for you to wrap your head around? Are all Trump supporters this dense?
napacat posted:Great...come legally. If you don't, you should be turned away at the border immediately.
Actually, there is nothing illegal with approaching a border and claiming refugee status. That's how it's done, especially when fleeing for one's life, as are many if not most of those leaving Central America. And under the UN Refugee Convention, which is law in the US and most of the world, it is illegal to turn away a refugee claimant. Now, once their claim is adjudicated, if it is found to be unfounded, then they can be deported but not before then, otherwise it would be the US who would be acting illegally.
However, there is another way to approach this. Refugees are supposed to make their claim in the first safe country they enter and so if Mexico was considered a safe country, they should make their claim there, which many do. And the US could make an agreement with Mexico, as we have with the US, to return refugee claimants to that safe third country, in the terminology, while their claim is adjudicated in the US, as we return refugee claimants coming from the US and making a claim in Canada to the US to await their decision. Some of them anyways. It's a little more complicated than that.
As I know that you like to get things right, here is a link to the UN Convention so that you can educate yourself on these things:
Facts and logic are ineffective against terminal whataboutism, bman.
You are arguing with a poster who said, "To you it is not a good cause...who are you to determine that? Any good people in the BLM movement?" And this in response to this comment:
"...what kind of fine people, no matter how good their cause (and this isn't a very good cause), would march with neo-Nazis flying swastikas, chanting racist and anti-semitic slogans?"
Who are we to determine that swastika flying neo-nazis chanting racist anti-Semites aren't representing a good cause? What the fck kind of question is that? Seriously??
I had some really good wines over the past week. I'll post on them in a bit. In the meantime, carry on!
PH
purplehaze posted:
I had some really good wines over the past week. I'll post on them in a bit. In the meantime, carry on!
PH
Hope none of them were my zin!
bman posted:purplehaze posted:
I had some really good wines over the past week. I'll post on them in a bit. In the meantime, carry on!
PH
Hope none of them were my zin!
Oh... I didn't drink them. They are too good as marinades!
purplehaze posted:bman posted:purplehaze posted:
I had some really good wines over the past week. I'll post on them in a bit. In the meantime, carry on!
PH
Hope none of them were my zin!
Oh... I didn't drink them. They are too good as marinades!
So harsh.....
Very fine people drink Zinfandel. I know at least one. But #whataboutretsina? 
Your Zins are safely chilling with real wines until you come south, or I come north. Trust me, they are safe from consumption down here.
PH
purplehaze posted:Very fine people drink Zinfandel. I know at least one. But #whataboutretsina?
Your Zins are safely chilling with real wines until you come south, or I come north. Trust me, they are safe from consumption down here.
PH
#whataboutpinkzin? At least my zins are red..... And I new they would be safe with you!
There is nothing wrong with Zins! Another arrow in the quiver of wine tastings.
thistlintom posted:There is nothing wrong with Zins! Another arrow in the quiver of wine tastings.
Zin was my one of my gateway wines from whites to reds many years ago. I still like it with smoked meats, especially with traditional BBQ sauces. As far as bman's comment on his Zins being red, I'm reminded of the first time I brought a bottle of "good" Zin to my parents' house for a cookout. My mom (a notorious consumer of White Zin) loved it, and asked me what it was. When I told her it was Zinfandel, she chided me and showed me her glass of Beringer White Zin, and told me... "this is Zinfandel." 
PH
I love the Sonoma bottling of Seghesio zin. Consistent year to year and a kick-ass qpr.
My wife and I are spending a few days in Nashville in early May. Driving straight through from the Chicago area. The route takes us through Louisville and we are heading down on a Saturday - I just realized it’s the same day they have some little horse race...
I just had my Turley Zins delivered yesterday...along with a couple Petite Syrahs. Now just need to make some pancakes to pour it on top of. I admit, I am a sucker periodically for a fruit bomb
pinotlvr posted:I just had my Turley Zins delivered yesterday...along with a couple Petite Syrahs. Now just need to make some pancakes to pour it on top of.
As the wine lord said: "Let he who is without zin, cast the first...…."
WTF is wrong with you people?!? Quit talking about wine on a wine forum. 
wait wait, Zins are considered wine??
They were until around 1999.
Bezos gives up $36 B to ex wife, still the richest man in the world.
Attachments
Images (1)
I dont know know if someone has tried wine with pork ham, is delicious, you can buy both of them in this shop
thistlintom posted:Bezos gives up $36 B to ex wife, still the richest man in the world.
She should be the richest lady also
flwino posted:thistlintom posted:Bezos gives up $36 B to ex wife, still the richest man in the world.
She should be the richest lady also
An interesting part in the deal is that Bezos retains the voting rights of the stock she owns. I wonder if that would make it harder for her to sell her shares if she wanted?
flwino posted:thistlintom posted:Bezos gives up $36 B to ex wife, still the richest man in the world.
She should be the richest lady also
3rd or 4th in the world depending on source. Not a bad place to be. She needs to have a cheeseburger or two though.
PH
Bezos should thank President Trump...he has gained more than anyone since his Presidency...$66B
Pres. Trump is confused about where his father was born? Recently claimed his father was born in Germany, but in the Art of the Deal, he says his father was born in New Jersey, and the truth is that his father was born in New York. No wonder he was confused about where Pres. Obama was born. If he can't recall the location of his own father's birth, it's not surprising that he'd screw up on the location of the birth of someone else.
He is seriously ill, this guy. The fact that he likes his steaks well done with ketchup is just another symptom.
irwin posted:Pres. Trump is confused about where his father was born? Recently claimed his father was born in Germany, but in the Art of the Deal, he says his father was born in New Jersey, and the truth is that his father was born in New York. No wonder he was confused about where Pres. Obama was born. If he can't recall the location of his own father's birth, it's not surprising that he'd screw up on the location of the birth of someone else.
He is seriously ill, this guy. The fact that he likes his steaks well done with ketchup is just another symptom.
PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT LIKE OUR COUNTRY HAS NEVER SEEN BEFORE!!!
irwin posted:Pres. Trump is confused about where his father was born? Recently claimed his father was born in Germany, but in the Art of the Deal, he says his father was born in New Jersey, and the truth is that his father was born in New York. No wonder he was confused about where Pres. Obama was born. If he can't recall the location of his own father's birth, it's not surprising that he'd screw up on the location of the birth of someone else.
He is seriously ill, this guy. The fact that he likes his steaks well done with ketchup is just another symptom.
When you make up everything you say on the spot, it's a little hard to keep things straight.
mneeley490 posted:irwin posted:Pres. Trump is confused about where his father was born? Recently claimed his father was born in Germany, but in the Art of the Deal, he says his father was born in New Jersey, and the truth is that his father was born in New York. No wonder he was confused about where Pres. Obama was born. If he can't recall the location of his own father's birth, it's not surprising that he'd screw up on the location of the birth of someone else.
He is seriously ill, this guy. The fact that he likes his steaks well done with ketchup is just another symptom.
When you make up everything you say on the spot, it's a little hard to keep things straight.
He made up that Trump didn't seem to know where his father was born? Here's your boy:
Adult man doesn't know where his father was born, thinks he's from another country.
My own favorite:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/05...eater-rate-dantonio/
From CNN re his mental state. Interesting. Time for amendment # 25
Secret Service head canned.
"On Monday, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said it would slap tariffs on EU goods ranging from aircraft to fish, dairy products to binoculars, olive oil and WINE, according to a preliminary list."
flwino posted:Secret Service head canned.
