No one, Trump, Biden, McConnell, Pelosi, should be above reproach. Our beloved Harry Reid went to Washington poor and left worth around $100 Million. I wonder how that happened?
Harry Reid says he invested well.
ETA: I would be interested in your opinion on Carter Page's reasons for not getting an attorney for at least part of time he was being interrogated by Schiff and Mueller. I typed it out up thread
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
None of the above is relevant. Someone in an email calling Joe Biden the big guy doesn't mean Joe Biden was in on a deal with Chinese business. You know better, lawyer.
Worthy of further investigation, wouldn't you say? Mr. Bobulinski claims big guy Joe Biden used his office to get 10% from a Chinese deal. I wonder if the deal would have gone through had the big guy not been involved?
No one, Trump, Biden, McConnell, Pelosi, should be above reproach. Our beloved Harry Reid went to Washington poor and left worth around $100 Million. I wonder how that happened?
My father knew some in the most beloved Gipper administration and they made $millions off of insider information.
Should this be allowed? Should team politics prevail over truth? If Trump had liaisons with underage girls on Epstein Island, I'd like to know and perhaps he should be charged? Clinton?
Anyway, yes, at this point we are dealing with conjecture against a beloved president who may have benefitted from corruption. Let's see and not dismiss it based on nonsense Russia hysteria.
May haves and should we's are ploys of politics, too. Should we be used like tools by expanding their speculative corrosion?
One isn't taking a skeptical high ground doing so.
Last edited by honorentheos on Mon Jan 02, 2023 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You're killing me, Ajax. You're a lot like my right-wing friend in one important way. Whereas he's constantly spun up about the next email he gets from his fellow right-wingers, you've got the next Breitbart article or right-wing book. If you get owned on 10/10 points, you rush to find point 11 and move on. Like him, you're dead sure that you're right about everything in spirit, it's just a matter of finding that golden nugget of truth. All the debunked stuff doesn't register, even if it's wrong, it's still true in spirit --- it should be true. And if it's not true, it's just a matter of time before finding the example just like it that is true.
While I thoroughly enjoy Res and H going into long explanation mode because to be honest, I'm not the best student of politics and history, I feel like they're being taken advantage of. I vote that if H reads any more of your books, that you have to read Michael Cohen's book, "Revenge: How Donald Trump Weaponized the US Department of Justice Against His Critics".
I mean, that still doesn't even come close to evening the scales, but it would be a good faith attempt in that direction.
I'd be willing to do that.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Worthy of further investigation, wouldn't you say? Mr. Bobulinski claims big guy Joe Biden used his office to get 10% from a Chinese deal. I wonder if the deal would have gone through had the big guy not been involved?
No one, Trump, Biden, McConnell, Pelosi, should be above reproach. Our beloved Harry Reid went to Washington poor and left worth around $100 Million. I wonder how that happened?
My father knew some in the most beloved Gipper administration and they made $millions off of insider information.
Should this be allowed? Should team politics prevail over truth? If Trump had liaisons with underage girls on Epstein Island, I'd like to know and perhaps he should be charged? Clinton?
Anyway, yes, at this point we are dealing with conjecture against a beloved president who may have benefitted from corruption. Let's see and not dismiss it based on nonsense Russia hysteria.
May haves and should we's are ploys of politics, too. Should we be used like tools by expanding their speculative corrosion?
One isn't taking a skeptical high ground doing so.
Sure, whatever, I guess anything can be characterized as group think ploys and dismissed, if one tries hard enough. But no one is above suspicion, or at least should be, even Saint Biden and Saint Trump, and Saint Team member.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
No one, Trump, Biden, McConnell, Pelosi, should be above reproach. Our beloved Harry Reid went to Washington poor and left worth around $100 Million. I wonder how that happened?
Harry Reid says he invested well.
ETA: I would be interested in your opinion on Carter Page's reasons for not getting an attorney for at least part of time he was being interrogated by Schiff and Mueller. I typed it out up thread
My guess is perhaps stupidity? People don't realize the FBI is out to make cases and are extremely aggressive.
Anyway, I'm off to the Rose Bowl to cheer on my Utes. I'll take a look at what you wrote later.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
How about just to prove to me that you could slog through it and so you can give me your rebuttal? Or would the cognitive dissonance be too painful?
Taunts as motivation? I don't think so.
Gad asked that you read Michael Cohen's book. Trading time and reading is an offer I'd accept.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean it as a taunt. It would be painful for me to read Michael Cohen's book so perhaps I projected too much. But it's a fair offer. I'll take you up on it when my credit comes available. But you can choose the book not Gad, unless he wants to read an opposing account as well. I see value in hearing the other side of the story whether I'm inclined to agree with it or not. Carter Page explains why in the last chapter of his book. He discusses some of the advantages of the time before we had separate partisan news networks and separate bubbles. It forced us to deal with uncomfortable truth.
I definitely think the department of justice should be blind to race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic level, and especially political party. I didn't like seeing Sarah Sanders being kicked out of the Red Hen for being a member of the Trump's whitehouse spokesperson but maybe separate restaurants and preservation of the right to exclude by the owners isn't a bad thing as long as it's applied equally to all political parties and ideologies. But weaponization of the justice department by the incumbent party against political opponents needs to stop. I think it's going to end up costing all of us dearly the longer it continues.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
My guess is perhaps stupidity? People don't realize the FBI is out to make cases and are extremely aggressive.
I do now. I understand a lot better why innocent people would take the fifth or refuse to speak to the FBI without their lawyer present. Carter said he had a naïve view of the FBI and thought it was all just a big misunderstanding. He thought that if he went to James Comey with the facts it would be resolved. It was only later that he realized the ugly truth. But he still had some very good reasons for not hiring a lawyer even when he realized who Jim Comey was and what he was about.
Anyway, I'm off to the Rose Bowl to cheer on my Utes. I'll take a look at what you wrote later.
[/quote]
I appreciate it. Have fun and good luck to the UTES.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
Sure, whatever, I guess anything can be characterized as group think ploys and dismissed, if one tries hard enough. But no one is above suspicion, or at least should be, even Saint Biden and Saint Trump, and Saint Team member.
Innuendos are also tools of politics. Anyone can cast suspicion. The questions that follow are if the evidence is worthy and who benefits from the casting of suspicion?
Gad asked that you read Michael Cohen's book. Trading time and reading is an offer I'd accept.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean it as a taunt. It would be painful for me to read Michael Cohen's book so perhaps I projected too much. But it's a fair offer. I'll take you up on it when my credit comes available. But you can choose the book not Gad, unless he wants to read an opposing account as well. I see value in hearing the other side of the story whether I'm inclined to agree with it or not. Carter Page explains why in the last chapter of his book. He discusses some of the advantages of the time before we had separate partisan news networks and separate bubbles. It forced us to deal with uncomfortable truth.
I definitely think the department of justice should be blind to race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic level, and especially political party. I didn't like seeing Sarah Sanders being kicked out of the Red Hen for being a member of the Trump's whitehouse spokesperson but maybe separate restaurants and preservation of the right to exclude by the owners isn't a bad thing as long as it's applied equally to all political parties and ideologies. But weaponization of the justice department by the incumbent party against political opponents needs to stop. I think it's going to end up costing all of us dearly the longer it continues.
Gads choice is fine by me, though perhaps a book like Zeihan's that isn't about politics but about geopolitics would be better for your own benefit. It's almost 600 pages so it's a commitment. I'd have to check Audible to see how long it is as a listen.
