• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. Politics 2017 (split fm US Election: 2016)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Very Trumpian: fill the communications channels with chaff and let people go racing down rabbit holes to figure out what he is on about. In the mean time, he is likely doing something totally different and the media and talking heads have just wasted more valuable time on another nothingburger.

The guy is a galactic emperor level troll on social media, and I mean that in an admiring way (capable of trolling and totally dominating his enemies). Just a hint; "The Art of the Deal" was written in 1989......
 
New info out about Obama possibly spying on the Chief Justice using the NSA and CIA.

http://bigleaguepolitics.com/evidence-supreme-court-justice-john-roberts-hacked-obama-officials/
 
tomahawk6 said:
New info out about Obama possibly spying on the Chief Justice using the NSA and CIA.

http://bigleaguepolitics.com/evidence-supreme-court-justice-john-roberts-hacked-obama-officials/

:rofl:

Good one. That was my laugh of the day.

:cheers:
 
Bernie Sanders is feeling the burn as well. Interesting how the Clinton campaign was already spooled up to weaponize this in 2015.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/14/hillary-clintons-plan-to-attack-bernie-sanders-wife.html

FBI probe of Bernie Sanders' wife closely tracks Hillary's secret campaign plan
Malia Zimmerman
By Malia Zimmerman Published July 14, 2017 Fox News

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ claims that an ongoing FBI probe of his wife is based on partisan politics don’t square with the fact that it began under President Obama and appears to closely track Democratic opposition research revealed in the hacked emails of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The FBI and U.S. Attorney in Vermont are investigating Jane O’Meara Sanders for her role in a failed 2010, $10 million college land deal that she orchestrated during her seven-year stint as president of Burlington College in Vermont.

According to a series of 2015 emails to and from Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, leaked to and published on Wikileaks, the Clinton team wrote an extensive political opposition memo entitled “Sanders Top Hits-Thematics.” The memo details Mrs. Sanders’ role in the college’s financial failure, and parallels the ongoing FBI investigation, now before a grand jury, into the scandal.  Other email correspondence shows the Clinton team believed scandals surrounding the college and Jane Sanders provided an opportunity to knock the Vermont senator’s reputation and chances to win the Democratic primary election.

“I think our first question is how are we going to defeat Sanders. … he's not who he says he is -- gun votes, DSCC money, Jane. There may be other options too but these seem to be the strongest attacks to consider. How we undermine Sanders candidacy is our threshold question,” a Clinton campaign official wrote in the fall 2015.

Attaching to an email the “hits” piece with potentially damaging information about Mrs. Sanders, another official wrote: “We have a meeting scheduled on Thursday to discuss next steps on Bernie Sanders … we'd like for everyone to come having reviewed the material and ready to discuss which hits and themes we want to deploy.”

The so called “hits” piece also included a passage headed “O’Meara Sanders brokered a risky and potentially fraudulent purchase that nearly bankrupted the college.”

“After several years as the president of Burlington College, Jane O’Meara Sanders resigned amid speculation that she conflicted with the board and [didn’t] bring in enough money for the school. Critics later tied her to the school’s financial trouble after she brokered a deal to borrow $10 million to buy land for the college,” Clinton’s team summed up in a political opposition memo. “Members of the lending agency expressed concern over the college’s ability to repay the loan, and one suggested that if O’Meara Sanders was not involved, the loan would not have been approved.”

The opposition research also highlighted numerous media reports, summarizing related scandals, including the fact that Mrs. Sanders took a $200,000 golden parachute when she left the college and, before that, arranged a deal where Burlington College paid her daughter’s company, The Vermont Woodworking School, $55,000, as part of a craftsman decree.

The trigger for the ongoing investigation into Jane Sanders came in January 2016 when a lawyer representing a Roman Catholic parishioner in the Burlington diocese filed a complaint with federal authorities about the land deal. The legal complaint of the attorney, who was the Vermont state chairman for the Trump campaign, stated that the deal led to a $2 million loss for the diocese.

According to attorney Brady Toensing’s complaint, to secure the $10 million, Jane Sanders obtained a $6.5 million loan from the People’s United Bank to buy tax-exempt bonds issued by a state agency, and a $3.65 million second mortgage from the diocese. Sanders reportedly told college trustees and bank lenders that the college had raised $2.4 million to repay the loan, but trustees learned that many of the donors listed in Mrs. Sanders’ materials hadn’t agreed to those amounts.

As a result of the debt and lower-than-projected student enrollment, Burlington College shut down in May 2016.

Since the complaint was filed in January 2016, people and entities involved with the college loan were asked to provide information for the ongoing federal grand jury probe.