It just goes on and on... tRump apparently, as is his habit, gave Alles the disparaging nickname of "Dumbo," making fun of his large ears. Brilliant manager and motivator that he is, making fun of the guy whose department is responsible for his personal safety. What a tool.
PH
Maybe the personal detail will protest by standing down for a day.
Putin’s Bitch was mad that they didn’t tell him about Devin Nunes’ #YachtCocaineProstitutes charity event.......
billhike posted:Maybe the personal detail will protest by standing down for a day.
One could only hope. Then he'd have to hole up in the WH with a dozen cheesberders and a Big Gulp of covfefe. Oh yeah... he does this most days anyway.
(Un) fortunately, these poor guys are still tasked with taking a bullet for his idiocy, regardless of how he denigrates their work.
PH
In defense of the dumpster. There are a lot of jobs available in the country now. Only problem is that the openings all will report to him.
trump is singlehandedly increasing the unemployment rate.
Flying water tankers. Must act fast!
billhike posted:Flying water tankers. Must act fast!
Interestingly, it was actually considered, along with helicopters with water. Unfortunately, it took up to 45 minutes before they actually sprayed any water on the structure, Sounds like they were not prepared for such a problem.
The area next to the church is not very accessible with the river on one side and the park at the south end. Streets on the east side are very narrow
I assume that there were not fire sprinkler installed within the structure. Maybe they can rectify that with the rebuild.
I wonder how long it will take to rebuild the church. Sounds like money is pouring in, so maybe it will be rebuilt sooner rather than later.
mneeley490 posted:thistlintom posted:Napacat is right. I have read from several sources that Barr is working with Mueller on redactions to the report before releasing it to Congress and the White House. So Guiliani would not see it before Trump or Congress.
Interesting, Dershowitz argues that Trump and his legal group should be able to see the report and issue their own findings in concert with the release of the Mueller report to Congress. His argument is that the Mueller report is a prosecutor's report and the defense should be able to provide a response at the same time. But Barr has decided against that and will release the Mueller report by itself.
I'm alright with them releasing their own spin after it is released to Congress. Especially as Trump will probably find himself a defendant at some point. However, what I do not want to see is Barr pull another "Nunes"; racing to the WH in the dead of night to spoonfeed them the report before anyone else has a chance to see it.
Nailed it, unfortunately. As predicted, Barr is loading the dice. Anyone in the WH who told the complete truth about their dealings with Trump had better jump now.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0...-mueller-report.html
Of course my boss did not collude with the Russians. I know my boss and he would never do that.
So to recap the Mueller Report, now that it is out:
-Wikileaks colluded with Russia to obtain its stolen emails
-Trump Junior and others in the Trump campaign colluded with Wikileaks over the stolen emails (proven through emails between them, quoted in the report)
-but there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia
Right, got it!
As for obstruction of justice, the only reason Trump didn't obstruct justice is because his lawyers and others refused to follow his directions to do so. Good to know!
Nothing to see here, carry on.....
nothing random in 7 days?
Report that Americans, especially younger ones, are stressed. Maybe we have done a poor job of raising children and allowing them to deal with issues and conflicts as they grow up. Overprotection does not enable children to grow up and deal with problems they are eventually going to have to deal with properly.
thistlintom posted:Report that Americans, especially younger ones, are stressed. Maybe we have done a poor job of raising children and allowing them to deal with issues and conflicts as they grow up. Overprotection does not enable children to grow up and deal with problems they are eventually going to have to deal with properly.
I’m confident they aren’t stressed with the $20T and growing debt our generation is leaving them. Another all time record deficit last month. All this winning is very special!
wineart 2 posted:thistlintom posted:Report that Americans, especially younger ones, are stressed. Maybe we have done a poor job of raising children and allowing them to deal with issues and conflicts as they grow up. Overprotection does not enable children to grow up and deal with problems they are eventually going to have to deal with properly.
I’m confident they aren’t stressed with the $20T and growing debt our generation is leaving them. Another all time record deficit last month. All this winning is very special!
What's really scary is that they probably aren't even aware of issues like the debt, ever-worsening relations with key allies, and election interference by hostile powers. Imagine how stressed they will be when those chickens come home to roost!
bman posted:wineart 2 posted:thistlintom posted:Report that Americans, especially younger ones, are stressed. Maybe we have done a poor job of raising children and allowing them to deal with issues and conflicts as they grow up. Overprotection does not enable children to grow up and deal with problems they are eventually going to have to deal with properly.
I’m confident they aren’t stressed with the $20T and growing debt our generation is leaving them. Another all time record deficit last month. All this winning is very special!
What's really scary is that they probably aren't even aware of issues like the debt, ever-worsening relations with key allies, and election interference by hostile powers. Imagine how stressed they will be when those chickens come home to roost!
Oh my, my kids are without question.
Also, for the first time ever they didn’t receive money back this year from their tav return.
Maybe they're just stressed because their parents haven't bought them a BMW yet or paid for their Harvard admission or they don't have enough friends on Facebook. Or maybe because they have to grow up and face the real world (not the TV show)
Debt: One of the things I do as a lawyer is to interview potential new admittees to the Bar to try to assess their moral character. [One is supposed to have good moral character to become a lawyer] --Hold the jokes about how I managed to pass that test, please!
So this week I interviewed a guy who has emerged from law school with about $180,000 in debt. Good grief. That is a lot of debt for a young guy.
irwin posted:Debt: One of the things I do as a lawyer is to interview potential new admittees to the Bar to try to assess their moral character. [One is supposed to have good moral character to become a lawyer] --Hold the jokes about how I managed to pass that test, please!
So this week I interviewed a guy who has emerged from law school with about $180,000 in debt. Good grief. That is a lot of debt for a young guy.
Well - if he went to private universities, undergrad is what $40K a year now. Law School is what $45-50K a year - hard to know these days how much - I am sure some of the parents with recent or current students know exactly - very easy to have that kind of debt.
I graduated law school in 1997 - as some of you know my dad is a Rabbi, my mom worked for non-profits and we had no family money. I had way over $100K in student loans back then when tuition was lower.
I graduated from law school in 1978 after attending the U of MD (my state university).
College was $248 per semester when I started in 1971. Law school was $1350 per semester. Things cost less back then. Near the end of law school I bought the top of the line Toyota Corolla. Carpeting. Air conditioning. Tape deck. Fire engine red. Cost just under $4400.
When I got out of law school, my first job was at a firm paying me $19,000 per year! My mother said, "What are you going to do with all that money?" I said, "I'm going to spend 90% of it on women and alcohol, and just waste the other 10%."
College is getting ridiculously expensive. It seems there are more and more bureaucrats in the schools causing enormous overheads and resulting in outlandish tuition costs. You have staffs overseeing diversity, safe spaces and many other issues that really have nothing to do with getting an education. There should be a concerted effort by schools to reduce the university costs and tuition.
We should also work on providing more avenues for people not interested in college, such as vocational schools. Not everyone needs to go to college or should go to college.
thistlintom posted:College is getting ridiculously expensive. It seems there are more and more bureaucrats in the schools causing enormous overheads and resulting in outlandish tuition costs. You have staffs overseeing diversity, safe spaces and many other issues that really have nothing to do with getting an education. There should be a concerted effort by schools to reduce the university costs and tuition.
We should also work on providing more avenues for people not interested in college, such as vocational schools. Not everyone needs to go to college or should go to college.
Those high tuition costs are needed to pay coaching salaries. Don’t rock the boat! J/k - football fans save your rant about the revenue they generate.
