Since when do we telegraph all of our internal legislative actions to foreign governments? And why shouldn't I take what Ukrainian officials say at face value? Seems you have to get conspiratorial to maintain your beliefs.
The idea that the person being blackmailed is going on TV and declare that he is being blackmailed is preposterous. Well, I've heard enough of your BS....Click!
LOL! I've been giving you your last chance, after already putting you on ignore. And since you obviously have no real argument, I'm happy the feeling is mutual. Cheers!
The Republican ones. They "know" a lot of things like that. So you still haven't read the Mueller report, despite numerous warnings. Facts aren't your thing, apparently. Except the Republican Congress, the Republican administration, and the rightwing corporate media pundits. They were against it. Trump actually fired the head of the FBI to block it. It illustrates the worth of a Republican's claim to be a never-Trumper - now or ever. It illustrates the worth of a Republican's claims about anything, actually - they will be "obsolete" whenever the Republican finds them inconvenient. It's a fascist Party, and ideas, claims, rhetoric, products of intellect generally, are nothing but propaganda to fascists. Trump=Republican, Republican=Trump. They didn't oppose him. They attacked his enemies using Republican (his) rhetoric. They did not attack him. And they were used by the corporate media to block the actual opponents of Trump - the people who had spotted and analyzed Trump all along - from reaching a mass audience consistently or repeatedly. As soon as it became clear that Trump was not going to wreck their Party and wasn't going to jail any time soon, they fell into line. All the lefties are still opposing Biden - actually opposing him, not just talking about it to cover ass like you with Trump. Meanwhile: As bad as Biden is, he's much better than Trump even in senility. If Biden were running as a Republican he'd be their best - most honorable, honest, decent - national politician. One could actually vote for him over any Republican, let alone Trump - without having to make up stupid crap to hide what's happening. Like this: It was. It was happening before his first election, and for his entire first term in office. He was famous for it, in reality based circles. Employment is down, working conditions are down, wealth and income inequality is up (way up), debt is up (way up), health insurance has become worse and more expensive, and the cost of living has risen faster than wages even for the fraction that has seen its gross wages (not take-home) go up a little bit. Meanwhile, what improvement there has been (GDP, or the like) was a carry over from Obama's second term, has slowed under Trump, has yet to surpass the pre=crash peak, and is approaching another recession. Why do you think you guys have to invent an entire fictional world of US politics and economics?
Good question. Most people know better than to take easily explained standard diplomatic nonsense at face value any time, but especially when they have seen the counter-evidence. But that is because most people have reason not to appear corrupt, bad, on the wrong side, or bizarrely foolish, in public. Most people have no overriding agenda more important to them than their own self-respect and personal integrity. In your case, maybe you have no reason to not take diplomatic weaseling and extorted ass kissing at face value. Only you can answer that.
Best put all reality-based sources on ignore for the next few months, lest you see something that indicates Trump is doing a poor job, and causes you crippling cognitive dissonance.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We're actually seeing one of the limitations of the system Clinton and Obama worked within. The old Green Lantern Thesis that Obama was somehow supposed to charm people out of their own inexplicable rejection of their own policies has become a Green Lantern Revisionism. Some progressives, and some of them actually prominent, crossed my twitfeed in recent days complaining that Trump was outflanking Obama on the left, and I was asked to imagine Barack Obama, in the middle of the foreclosure crisis, ordering Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and HUD—all objects of rightist conspiracism—to stop foreclosing and evicting. And, hey, remember that time we had a migration crisis on the southern border, and Speaker Boehner insisted on a GOP plan, so he took it to the floor and had to pull it because his own caucus was going to say no? And remember, then, how he publicly told President Obama to use his executive authority to address the problem? Of course, it's Boehner, so, hey, remember how he sued President Obama for doing just that, thus creating the DACA argument crisis leading and interwoven into the trumpswindle concentration camps? American capitalism might be about to break. You and I can hopefully chuckle, someday, albeit ruefully, about how they needed to wait until they could blame the black guy and some woman in order to call the whole thing off. Still, I remember twenty years ago, as we unpacked my ruby-red nosecone iMac, it wasn't quite astonishment, but some manner of nearly disbelieving admiration to consider that Apple had already achieved optimization to having mere hours worth of inventory. And we must at some point admit, albeit grudgingly, this makes sense for a company obsessed with testing the boundaries of what counts or not as bricking. Physical stock as a ledger liability is what it is. But we're talking about basic prophylaxis and medical supply. Yesterday, we got to hear that, sure the testing protocols are now available, but the hospital is running short on the sterile swabs used in collecting samples. Also, the spaceman billionaire tweeted that he would start manufacturing equipment if there was a shortage, to which the question translates, from tweetish, to what does he mean by if. We didn't have the inventory on hand because American