The public harm in this case is substantial because the diocese offers a significant amount of help to the community’s poor and needy, Toensing said.

Sen. Sanders has alleged that Toensing was motivated to file the complaint because of his ties to Trump. But Toensing told Fox News that is simply wrong. He didn’t take on the role of Vermont state chairman for the Trump campaign until the summer of 2016, well after the federal grand jury investigation of Mrs. Sanders began.

“This investigation was started under President Obama's Justice Department,” Toensing said. “The senator's claims are a common, but lame diversion for politicians faced with a grand jury investigation. He should focus on answering the allegations, which are solidly based on analysis of facts from documents obtained through public records requests and evidence gathered by investigative reporters.”

“Ms. Sanders and her husband have built political careers pontificating against corporate corruption and claiming to want to help the needy. The Diocese, however, actually helps the needy through vital direct services,” Toensing wrote.  “The loss of $2 million as a result of Ms. Sanders's apparent misconduct will materially detract from this charitable work and cause significant harm to vulnerable Vermonters.”

Kraig LaPorte, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Vermont, said “We are not offering any comment in relation to this investigation at this time.” A spokesperson for the FBI also would not comment.
 
Thucydides said:
Interesting how the Clinton campaign was already spooled up to weaponize this in 2015.

Discussion of "the Clinton campaign" is in the US Election: 2016 thread. 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/108210.2825
129 pages.

Was President Obama obsessed with the Romney campaign, or the McCain campaign, eight plus months after the elections?

Was President G.W. Bush obsessed with the Al Gore campaign eight plus months after the election?

Could the obsession with Mrs. Clinton have anything to do with the fact that he lost the Popular Vote to her by a greater margin than any US president?
( Five times more than the second biggest deficit. )

 
The Clinton campaign and the Democrats in general have left questions of epic proportions about everything from finances to domestic spying to just how the Federal bureaucracy has been politicized, so yes, it is of interest.

And bringing up the popular vote thing is like suggesting Wayne Gretzky was a great hockey player because of his RBI stats; it is a meaningless metric given how US elections are structured. But even that argument may fall apart, just looking at the irregularities uncovered when the Green Party managed to get recounts in 3 State and extrapolating across the United States suggests that Hillary may not have even won the popular vote.

Since the Dems refuse to accept the outcome of the election, one of the consequences is their actions keep coming to the surface for everyone to see.
 
Thucydides said:
Since the Dems refuse to accept the outcome of the election, one of the consequences is their actions keep coming to the surface for everyone to see.

"Trump repeatedly refused to say that he would accept the result of the election."
"I will look at it at the time." "What I'm saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense,"
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=asdqWZ_0NIGR8Qeg8KywCA&gws_rd=ssl#q=+%22look+at+it+at+the+time%22+%22keep+you+in+suspense%22&spf=1500170090438

“I would like to promise and pledge, to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States, that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election — if I win,”
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=yMRqWcbAD4yR8Qfd95PYDg&gws_rd=ssl#q=I+would+like+to+promise+and+pledge,+to+all+of+my+voters+and+supporters+and+to+all+of+the+people+of+the+United+States,+that+I+will+totally+accept+the+results+of+this+great+and+historic+presidential+election+%E2%80%94+if+I+win&spf=1500169415796

This 129 page thread is open for discussion of the 2016 US election
https://army.ca/forums/threads/108210.2825

This  thread is for discussion of US politics in 2017.

 
Thucydides said:
Actions, however, speak far louder than words.

They are reflected in approval ratings,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+approval&biw=1280&bih=603&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A7%2F15%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A7%2F16%2F2017&tbm=
 
Pres Trump has stepped in it of course. When the MSM devotes the majority of its newscasts/print to relentlessly denigrating  him, not even PM Trudeau could possibly get a decent approval rating.
 
mariomike said:
They are reflected in approval ratings,

The approval ratings are brought to you by the same people who produced all of the polls and predictions that he would never win the Republican nomination, and had almost no chance of winning the Presidency.

The vast bulk of the lamestream media is little more than a Democrat propaganda arm.
 
Rifleman62 said:
Pres Trump has stepped in it of course. When the MSM devotes the majority of its newscasts/print to relentlessly denigrating  him, not even PM Trudeau could possibly get a decent approval rating.

He denigrates himself.  The 'MSM' just report it.
 
It is obvious to enough people the bulk of MSM are alarmingly bias.  Everyday this is demonstrated.  It is undemocratic and everyone should be seriously concerned. 



 
What has democracy got to do with selling newspapers? It is a business. Period.

Media companies will print what sells ads. The "truth" or "defending democracy" has never been the primary consideration.