Agree with vocational training. I work in manufacturing and we have a really tough time finding younger, skilled machinists. I’ve been in procurement over 20 years and don’t have a 4 year degree.
thistlintom posted:Report that Americans, especially younger ones, are stressed. Maybe we have done a poor job of raising children and allowing them to deal with issues and conflicts as they grow up. Overprotection does not enable children to grow up and deal with problems they are eventually going to have to deal with properly.
The Coddling of the American Mind. Greg Lukainoff and Jonathon Haidt.
my first job was at $100 a week in 1962. Thought I was a millionaire. First house, in 1964 was only $16k. 1 acre, three bed rooms
I've recently taken the position that if politicians truly want to help educate our young people they'd pay a portion of college education via grants (not all of it like many Democratic candidates for president are promoting) and if young people want to go to a vocational school they'd pay 100% of that. We desperately need as many trade skill workers that we can get. Not so much yet another I.T. weenie like myself. My two cents worth.
winetarelli posted:thistlintom posted:Report that Americans, especially younger ones, are stressed. Maybe we have done a poor job of raising children and allowing them to deal with issues and conflicts as they grow up. Overprotection does not enable children to grow up and deal with problems they are eventually going to have to deal with properly.
The Coddling of the American Mind. Greg Lukainoff and Jonathon Haidt.
I read The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt and thought it was excellent. He also believes that kids do not have enough free time to play, which helps in their development
wineismylife posted:I've recently taken the position that if politicians truly want to help educate our young people they'd pay a portion of college education via grants (not all of it like many Democratic candidates for president are promoting) and if young people want to go to a vocational school they'd pay 100% of that. We desperately need as many trade skill workers that we can get. Not so much yet another I.T. weenie like myself. My two cents worth.
Our high school provided a vocational path for those who did not want to go to college. It was part of a group of high schools that had a vocational ed campus. I don’t know if it is still offered.
one of the problems with the free college thing is that it doesn' t make sense (to me) to give free college tuition to rich kids with rich parents. Another reason is that it makes some sense to give assistance to kids who wish to study things like computer science, engineering, and various other technical things, during periods when our society needs people trained in these areas, while it makes less sense to pay for free education for kids who wish to study medieval English literature, or some other subject that seems less useful.
Not sure who decides what is more useful or less useful.
Aint no one talkin bout no wall lately
Not sure where to post this..... Anyway, a professional group to which I belong (lawyers) is having a dinner meeting on May 11. The guest speaker is Rod Rosenstein, in the evening after he leaves the Justice department.
What question would you ask him?
irwin posted:Not sure where to post this..... Anyway, a professional group to which I belong (lawyers) is having a dinner meeting on May 11. The guest speaker is Rod Rosenstein, in the evening after he leaves the Justice department.
What question would you ask him?
Why did you quit, disgust, politics, or seeking personal freedom?
flwino posted:irwin posted:Not sure where to post this..... Anyway, a professional group to which I belong (lawyers) is having a dinner meeting on May 11. The guest speaker is Rod Rosenstein, in the evening after he leaves the Justice department.
What question would you ask him?
Why did you quit, disgust, politics, or seeking personal freedom?
Why not ask him if he intends to run for political office, or take a job in any organization linked to any political party, at any time in the future.
Not the questions I'd REALLY like to ask him, but he wouldn't answer any of those questions!
Did you jump, or were you pushed?
Question...Are any of my Democrat friends embarrassed for your party after the Barr testimony the other day. How can Blumenthal ask those questions with a straight face. And Hirono...Wow. She should be sued for Slander. What is it like to be a puppet for CNN and MSNBC. SAD!
Everything is unraveling. This should be an interesting few months.
napacat posted:Question...Are any of my Democrat friends embarrassed for your party after the Barr testimony the other day. How can Blumenthal ask those questions with a straight face. And Hirono...Wow. She should be sued for Slander. What is it like to be a puppet for CNN and MSNBC. SAD!
Everything is unraveling. This should be an interesting few months.
First there's no such thing as the "Democrat" party no matter how many times Fox State News says so and second,you're kidding right? Is it "Slander" when you call a liar a liar? My own favorite was when asked if the racist-in-chief asked him to go the president's enemies and he sat there twisting in his chair struggling to answer. Every other AG since Nixon's would be able to answer this question with a simple "no."
I've already discovered, in a previous exchange with you, that you're a fucking joke when it comes to clear, rational thinking and arguing so I will not engage with you further on this topic.
And exactly how does big Mr. America First get on a phone call to the dictator of Russia and not discuss his meddling in our elections and tell him to knock it off?
The Old Man posted:napacat posted:Question...Are any of my Democrat friends embarrassed for your party after the Barr testimony the other day. How can Blumenthal ask those questions with a straight face. And Hirono...Wow. She should be sued for Slander. What is it like to be a puppet for CNN and MSNBC. SAD!
Everything is unraveling. This should be an interesting few months.
First there's no such thing as the "Democrat" party no matter how many times Fox State News says so and second,you're kidding right? Is it "Slander" when you call a liar a liar? My own favorite was when asked if the racist-in-chief asked him to go the president's enemies and he sat there twisting in his chair struggling to answer. Every other AG since Nixon's would be able to answer this question with a simple "no."
I've already discovered, in a previous exchange with you, that you're a fucking joke when it comes to clear, rational thinking and arguing so I will not engage with you further on this topic.
And exactly how does big Mr. America First get on a phone call to the dictator of Russia and not discuss his meddling in our elections and tell him to knock it off?
Of course they asked to look into it further. The entire scam was a set-up. It will come out. Hillary should be in jail without a doubt!
Barr was simply outstanding! Just letting the Dems make fools of themselves was quite fun. Wish he would have went to the House committee and have done the same. Pay attention...the President cannot be guilty of Obstruction of Justice when the original charge was false and erroneous.
Regarding the phone call...he should be as forceful as Obama right and say “ you stop meddling”! Great job the last President did. I’m with Board-O Obama was the worst. That sir was a joke of a President.
napacat posted:The Old Man posted:napacat posted:Question...Are any of my Democrat friends embarrassed for your party after the Barr testimony the other day. How can Blumenthal ask those questions with a straight face. And Hirono...Wow. She should be sued for Slander. What is it like to be a puppet for CNN and MSNBC. SAD!
Everything is unraveling. This should be an interesting few months.
First there's no such thing as the "Democrat" party no matter how many times Fox State News says so and second,you're kidding right? Is it "Slander" when you call a liar a liar? My own favorite was when asked if the racist-in-chief asked him to go the president's enemies and he sat there twisting in his chair struggling to answer. Every other AG since Nixon's would be able to answer this question with a simple "no."
I've already discovered, in a previous exchange with you, that you're a fucking joke when it comes to clear, rational thinking and arguing so I will not engage with you further on this topic.
And exactly how does big Mr. America First get on a phone call to the dictator of Russia and not discuss his meddling in our elections and tell him to knock it off?
Of course they asked to look into it further. The entire scam was a set-up. It will come out. Hillary should be in jail without a doubt!
Barr was simply outstanding! Just letting the Dems make fools of themselves was quite fun. Wish he would have went to the House committee and have done the same. Pay attention...the President cannot be guilty of Obstruction of Justice when the original charge was false and erroneous.
Regarding the phone call...he should be as forceful as Obama right and say “ you stop meddling”! Great job the last President did. I’m with Board-O Obama was the worst. That sir was a joke of a President.
I wonder why the Trumpanzees only post here when they're drunk......
Mueller likely to testify on the 15th. tRump can't even spell Kentucky. Looking forward to the hearing. Beware the ides of May.
PH
Heard Seth Meyer say he was looking forward to hearing Mueller testify, "I don't think I've ever heard him even speak. He might sound like Bobcat Goldthwait from the Police Academy movies."