capitalism only sees short-term liability in doing so. We are slow to spin up the manufacturing response because any plan necessarily defies the formulaic discussion of profit margin and other such projections. It's not just that our system is designed with this glaring fault, but also that we insist on it, the proverbial, Feature, Not A Bug. The system has been broken for a while. Remember, though, there is a bloc who rejected Sec. Clinton in favor of Sanders, but came back, four years later, to an even more institutional figure in VP Biden. Trying to assess the system President Clinton worked within, and its relationship to what Obama countenanced in the Office, is difficult enough within their own historical contexts, but if we recall the lesson of '48—that is, a hundred seventy-two years ago—we should not be surprised to find the petit-bourgeoisie and aspiring proletarians scurrying after institutional security, and even less so for consideration of self-infliction. So one thing we should note, as the moment eddies about, is that our neighbor's comment↑, that, "It is unfair to blame these two presidents for the failures of their subsequent replacements", is not incorrect insofar as it goes, but does fail to approach the living question; part of why we have a Trump presidency is that enough people disagreed that Clinton and Obama "were good stewards of the Nation". We could have had the better Clinton for a president, but she was apparently an extraordinarily odious representation of the institutions many who said no to her are, this time around, clamoring after. If it really was about policy and institutional failure, Biden wouldn't have just won Michigan. A haunting prospect: At what point are some people hoping to hasten the end, because just like any old tinfoil, everything gets magically better, the day after? † Meanwhile, we should remember that if we follow↑ the posts↑, this side discussion about Vociferous' two-bit, generic, polymer capsule script in re not trusting any politician—a manner of rightist hackery we've suffered around here for years—is actually misdirection intended to beg people's attention away from relevant consideration↑ of the thread, which is that Attorney General Barr's, and thereby the Justice Department's, handling of the Mueller report lacked candor. Consider this part of his response— —and try, for the moment, to look past the recycling of other people's criticisms of his own posts, because it's pretty easy to check what he's complaining about. What McQuade said: Always consider Barr's statements for what they don't say. Judge Walton said Barr lacked candor in his public remarks and letter to Congress, which do not jibe with the Mueller Report. As a result, he does not trust Barr or DOJ. So, what did she take out of context, fail to understand, make up or lie about, or read into what was not objectively there? "Judge Walton said Barr lacked candor", and, as a result, His Honor "does not trust Barr or DOJ". So, what did Judge Walton actually say? As noted earlier, the Court has reviewed the redacted version of the Mueller Report, Attorney General Barr's representations made during his April 18, 2019 press conference, and Attorney General Barr's April 18, 2019 letter. And, the Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report. The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr's statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary. These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr's lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr's credibility and in turn, the Department's representation that “all of the information redacted from the version of the [Mueller] Report released by Attorney General [Barr]” is protected from disclosure by its claimed FOIA exemptions. (EPIC v. U.S. Dept. of Justice & Leopold and Buzzfeed Inc. v. U.S. Dept of Justice, et al.↱) So, it seems McQuade didn't take it out of context, or fail to understand English, or lie, or fail to know truth, or read into it what wasn't there. In other words, a cheap, rightist troll tried the same penny-clearance dime-a-dozen make-believe failure regularly punctuating our discourse since promoting it as a quota hire on the moderation staff over a decade ago, and, what, we're not supposed to notice? This is actually part of the reason rational discourse is anathema, around here; apparently, some "political views" can't do any better than botchery and make believe. The tacit presupposition is that if we don't allow, protect, encourage, and cultivate this kind of stupidity, we will have silenced the political view it purports to represent. To wit, if these fallacious manners of uneducated trolling are not protected, then political conservatism will be somehow silenced. It is unclear how to justify the presupposition of conservative illegitimacy, but neither can we overlook the fact of market trends describing a depraved conservative ethic at large. Was a time I really would have thought conservatives were capable of better. Still, really? Clumsy self-denigration is what conservatives have left? When did they last have anything better? ____________________ Notes: @BarbMcQuade. "Always consider Barr's statements for what they don't say. Judge Walton said Barr lacked candor in his public remarks and letter to Congress, which do not jibe with the Mueller Report. As a result, he does not trust Barr or DOJ." Twitter. 7 March 2019. Twitter.com. 20 March 2019. http://bit.ly/39BPU0M Walton, Reggie B. "Memorandum Opinion". Epic v. U.S. Dept. of Justice and Leopold & Buzzfeed Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice. United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 5 March 2020. assets.documentcloud.org. 20 March 2020. https://bit.ly/3dkSMBt
Due to pure hateful slander, criminal misdirection and false promises of Making the Nation Great Again and stirring the basest emotions in an otherwise uninformed citizenry, resulting in the election of the very character traits they thought they were voting against.