 
Freedom of the press is protected in the constitution.  Therefore it shouldn't favour anyone person/party/government etc.  A free and unbiased press is essential to a western democracy.

The alternative is propaganda.
 
I watch a few online sources for decent coverage and interpretation, and much greater detail than one will find in any MSM coverage.

The Still Report https://www.youtube.com/user/bstill3/videos is very reliable. "Bill Still is a former newspaper editor and publisher. He has written for USA Today, The Saturday Evening Post, the Los Angeles Times Syndicate, OMNI magazine, and has also produced the syndicated radio program, Health News. He has written 22 books and two documentary videos and is the host of his wildly popular daily YouTube Channel the "Still Report", the quintessential report on the economy and Washington." He has a plain, no-frills style and, on the rare occasion where he gets something wrong, comes out and says so and why. He is a Republican and Donald Trump supporter, and was extremely accurate with commentary and predictions during the recent US election. He has large network of contacts and sources built up over many years of journalism.

Mark Steyn https://www.steynonline.com/

HA Goodman https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDB5XReUyyqt-FTNdkzFN-A/videos is a "progressive", supported Jill Stein and subsequently Bernie Sanders in the last US election, still believes that Bernie Sanders could have beaten Donald Trump, states regularly that Clinton was unelectable and says why, and points out the errors of both and details the Clinton crimes.

Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-W_DvNZoIW1433DrLBQHUQ/videos. Scott Adams talks about Presidential approval https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ft1FV58D0Y. Dilbert Creator Scott Adams on Predicting Trump Winning in a Landslide https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-sBO6OppAc.

Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler on OAN https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMfKNuYXBc9bxb0fg2cGTBg/videos has some good material and commentary, but presentation (while scenic) can be overhyped and I've picked out a few inaccuracies.

Mark Dice https://www.youtube.com/user/MarkDice/videos is entertaining and enjoys skewering liberals and left-leaning media.

Steven Crowder https://www.youtube.com/user/StevenCrowder/videos is also very entertaining but also puts a lot of effort into some very good investigations, such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq4WBOkFNtE

Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity of Fox News on various Youtube channels.

I will occasionally look at some other pro-Republican/pro-Donald Trump sites, but most have more fluff and/or hype than solid content or are too whacko/conspiracy-theory-oriented.

I will still occasionally look at left-leaning sites just as I read loads of Soviet propaganda during the Cold War in order to understand my opponent, but both could/can only be taken in small doses and are normally wrong. There is some unintentional humour on those sites, however.

The MSM in the US are far more biased than the MSM here. Democrat shortcomings, mistakes, and crimes are glossed-over, ignored, or covered-up, yet they blow every minor Republican/Donald Trump error out of proportion, leap on every blatant falsehood such as the shabby "dossier" that claimed that Donald Trump hired hookers to urinate on a bed in a hotel in Russia in which the Obamas supposedly slept, invent BS, deliberately misrepresent and deceive, and are consistently wrong. CNN's audience has shrunk considerably.
 
QV said:
Freedom of the press is protected in the constitution.  Therefore it shouldn't favour anyone person/party/government etc.  A free and unbiased press is essential to a western democracy.

The alternative is propaganda.

Freedom means freedom regardless of whether it favours someone or even if it is propaganda.

I can't think of a time in US history (going right back to the revolution) where the press wasn't biased in favour of one side or cause in matters of political reporting. It's always been a matter of degrees.

The point is that we must assume that we are getting biased views and therefore read widely and make our own opinions based on the internal logic that is present or missing in the various reports. The trouble is that most people come with preconceptions and gravitate only to the viewpoints that they favour. This is why I force myself to read Fox as much as I read CNN as well as BBC, Spiegel and other foreign reports on North American events.

:cheers:
 
The 2016 election is still relevant to politics in 2017.  Everything underhanded tactic that was used in 2016 (or earlier) will, if not punished sufficiently, be repeated in future.
 
Loachman said:
The approval ratings are brought to you by the same people who produced all of the polls and predictions that he would never win the Republican nomination, and had almost no chance of winning the Presidency.
And yet, if it helps the narrative ...  ;D

(source)
 

Attachments

  • Clipboard01.jpg
    Clipboard01.jpg
    44.2 KB · Views: 177
I just realized that I'd left Bombard's Body Language https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXG8i4PE6-mxh52nFKwMkcg/videos out. Mandy does not always understand the background to the clips that she analyzes or recognize all of the characters, as she accepts requests from her subscribers, but makes some interesting observations. One would have to view a few of her older videos to understand some of her techniques and terminology, as she does not explain them as much anymore. She's roasted the Sun King on several occasions - she doesn't like him much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top