The douchebag in chief is giving Tiger Woods the Medal of Freedom. Glad he won the Masters but what exactly has he done for freedom? I guess it doesn't hurt that the bigot in Chief owns a lot of golf courses and has done some business with Woods.
Trump and Woods have something in common. They both screwed porn stars
arsenal4ever posted:Trump and Woods have something in common. They both screwed porn stars
I've never really understood the attraction. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with an experienced partner, but... porn stars? Blech.
PH
375 prosecutors (R and D) agree. We have a criminal in the White House. Anyone who still supports this dirtbag is too far gone for reasonable conversation. More Kool-Aid for you guys. Enjoy!
PH
Clinton and Abrams claiming their elections were stolen or rigged. Get over it, you lost.
thistlintom posted:Clinton and Abrams claiming their elections were stolen or rigged. Get over it, you lost.
So Russian interference in the election, specifically in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - which Trump won by 0.2, 0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, and by 10,704, 46,765 and 22,177 votes respectively, made no difference?
And the fact that Abrams' opponent was in charge of the election, resulting in voter purges, registration applications put on hold until it was too late, election day issues almost exclusively in non-white polls, elimination of polls in non-white districts, etc. had no impact there either, when Kemp won by 1.4%?
So were their elections rigged or stolen? I think there is a good case to be made that they were. That said, yes, they do need to get over it...
thistlintom posted:Clinton and Abrams claiming their elections were stolen or rigged. Get over it, you lost.
Squirrel!
PH
Why did the "loser" win last time? Russia, dirty deeds, lying, and stupid voters.
Sorry I thought this was the Random topic, not the TDS rant topic. Carry on!
We have propped up dictators (Diem, the Shah, Pinochet); We have tried to overthrow foreign leaders (Noriega, Fidel Castro); We have promoted "regime change" (Assad, Hussein). We have also tried to influence democratic elections on many occasions-- Obama tried to help Ehud Barak in his anti-Netanyahu efforts, and Trump has tried to help Netanyahu.... Some with aid, some with electioneering. There are many other examples. This seems to be a common element of American Foreign policy, regardless of whether the occupant of the White House is a Democrat or a Republican.
So, why are we so upset that the Russians were trying to do the same thing?
irwin posted:We have propped up dictators (Diem, the Shah, Pinochet); We have tried to overthrow foreign leaders (Noriega, Fidel Castro); We have promoted "regime change" (Assad, Hussein). We have also tried to influence democratic elections on many occasions-- Obama tried to help Ehud Barak in his anti-Netanyahu efforts, and Trump has tried to help Netanyahu.... Some with aid, some with electioneering. There are many other examples. This seems to be a common element of American Foreign policy, regardless of whether the occupant of the White House is a Democrat or a Republican.
So, why are we so upset that the Russians were trying to do the same thing?
Irwin, I don’t think the question has ever been about being ‘ upset.’ The issue has always been about ignoring and not taking aggressive actions to prevent it in the future. Period.
The clinically ill president knows it benefited him. He knows that there were 10M more people that didn’t vote for him than did vote for him. He knows he won the election by capturing a razor thin margin in specific states where the interference was also targeted by having generational democrats vote republican. He also knows he needs the same interference again in 2020 as his base is not going to grow. Research the last time an incumbent lost 40 seats in the house. 40 seats!
Putin’s poodle per his own current chief of staff says you can’t even bring the subject up as the poodle will throw a temper tantrum, so clearly aggressive actions will not be taken.
wineart 2 posted:" Research the last time an incumbent lost 40 seats in the house. 40 seats!"irwin posted:We have propped up dictators (Diem, the Shah, Pinochet); We have tried to overthrow foreign leaders (Noriega, Fidel Castro); We have promoted "regime change" (Assad, Hussein). We have also tried to influence democratic elections on many occasions-- Obama tried to help Ehud Barak in his anti-Netanyahu efforts, and Trump has tried to help Netanyahu.... Some with aid, some with electioneering. There are many other examples. This seems to be a common element of American Foreign policy, regardless of whether the occupant of the White House is a Democrat or a Republican.
So, why are we so upset that the Russians were trying to do the same thing?
In 2010, the party in power (the Dems) lost 63 seats.
irwin posted:wineart 2 posted:" Research the last time an incumbent lost 40 seats in the house. 40 seats!"irwin posted:We have propped up dictators (Diem, the Shah, Pinochet); We have tried to overthrow foreign leaders (Noriega, Fidel Castro); We have promoted "regime change" (Assad, Hussein). We have also tried to influence democratic elections on many occasions-- Obama tried to help Ehud Barak in his anti-Netanyahu efforts, and Trump has tried to help Netanyahu.... Some with aid, some with electioneering. There are many other examples. This seems to be a common element of American Foreign policy, regardless of whether the occupant of the White House is a Democrat or a Republican.
So, why are we so upset that the Russians were trying to do the same thing?
In 2010, the party in power (the Dems) lost 63 seats.
Irwin, my bad. I meant under republican administration. Only 2 worse since the Great Depression.
irwin posted:We have propped up dictators (Diem, the Shah, Pinochet); We have tried to overthrow foreign leaders (Noriega, Fidel Castro); We have promoted "regime change" (Assad, Hussein). We have also tried to influence democratic elections on many occasions-- Obama tried to help Ehud Barak in his anti-Netanyahu efforts, and Trump has tried to help Netanyahu.... Some with aid, some with electioneering. There are many other examples. This seems to be a common element of American Foreign policy, regardless of whether the occupant of the White House is a Democrat or a Republican.
So, why are we so upset that the Russians were trying to do the same thing?
Wow, just wow. How do you know about those horrible things the US did? Because of our freedom of the press (something the demagogue in chief would like to destroy) and some people doing the right thing. When did Russia ever admit to any of the horrible things they've done? Never. All governments do, and have done, awful things, but at least in the US it eventually gets out and even has a place in the history books.
Whataboutism at its worst.
ANNAPOLIS, MD— Governor Larry Hogan, chairman of the Chesapeake Executive Council, announced that the results of the 2019 Blue Crab Winter Dredge Survey showed that the Bay-wide blue crab population increased 60% from last year, to an estimated total population of 594 million crabs. The Chesapeake bay is approximately 200 miles long, stretching from Havre de Grace, Maryland, to Norfolk, Virginia; has an average depth of 21 feet (the deepest part of the Bay, a.k.a. "The Hole," is 174 feet deep and located off of Bloody Point, southeast of Annapolis, Maryland; ranges from 3.4 to 35 miles wide;
According to the Census Bureau, the population of humans in the US is now about 328 million. The US is a lot bigger than the Chesapeake Bay, but not as deep.
For the record, the final vote was 65,844,954 for Clinton; 62,979,879 for Trump. Difference of 2.9 million. Not quite the 10 million as stated by Wineart2. Many have postulated that African-Americans and women did not show up to vote for Clinton as they did for Obama.
I think that we all hope for better candidates from both parties in coming elections.
arsenal4ever posted:For the record, the final vote was 65,844,954 for Clinton; 62,979,879 for Trump. Difference of 2.9 million. Not quite the 10 million as stated by Wineart2. Many have postulated that African-Americans and women did not show up to vote for Clinton as they did for Obama.
I think that we all hope for better candidates from both parties in coming elections.
And not another racist, bigoted, sexist, know-nothing demagogue from the Trumpublican party.
The Old Man posted:arsenal4ever posted:For the record, the final vote was 65,844,954 for Clinton; 62,979,879 for Trump. Difference of 2.9 million. Not quite the 10 million as stated by Wineart2. Many have postulated that African-Americans and women did not show up to vote for Clinton as they did for Obama.
