Trump's Liberation Push

[RA1]

1 minute ago, JKane said:

Oh, you mean that time he TESTIFIED UNDER OATH, like exactly NOBODY from the last two Republican administrations... and tried to be cute instead of standing up and refusing the answer the question? 

Yeah, that's comparable to "we need to study injecting light and disinfectant" at the fucking presidential podium.  

"Take it, what have you got to lose?"

No, I mean the time BC took the deal rather than be convicted.  A political answer for sure.

Best regards,

RA1

[JKane]

8 minutes ago, RA1 said:

No, I mean the time BC took the deal rather than be convicted.  A political answer for sure.

Best regards,

RA1

After a real and in-depth trial in the Senate... hmm, imagine.  

They at least had to listen to and air in public the evidence before they voted along party lines.  And, again, TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN UNDER OATH.  

The Republicans learned a real lesson that day, and none have spoken under oath since.  

Also, remember when the special prosecutor had free-rein for years and ended up going down entirely different avenues than his warrant, including publishing a massive salacious tome that was released un-redacted?  

You really want this comparison?  

How many people did Starr indict, how many were convicted?  How much did his prosecution cost, how much did it make back in findings and plea agreements?  

[JKane]

[AdamSmith]

9 hours ago, RA1 said:

 

Give me the definition of "it" or "the".  Just asking although Bill Clinton is not available to respond.

Best regards,

RA1

It hardly needs saying: Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with a White House aide.

Trump was impeached for illegally withholding Congressionally mandated financial aid, for purpose of personal political gain, to a national political ally coming under threat from their prime foe.

To make any equivalence as you did is supremely irresponsible as a US citizen & patriot.

[RA1]

9 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

It hardly needs saying: Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with a White House aide.

Trump was impeached for illegally withholding Congressionally mandated financial aid, for purpose of personal political gain, to a national political ally coming under threat from their prime foe.

To make any equivalence as you did is supremely irresponsible as a US citizen & patriot.

So now I cannot have a personal opinion without being irresponsible?  Both Clinton and Trump were "cleared" politically which might seem fair since they were "indicted" politically.  

The national media in general and some of the posters herein remind me of a salesman who is constantly being upbraided to do more.  In other words it does not matter what your history is, what have you done for me lately?

As some of you very well know, it does matter what has been done historically as well as yesterday.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

On 4/20/2020 at 5:28 PM, SexyAsianStud said:

So you are right - Amerika is in some pretty shady hands right now

Of course, what else is new? 

A Rational Anthem

by Ambrose Bierce

 

My country, 'tis of thee, 
Sweet land of felony, 
Of thee I sing — 
Land where my fathers fried 
Young witches and applied 
Whips to the Quaker's hide 
And made him spring. 

My knavish country, thee, 
Land where the thief is free, 
Thy laws I love; 
I love thy thieving bills 
That tap the people's tills; 
I love thy mob whose will's 
All laws above. 

Let Federal employees 
And rings rob all they please, 
The whole year long. 
Let office-holders make 
Their piles and judges rake 
Our coin. For Jesus' sake, 
Let's all go wrong!

 

https://www.poetrynook.com/poem/rational-anthem

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrose_Bierce

[JKane]

RA1, no reply to these points, hmm?  

On 4/24/2020 at 9:58 AM, JKane said:

After a real and in-depth trial in the Senate... hmm, imagine.  

They at least had to listen to and air in public the evidence before they voted along party lines.  And, again, TESTIMONY WAS TAKEN UNDER OATH.  

The Republicans learned a real lesson that day, and none have spoken under oath since.  

Also, remember when the special prosecutor had free-rein for years and ended up going down entirely different avenues than his warrant, including publishing a massive salacious tome that was released un-redacted?  

You really want this comparison?  

How many people did Starr indict, how many were convicted?  How much did his prosecution cost, how much did it make back in findings and plea agreements?  

Really is funny you can equate the two by somehow being blind to points like those...  

[JKane]

[Buddy2]

On 4/20/2020 at 5:55 PM, JKane said:

I think this current "Bernie Bro" base is mostly made of Russian bots. 

Bernie supports had reason (DNC establishment ignoring them and shoving unwanted Hillary down our throats) to feel disenfranchised and angry last time, this time, not at all.  Their candidate was given a fair shake, in part because they helped to reshape the party some, but still failed to even come close to previous levels of support.  That combined with the now well established Trump record and intentions means no true liberal would dream of sitting out--let alone voting R--this election.  

I've long said that Trump will do for the national Republican party exactly what Schwarzenegger did for the Californian Republican party--destroy it utterly.  

So what will Trump pull to undermine or invalidate the coming election, and how will people like RA1 justify ignoring it?  

In 2016, Demoratic Party voters had a choice between Senator Sanders and Secretary Clinton. After some of Bernie's recent off the cuff comments (for example: Cuba and  Castro), perhaps voters knew what they were doing four years ago.