I think that we all hope for better candidates from both parties in coming elections.
And not another racist, bigoted, sexist, know-nothing demagogue from the Trumpublican party.
Umm, for the record, There were 72, 519,874 votes against Trump.
Many people could not vote for either Trump or Clinton.
irwin posted:ANNAPOLIS, MD— Governor Larry Hogan, chairman of the Chesapeake Executive Council, announced that the results of the 2019 Blue Crab Winter Dredge Survey showed that the Bay-wide blue crab population increased 60% from last year, to an estimated total population of 594 million crabs. The Chesapeake bay is approximately 200 miles long, stretching from Havre de Grace, Maryland, to Norfolk, Virginia; has an average depth of 21 feet (the deepest part of the Bay, a.k.a. "The Hole," is 174 feet deep and located off of Bloody Point, southeast of Annapolis, Maryland; ranges from 3.4 to 35 miles wide;According to the Census Bureau, the population of humans in the US is now about 328 million. The US is a lot bigger than the Chesapeake Bay, but not as deep.
Really great news for those of us who love the Bay. As an aside, the current WH occupant has proposed a 90% cut to the federal contribution the the Chesapeake Bay Program for 2020.
PH
irwin posted:...the deepest part of the Bay, a.k.a. "The Hole," is 174 feet deep and located off of Bloody Point, southeast of Annapolis, Maryland; ranges from 3.4 to 35 miles wide;The US is a lot bigger than the Chesapeake Bay, but not as deep.
It's actually "deeper." The lowest point in the US is Badwater Basin, in Death Valley. 282 feet below sea level! BAM.
PH
wineart 2 posted:The Old Man posted:arsenal4ever posted:For the record, the final vote was 65,844,954 for Clinton; 62,979,879 for Trump. Difference of 2.9 million. Not quite the 10 million as stated by Wineart2. Many have postulated that African-Americans and women did not show up to vote for Clinton as they did for Obama.
I think that we all hope for better candidates from both parties in coming elections.
And not another racist, bigoted, sexist, know-nothing demagogue from the Trumpublican party.
Umm, for the record, There were 72, 519,874 votes against Trump.
Many people could not vote for either Trump or Clinton.
I'm not sure how that's a response to my post, but OK I guess.
Nice math Winerart2. Since only 58.1% of eligible voters voted, the others who didn't naturally should be added to the 65.8 million who voted for Clinton over Trump. Little hazy on your reasoning....
Just give us decent candidates
What are you talking about? You can’t be that obtuse.
Trump; 62,980
Clinton; 65,845
Johnson; 4,488,931
Stein; 1,457,050
McMullin; 728,830
Simple math and simple votes count.
Nice math, arsenal!
Sent from my iPad
> On May 7, 2019, at 12:04 PM, Wine Spectator <alerts@hoop.la> wrote:
>
>
Trump; 62,980
Clinton; 65,845
Johnson; 4,488,931
Stein; 1,457,050
McMullin; 728,830
Simple math and simple votes count.
Nice math, arsenal!
Sent from my iPad
> On May 7, 2019, at 12:04 PM, Wine Spectator <alerts@hoop.la> wrote:
>
>
Winerart2 - Using your math, you forgot to add the 100 million who, though registered, decided against voting at all. They obviously, using your reasoning, also voted against Trump.
"I think that we all hope for better candidates from both parties in coming elections."
Would be nice. This fellow Buttigieg speaks 7 languages. That is 7 more than the current President speaks.
On the other hand, one of the Democrat's announced candidates is named Yang. He has promised to give every American, whether indigent or a billionaire, $1000 per month as a stipend. Not sure he's figured out where the money is coming from or whether the $1000 would be taxable income or not. He has also promised to be the first President to use a power point during his state of the union. Seems most unlikely that he'll get any serious consideration, so I think we're safe from the Power Point thing for awhile.
irwin posted:"I think that we all hope for better candidates from both parties in coming elections."
Would be nice. This fellow Buttigieg speaks 7 languages. That is 7 more than the current President speaks.
On the other hand, one of the Democrat's announced candidates is named Yang. He has promised to give every American, whether indigent or a billionaire, $1000 per month as a stipend. Not sure he's figured out where the money is coming from or whether the $1000 would be taxable income or not. He has also promised to be the first President to use a power point during his state of the union. Seems most unlikely that he'll get any serious consideration, so I think we're safe from the Power Point thing for awhile.
Irwin, we know the republicans aren’t going to give us a better candidate for 2020. I’m also not too confident about the Democrats at this point either. Grrrr.
irwin posted:Would be nice. This fellow Buttigieg speaks 7 languages. That is 7 more than the current President speaks.
Fascinating cat, this Buttigieg. I actually sent him a few bucks primarily because I wanted him to meet the threshold to participate in debates. Guess he didn't need my money after all.
Bright, thoughtful guy. Probably un-electable (at least this time around) due to his age and orientation, but would make a formidable VP. Would love to hear him debate Pence. That would be an epic ass-whipping, for sure.
PH
purplehaze posted:irwin posted:Would be nice. This fellow Buttigieg speaks 7 languages. That is 7 more than the current President speaks.
Fascinating cat, this Buttigieg. I actually sent him a few bucks primarily because I wanted him to meet the threshold to participate in debates. Guess he didn't need my money after all.
Bright, thoughtful guy. Probably un-electable (at least this time around) due to his age and orientation, but would make a formidable VP. Would love to hear him debate Pence. That would be an epic ass-whipping, for sure.
PH
I would pay to see that debate. It would also be as you predicted!
wineart 2 posted:purplehaze posted:irwin posted:Would be nice. This fellow Buttigieg speaks 7 languages. That is 7 more than the current President speaks.
Fascinating cat, this Buttigieg. I actually sent him a few bucks primarily because I wanted him to meet the threshold to participate in debates. Guess he didn't need my money after all.
Bright, thoughtful guy. Probably un-electable (at least this time around) due to his age and orientation, but would make a formidable VP. Would love to hear him debate Pence. That would be an epic ass-whipping, for sure.
PH
I would pay to see that debate. It would also be as you predicted!
Well, apparently I paid for it. You're welcome to attend on my dime!
PH
Attachments
Images (1)
robsutherland posted:
Of all of their shows, this episode was one of my favorites.
irwin posted:We have propped up dictators (Diem, the Shah, Pinochet); We have tried to overthrow foreign leaders (Noriega, Fidel Castro); We have promoted "regime change" (Assad, Hussein). We have also tried to influence democratic elections on many occasions-- Obama tried to help Ehud Barak in his anti-Netanyahu efforts, and Trump has tried to help Netanyahu.... Some with aid, some with electioneering. There are many other examples. This seems to be a common element of American Foreign policy, regardless of whether the occupant of the White House is a Democrat or a Republican.
So, why are we so upset that the Russians were trying to do the same thing?
Bingo!
I think it is reasonable and understandable to be upset when ANY foreign entity interferes with your election results but the hypocrisy of it all when US foreign policy conducts it on a routine basis, whoever the incumbent or sitting president, is pretty rich.
First, we try to bribe them. If that doesn't work, they we clandestinely support the election of the opposition who hopefully will be in toe with our interests. If that doesn't work, then we arm the opposition and instigate a coup. If that doesn't work, then we declare they are harboring terrorists and-or chemical weapons and bomb the place to oblivion. Then, we go in, rebuild and make sure the next government plays our tune.
Works like a charm most of the time
I love New York. 
PH
mimik posted:irwin posted:We have propped up dictators (Diem, the Shah, Pinochet); We have tried to overthrow foreign leaders (Noriega, Fidel Castro); We have promoted "regime change" (Assad, Hussein). We have also tried to influence democratic elections on many occasions-- Obama tried to help Ehud Barak in his anti-Netanyahu efforts, and Trump has tried to help Netanyahu.... Some with aid, some with electioneering. There are many other examples. This seems to be a common element of American Foreign policy, regardless of whether the occupant of the White House is a Democrat or a Republican.
So, why are we so upset that the Russians were trying to do the same thing?
Bingo!
I think it is reasonable and understandable to be upset when ANY foreign entity interferes with your election results but the hypocrisy of it all when US foreign policy conducts it on a routine basis, whoever the incumbent or sitting president, is pretty rich.
First, we try to bribe them. If that doesn't work, they we clandestinely support the election of the opposition who hopefully will be in toe with our interests. If that doesn't work, then we arm the opposition and instigate a coup. If that doesn't work, then we declare they are harboring terrorists and-or chemical weapons and bomb the place to oblivion. Then, we go in, rebuild and make sure the next government plays our tune.
Works like a charm most of the time
I already blew up this whataboutism. Again the difference is in the United States it comes out, in Russia it never does. We try to improve they do not.
irwin's points on US malfeasance are well taken. His question on why many here are upset misses the point, at least for me.
Sure I'm cranky with Putin and his cronies for interfering in our political process. I'm upset that, when the extent of the Russian attempts became known, there was a lackluster (at best) response from the Obama administration. More concerning for me, however, is that the trump campaign encouraged it, welcomed it and benefitted from it. trump's insistence on minimizing the current and future attempts by our rivals to again insert themselves into our political process, in defiance of every US intelligence agency simply beggars belief.
PH
I think this is what I may ask Rosenstein about on Saturday night's dinner.
purplehaze posted:irwin's points on US malfeasance are well taken. His question on why many here are upset misses the point, at least for me.
Sure I'm cranky with Putin and his cronies for interfering in our political process. I'm upset that, when the extent of the Russian attempts became known, there was a lackluster (at best) response from the Obama administration. More concerning for me, however, is that the trump campaign encouraged it, welcomed it and benefitted from it. trump's insistence on minimizing the current and future attempts by our rivals to again insert themselves into our political process, in defiance of every US intelligence agency simply beggars belief.
PH
Well obviously the reason Trump was dismissive about Russian influence was either 1) They have something on him and-or 2) Russian interference helped him sway the election.
How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?
.
invisible ink used
Apparently the love letters between 45 and chairman Kim have lost their amorous effect.
purplehaze posted:irwin's points on US malfeasance are well taken. His question on why many here are upset misses the point, at least for me.
Sure I'm cranky with Putin and his cronies for interfering in our political process. I'm upset that, when the extent of the Russian attempts became known, there was a lackluster (at best) response from the Obama administration. More concerning for me, however, is that the trump campaign encouraged it, welcomed it and benefitted from it. trump's insistence on minimizing the current and future attempts by our rivals to again insert themselves into our political process, in defiance of every US intelligence agency simply beggars belief.
PH
Let's not forget, we're a country with both the means and resources to acutally handle such threats.
Would irwin prefer that Americans strap on a few bombs and stroll into random places in russia as payback?
I think getting upset and asking for our elected officials to both utilize our tax monies appropriately to safeguard our democratic process sounds like a much better alternative.
I have never advocated violence as a means to anything. I'm just not sure I understand what the fuss is about.
irwin posted:I have never advocated violence as a means to anything. I'm just not sure I understand what the fuss is about.
I thought PH stated the position rather well.
wineart 2 posted:irwin posted:I have never advocated violence as a means to anything. I'm just not sure I understand what the fuss is about.
I thought PH stated the position rather well.
I trust that includes dissatisfaction with the Obama administration's response. I feel it all starts there.
That does not mean that I absolve the Trump administration of their malfeasance.
I think Obama was put into a tricky position to begin with. Candidate Trump was already bellowing that the system was rigged against him. Had Obama aggressively and/or publicly pursued the reports of Russian interference in the months leading to the election, then Trump would have had some perceived legitimacy to his claims, and the fear was that that could have sway more voters to his side. I think he was just hoping that the interference would not be enough to swing the election from the democrats.
If people on the Left don’t keep it together, Trump will win a second term. And G-d help us all if that should occur. I’m genuinely concerned about which voices on the Left social media amplifies. They don’t represent the majority of us; and they’re going to get this asshole re-elected. (And I’m genuinely concerned that the republic would collapse should that happen. R’s in the Senate are facilitating the pumpkin’s worst impulses.)
Meanwhile, universities need to stop catering to the delicate sensibilities of the pseudo-totalitarian children. Harvard just fired a residential dean (who is a professor at the law school — and the first and only Black residential dean) because the children didn’t think one of his private law clients is entitled to a defense. (Weinstien.) They wanted him fired from the university. And beyond being wholly illiberal and teaching the children exactly the wrong things, such examples further the notion of totalitarian creep in institutions commonly associated with the “Left” as well as the Right, robbing Democrats from being able to make clear distinctions about liberal values. At least in the eyes of many in the areas Democrats must win.
last night's dinner with Rod Rosenstein and about 150 lawyers and spouses. Since his job didn't end until midnight last night, he had 2 secret service guards with him. He was fairly boring. Said nothing controversial. Not that I expected it. He said that he opposes violent crime. The current US atty for Maryland was present as well.
Trade wars are easy to win
I likely come from a different political perspective than Winetarelli, but I agree with the points he made. I believe the progressive, far left part of the Democratic party has taken over, at least from a news and policy point of view. They are the most vocal and it seems that many of the candidates are bending over to the left as far as they can to kowtow to this group. I am not sure they represent the entirety of the Democratic party. The candidates may get pulled over to the left so far that the winner may have trouble getting acceptance from the middle of the party and independents.
I am also concerned about the loss of voices from the liberal part of Democrats and many of the far left illiberal are controlling speech. Liberals are supposed to support free speech and be willing to discuss issues from people with other perspectives. Right now I see the far left shutting down any discussions and attacking others with racism, mysogeny or other terms to avoid dealing with ideas from the other side. This goes to what is happening on campuses with some of the students shutting down speech and requiring safe spaces. The university is supposed to be a place of free discussion and learning about other perspectives.
I am not saying that there aren't problems on the right, or that Trump is always right. I think he is an egotistical jerk who doesn't manage his message well at all. But the liberal portion of the left needs to take better control of the party and get back to rational discussions and promoting ideas that are more representative of their base.
mneeley490 posted:I think Obama was put into a tricky position to begin with. Candidate Trump was already bellowing that the system was rigged against him. Had Obama aggressively and/or publicly pursued the reports of Russian interference in the months leading to the election, then Trump would have had some perceived legitimacy to his claims, and the fear was that that could have sway more voters to his side. I think he was just hoping that the interference would not be enough to swing the election from the democrats.
This is an absurd statement. Pursing the Russian interference did not have to be made public. What a stretch to apologize for Obama...if he was not apologizing on behalf of the U.S. during his presidency, then the media and people like you are. SAD.
napacat posted:mneeley490 posted:I think Obama was put into a tricky position to begin with. Candidate Trump was already bellowing that the system was rigged against him. Had Obama aggressively and/or publicly pursued the reports of Russian interference in the months leading to the election, then Trump would have had some perceived legitimacy to his claims, and the fear was that that could have sway more voters to his side. I think he was just hoping that the interference would not be enough to swing the election from the democrats.
... Pursuing the Russian interference did not have to be made public...