[JKane]

[AdamSmith]

14 hours ago, JKane said:

My work is market research about engineering design (CAD/CAM/CAE} software. Every trade publication I sell little articles to has cut me off completely, because the advertising revenue they live on has dried up entirely. Every manufacturer of pumps, seals, pneumatic power transfer systems, etc etc, as well as every software developer serving them, has put a ‘lockdown’ on spending.

Conserving cash on hand is the only thing on the mind of any businessperson in their right mind for now. Business execs all over the world that I can observe think this pandemic, and its repercussions, is going to go on and on much longer and deeper than we want to think.

My long experience with them is they are usually right in their cold-eyed realistic judgments about such things.

God help us all.

[JKane]

[JKane]

 

 

[tassojunior]

On 4/24/2020 at 10:42 PM, AdamSmith said:

It hardly needs saying: Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with a White House aide.

Trump was impeached for illegally withholding Congressionally mandated financial aid, for purpose of personal political gain, to a national political ally coming under threat from their prime foe.

To make any equivalence as you did is supremely irresponsible as a US citizen & patriot.

Both Clinton and Trump actually were impeached for perjury and lying to Congress. As with Martha Stewart, in the legalistic world of American "justice", it's not the "crime" nearly as much as the lying about it (Martha Stewart had not committed any other crime). Our court-centric justice system deems "lying" to the Court the most horrible of crimes even though under enough questioning by good enough examiners it's pretty hard not to stumble on something that can be taken as a non-truth subjecting someone to enormous penalties. That's why it's so serious to "call someone for questioning". They may be innocent but the chances of catching them in a "lie" (perjury) are very great. It turns "justice" into a "gotcha" game. (Why you never speak to police without a lawyer too.)

[AdamSmith]

1 hour ago, tassojunior said:

Both Clinton and Trump actually were impeached for perjury and lying to Congress. As with Martha Stewart, in the legalistic world of American "justice", it's not the "crime" nearly as much as the lying about it (Martha Stewart had not committed any other crime). Our court-centric justice system deems "lying" to the Court the most horrible of crimes even though under enough questioning by good enough examiners it's pretty hard not to stumble on something that can be taken as a non-truth subjecting someone to enormous penalties. That's why it's so serious to "call someone for questioning". They may be innocent but the chances of catching them in a "lie" (perjury) are very great. It turns "justice" into a "gotcha" game. (Why you never speak to police without a lawyer too.)

Agree entirely.

Then there is also the element of the system (Deep State if we must) that is still anti-woman.

'Feminism' is full of a lot of stupid stuff. But also considerable true observation of real shit. Martha was convicted of a (pretty questionable) $60k insider trade, when men in or around the market were getting away with millions.

What I love most is she showed the biggest balls in the room by saying, 'Look, instead of an endless appeal, I'll just go into the clink and serve my really rather short time, so I can get back to business again.'

IWO: Fuck You.

[tassojunior]

6 minutes ago, AdamSmith said:

Agree entirely.

Then there is also the element of the system (Deep State if we must) that is still anti-woman.

'Feminism' is full of a lot of stupid stuff. But also considerable true observation of real shit. Martha was convicted of a (pretty questionable) $60k insider trade, when men in or around the market were getting away with millions.

What I love most is she showed the biggest balls in the room by saying, 'Look, instead of an endless appeal, I'll just go into the clink and serve my really rather short time, so I can get back to business again.'

IWO: Fuck You.

But she was only convicted of perjury. The $60K trade was actually legal and she should not have denied talking to her advisor about it. Probably a mental slip up, as most people are prone to. Bizarre legal system.

Edited May 22, 2020 by tassojunior

[AdamSmith]

5 minutes ago, tassojunior said:

But she was only convicted of perjury. The $60K trade was actually legal and she should not have denied talking to her advisor about it. Probably a mental slip up, as most people are prone to.

But was it? My recall is there was some possible shadiness about it through a friend she had who whispered some non-public info to her.

Two personal acquaintances of mine who also know her said that was the case.

I don't know.

[tassojunior]

14 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

But was it? My recall is there was some possible shadiness about it through a friend she had who whispered some non-public info to her.

Two personal acquaintances of mine who also know her said that was the case.

I don't know.

She did have to pay a civil penalty to the SEC for the trade but it didn't rise to the level of a criminal act. 

[AdamSmith]

8 hours ago, tassojunior said:

She did have to pay a civil penalty to the SEC for the trade but it didn't rise to the level of a criminal act. 

Ah! Thank you. Never knew that.

[AdamSmith]

16 hours ago, tassojunior said:

She did have to pay a civil penalty to the SEC for the trade but it didn't rise to the level of a criminal act. 

But then why was she sentenced to that prison time?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.today.com/today/amp/tdna117171

[tassojunior]

6 hours ago, AdamSmith said:

But then why was she sentenced to that prison time?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.today.com/today/amp/tdna117171

For perjury. I think she said she had not spoken to her advisor.