Here's the portion that I agree with. The rest is just SAD hyperbole.
sd-wineaux posted:napacat posted:mneeley490 posted:I think Obama was put into a tricky position to begin with. Candidate Trump was already bellowing that the system was rigged against him. Had Obama aggressively and/or publicly pursued the reports of Russian interference in the months leading to the election, then Trump would have had some perceived legitimacy to his claims, and the fear was that that could have sway more voters to his side. I think he was just hoping that the interference would not be enough to swing the election from the democrats.
... Pursuing the Russian interference did not have to be made public...
Here's the portion that I agree with. The rest is just SAD hyperbole.
Thanks for correcting the spelling. The rest of the statement is accurate as well. Really looking forward to see what comes of the new investigation the AG Barr just handed off to Durham. Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense.
napacat posted:. Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense.......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.
bman posted:napacat posted:. Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense.......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.
Wow...what drivel. None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia. Manafort’s crime was from years prior. The rest...process crimes and BS.
You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist. How long are most of you going to believe this charade? Looking forward to excitement ahead!
napacat posted:bman posted:napacat posted:. Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense.......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.Wow...what drivel. None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia. Manafort’s crime was from years prior. The rest...process crimes and BS.
You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist. How long are most of you going to believe this charade? Looking forward to excitement ahead!
I'm pretty sure that one can obstruct justice without being accused of a crime. Maybe Irwin or another learned legal mind can clarify? Several hundred former prosecutors - both Democrats and Republicans - seem to think so!
And Papadopoulos, Stone and 12 Russians were indicted or charged by Mueller for reasons directly related to the Trump campaign.
Maybe you wanna check sources beyond Hannity and Ingraham?
napacat posted:bman posted:napacat posted:. Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense.......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.
You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist.
I am trying to avoid this nonsense - but how is anyone convinced by this garbage? Of course you can obstruct justice regardless of whether you are found guilty of the underlying crime or in your distorted view, the crime "did not exist" - whatever that means.
That is like saying you can not be guilty of witness tampering, bribing witnesses, bribing jurors, etc., if "the crime did not exist" or one is found not guilty. It is preposterous. There is also a basic crime known as the attempted crime (bet it murder, theft, kidnapping etc.) which does not require succesful completion of the crime but is focused on intent and effort - all of which has completely been ignored by the sycophants who want so hard to believe their poor Trump is a victim. Spare me
I understand your reluctance to get involved, jc. That said, it's important that we hear from someone who actually knows what they're talking about from time to time. This is especially important in matters of the law.
It's amazing that a certain poster here, who claims to get his news from a variety of sources, seems to echo many Faux News talking points so frequently.
PH
napacat posted:bman posted:napacat posted:. Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense.......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.Wow...what drivel. None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia. Manafort’s crime was from years prior. The rest...process crimes and BS.
You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist. How long are most of you going to believe this charade? Looking forward to excitement ahead!
Hey Perry Mason there is no indictment for colluding because there is no crime of collusion. Second you absolutely can be guilty of obstruction if you interfere with a law enforcement investigation.
You are a profoundly ignorant man, and terrible debater, and it's obvious your brilliant conclusions come straight from Fox "News."
Yes, TOM. The incessant references to "no collusion," are a hallmark of indoctrinated trumpistas.
There are 10 specific references to conspiracy in the Mueller report, at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted. Wonder why we don't hear about this from these folk.
PH
purplehaze posted:Yes, TOM. The incessant references to "no collusion," are a hallmark of indoctrinated trumpistas.
There are 10 specific references to conspiracy in the Mueller report, at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted. Wonder why we don't hear about this from these folk.
PH
They're sheltered by the acting State-Run "news" outlet they consume for hours at a time.
It should be interesting to see what happens with the investigations by Inspector General Horowitz and US attorney Durham.
Nothingburger.
PH
purplehaze posted:at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted.
I'm no fan of the Tangerine Man, but the fact that prosecutors see a reason to prosecute, doesn't mean a crime was committed, only that they feel there is enough evidence to bring proceedings against Trump, which also doesn't mean there is enough evidence there that a conviction is likely. Lots of reasons prosecutors initiate proceedings, not all of which are based solely on the law and the facts at hand.
I would also tend to give less weight to the views of prosecutors in such matters. Of course prosecutors see a crime, it's what they are trained to do. If that many bi-partisan judges (or defence counsel for that matter) said the same thing the prosecutors did, it would be more telling IMHO.
The Old Man posted:napacat posted:bman posted:napacat posted:. Let's get to the bottom of this nonsense.......that led to 34 indictments, convictions and/or guilty pleas, spelled out exactly how Russia interfered in the 2016 election to ensure their poodle Trump won, and with any luck will lead to the poodle's indictment for obstruction when he's defeated in 2020, as per the consensus that he'd have been charged now if not the President.Wow...what drivel. None of the indictments were related to the Trump campaign colluding with Russia. Manafort’s crime was from years prior. The rest...process crimes and BS.
You can’t obstruct justice for a “crime” your not guilty of or did not exist. How long are most of you going to believe this charade? Looking forward to excitement ahead!
Hey Perry Mason there is no indictment for colluding because there is no crime of collusion. Second you absolutely can be guilty of obstruction if you interfere with a law enforcement investigation.
You are a profoundly ignorant man, and terrible debater, and it's obvious your brilliant conclusions come straight from Fox "News."
Old Man...I'm sure FOX is exactly where AG Barr gets his news from, which is what most likely prompted him to want to open up an investigation into where this all began. I'm sure he was home watching Hannity and said..."you know what, I should probably look into this wacky theory that this was a conspiracy against Trump". I see now. Thanks for opening my eyes.
csm posted:purplehaze posted:at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted.
I'm no fan of the Tangerine Man, but the fact that prosecutors see a reason to prosecute, doesn't mean a crime was committed, only that they feel there is enough evidence to bring proceedings against Trump, which also doesn't mean there is enough evidence there that a conviction is likely. Lots of reasons prosecutors initiate proceedings, not all of which are based solely on the law and the facts at hand.
I would also tend to give less weight to the views of prosecutors in such matters. Of course prosecutors see a crime, it's what they are trained to do. If that many bi-partisan judges (or defence counsel for that matter) said the same thing the prosecutors did, it would be more telling IMHO.
There are prosecutors, and then there are prosecutors.
Federal prosecutors simply don't bring charges unless the likelihood of conviction is very high. Latest stats indicate a conviction rate well in excess of 90%. I'm not sure where you get the impression that prosecutors "see crimes." You make it sound like they're actively looking to bring specious cases. There simply isn't the capacity to bring charges willy-nilly in our current system. If a crime is recognized and federal prosecutors examine the available evidence and decide to charge, the chances of conviction are extremely good.
Keep in mind that this was a group of over 700 retired prosecutors who served at the federal level. Sitting judges would NEVER make statements regarding potential prosecutions. It's not what they do. The large body of defense lawyers out there might have very well signed onto an opinion letter contradicting the opinions of these federal prosecutors. We haven't seen anything. And we won't.
PH
purplehaze posted:csm posted:purplehaze posted:at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted.
I'm no fan of the Tangerine Man, but the fact that prosecutors see a reason to prosecute, doesn't mean a crime was committed, only that they feel there is enough evidence to bring proceedings against Trump, which also doesn't mean there is enough evidence there that a conviction is likely. Lots of reasons prosecutors initiate proceedings, not all of which are based solely on the law and the facts at hand.
I would also tend to give less weight to the views of prosecutors in such matters. Of course prosecutors see a crime, it's what they are trained to do. If that many bi-partisan judges (or defence counsel for that matter) said the same thing the prosecutors did, it would be more telling IMHO.
There are prosecutors, and then there are prosecutors.
Federal prosecutors simply don't bring charges unless the likelihood of conviction is very high. Latest stats indicate a conviction rate well in excess of 90%. I'm not sure where you get the impression that prosecutors "see crimes." You make it sound like they're actively looking to bring specious cases. There simply isn't the capacity to bring charges willy-nilly in our current system. If a crime is recognized and federal prosecutors examine the available evidence and decide to charge, the chances of conviction are extremely good.
Keep in mind that this was a group of over 700 retired prosecutors who served at the federal level. Sitting judges would NEVER make statements regarding potential prosecutions. It's not what they do. The large body of defense lawyers out there might have very well signed onto an opinion letter contradicting the opinions of these federal prosecutors. We haven't seen anything. And we won't.
PH
Right, Fed prosecutors don't bring charges unless the likely hood of conviction is very high. They also don't write reports about their investigation. You either recommend charges or you don't because you cannot support the charges with evidence. I suspect we are going to learn a lot more soon. Notice how they are all turning on each other?
purplehaze posted:csm posted:purplehaze posted:at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted.
I'm no fan of the Tangerine Man, but the fact that prosecutors see a reason to prosecute, doesn't mean a crime was committed, only that they feel there is enough evidence to bring proceedings against Trump, which also doesn't mean there is enough evidence there that a conviction is likely. Lots of reasons prosecutors initiate proceedings, not all of which are based solely on the law and the facts at hand.
I would also tend to give less weight to the views of prosecutors in such matters. Of course prosecutors see a crime, it's what they are trained to do. If that many bi-partisan judges (or defence counsel for that matter) said the same thing the prosecutors did, it would be more telling IMHO.
There are prosecutors, and then there are prosecutors.
Federal prosecutors simply don't bring charges unless the likelihood of conviction is very high. Latest stats indicate a conviction rate well in excess of 90%. I'm not sure where you get the impression that prosecutors "see crimes." You make it sound like they're actively looking to bring specious cases. There simply isn't the capacity to bring charges willy-nilly in our current system. If a crime is recognized and federal prosecutors examine the available evidence and decide to charge, the chances of conviction are extremely good.
Keep in mind that this was a group of over 700 retired prosecutors who served at the federal level. Sitting judges would NEVER make statements regarding potential prosecutions. It's not what they do. The large body of defense lawyers out there might have very well signed onto an opinion letter contradicting the opinions of these federal prosecutors. We haven't seen anything. And we won't.
PH
PH while conviction rates are very high, I don't think you can use that as evidence that prosecutors don't initiate proceedings for reasons other than a high likelihood of conviction. There are politically-motivated proceedings brought all the time. More importantly, the prosecutors all said that they would initiate proceedings based on the report. Not that Trump would be convicted. Important distinction and one that seemingly is being ignored.
"Seeing crimes" was perhaps a poor choice of words on my part, but what I meant was that prosecutors generally are predisposed to think people are guilty once they've decided to prosecute. There is a certain lack of objectivity, for whatever reason, vis a vis those accused of crimes in my experience. Not a criticism either by the way. I think I'd feel the same way if i was on that side of the table for any period of time (one of the primary reasons I don't practice criminal law).
I also know judges wouldn't ever say something like that, which was my point. Judges would want to see all evidence presented and witnesses subject to cross-examination before rendering any decision. People seem to be making the leap that because a number of prosecutors would initiate proceedings, that the Orange Menace is guilty of obstruction. My point is simply that you can't make that leap (similar to Hilary, you couldn't make the leap that the reports of what she did equaled a crime).
No one has any idea as to whether Trump obstructed justice, and won't regardless of what anyone thinks, unless and until a trial happens.
csm posted:purplehaze posted:csm posted:purplehaze posted:at least 3 of which are SO rock solid, that hundreds of former federal prosecutors (of all parties) indicate that if the person who was responsible for them were anyone other than our feckless president, they would be prosecuted.
I'm no fan of the Tangerine Man, but the fact that prosecutors see a reason to prosecute, doesn't mean a crime was committed, only that they feel there is enough evidence to bring proceedings against Trump, which also doesn't mean there is enough evidence there that a conviction is likely. Lots of reasons prosecutors initiate proceedings, not all of which are based solely on the law and the facts at hand.
I would also tend to give less weight to the views of prosecutors in such matters. Of course prosecutors see a crime, it's what they are trained to do. If that many bi-partisan judges (or defence counsel for that matter) said the same thing the prosecutors did, it would be more telling IMHO.
There are prosecutors, and then there are prosecutors.
Federal prosecutors simply don't bring charges unless the likelihood of conviction is very high. Latest stats indicate a conviction rate well in excess of 90%. I'm not sure where you get the impression that prosecutors "see crimes." You make it sound like they're actively looking to bring specious cases. There simply isn't the capacity to bring charges willy-nilly in our current system. If a crime is recognized and federal prosecutors examine the available evidence and decide to charge, the chances of conviction are extremely good.
Keep in mind that this was a group of over 700 retired prosecutors who served at the federal level. Sitting judges would NEVER make statements regarding potential prosecutions. It's not what they do. The large body of defense lawyers out there might have very well signed onto an opinion letter contradicting the opinions of these federal prosecutors. We haven't seen anything. And we won't.
PH
PH while conviction rates are very high, I don't think you can use that as evidence that prosecutors don't initiate proceedings for reasons other than a high likelihood of conviction. There are politically-motivated proceedings brought all the time. More importantly, the prosecutors all said that they would initiate proceedings based on the report. Not that Trump would be convicted. Important distinction and one that seemingly is being ignored.
"Seeing crimes" was perhaps a poor choice of words on my part, but what I meant was that prosecutors generally are predisposed to think people are guilty once they've decided to prosecute. There is a certain lack of objectivity, for whatever reason, vis a vis those accused of crimes in my experience. Not a criticism either by the way. I think I'd feel the same way if i was on that side of the table for any period of time (one of the primary reasons I don't practice criminal law).
I also know judges wouldn't ever say something like that, which was my point. Judges would want to see all evidence presented and witnesses subject to cross-examination before rendering any decision. People seem to be making the leap that because a number of prosecutors would initiate proceedings, that the Orange Menace is guilty of obstruction. My point is simply that you can't make that leap (similar to Hilary, you couldn't make the leap that the reports of what she did equaled a crime).
No one has any idea as to whether Trump obstructed justice, and won't regardless of what anyone things, unless and until a trial happens.
Fair post with the exception of: (similar to Hilary, you couldn't make the leap that the reports of what she did equaled a crime). Destroying subpoenaed emails, taking hammers to her devices and wiping hard drives clean with bleach bit...right...no possible crimes there.
The more I think of her, the happier I am that I voted for Trump.
As a former prosecutor, my experience was that there were two different standards by which investigators and prosecutors operated. Criminal investigators, who are originally assigned to investigate a potential crime when a complaint is filed, operate under a "probable cause" standard. Their goal was to build up enough evidence to support a finding that that there was probable cause to believe that a crime had occurred. Once such a finding was made, their job was mostly complete and the file was transferred to the prosecuting office, where the prosecutor then made a decision whether to file criminal charges. In doing so, the prosecutor would use a stricter standard of evaluating the evidence to determine whether he could meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard necessary for a trial. Prosecutorial discretion played a role, and included factors such as the victim's willingness to cooperate and ability to withstand the rigors of a trial, the availability of witnesses, evidence and experts and their associated costs, and factors that might affect the likelihood of a plea bargain.
"Slam dunk" cases never saw the inside of a courtroom; guilty plea agreements would be entered and sentence restrictions agreed upon.