[#trumpswindle | #WhatTheyVotedFor] Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click for something entirely different. This part is especially difficult. While your take in general—hateful slander, basest emotions, uninformed citizenry—is not without its merits, it's also true that the people comforted by a pretense of absolution or, more properly, mitigation of their sin, as such, would reject the setup; history itself really suggests a whole bunch of the flaming shitshow really is what they voted for. No, really, I get what you're after, but it doesn't quite work. We can traipse through the archives, here, and find what passes for mainstream conservatism pushing the invading Mexican army rhetoric about immigration a decade ago; y'know, the rhetoric that made its way into the Trump White House, and then the El Paso shooter's manifesto. Did you hear Rand Paul came out and started disqualifying people from being people? The whole pitch against certain character traits was the bait. Who, here, hasn't noticed the conservative tendency to fulfill what they warn about? They've been at it for years. Like, if we consider the part about Barr, and not so long ago it crossed my twitfeed that someone wondered how many of us remembered the screeching histrionic fits we were supposed to be pitching about A.G. Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton. And, y'know, I get what that one means, but if we think back through Holder and the Republican Congressional pretense of stupidity required for their Fast and Furious temper tantrum, well, right, it all just sort of connects back to itself. Hell, remember when people were supposed to feel sorry for right-wing militia megalomaniacs, including the religious delusional with a bunch of child wives? Y'know, because Janet Reno? Yeah, well, even before her there was William Barr, and here we come 'round the circle again, just like we did under Bush Jr., with the guys who had been around since the Nixon administration. None of the twenty-first century Republican Party disgrace has been any sort of accident. And now that the Trump administration is upon us, a lot of people feel rather quite stupid for having continued to extend the credit of basic human decency to our conservative neighbors long after it became apparent they were full of shite. And, really, it was hard to just up and imagine that many people really were just that fucking evil. But the idea that they somehow got lost in it all, resulting in the election of the very character traits they thought they were voting against, doesn't quite work. Concentration camps. Tax bills written in crayon. Government that just doesn't work. A compromised and incompetent puppet of antisocial interests in the White House. It's everything Republicans ever wanted. Yeah, remember once upon a time, paranoid libertarians and ostensible independents who just couldn't help but recite conservative-partisan talking points were a chorus about intrusive government, and even the idea of tyranny riding in on a fake crisis? Well, this isn't a fake crisis, but Covid lockdown orders to come are going to challenge those old ideas of tyranny, if they don't already. Additionally, more severe measures are considered in no small part because the deliberate failure of government, which we've been watching Republicans cultivate for over a decade, now, has complicated and grown the danger. This is not some circumstance resulting in the election of the very character traits they thought they were voting against. This morbid spectacle is precisely what they voted for. This isn't a conservative accident; it is conservative infliction.
No, the economy has been great across the board, objectively. The historically low unemployment hasn't been achieved by only employing the rich. Only leftist "hate the rich" bias blinds you to that reality. If your personal finances have continued to be crap, I can only surmise that you are either lazy, have no significant marketable skills, or are on a fixed income due to retirement or disability. In each case, it is not the economy's fault you have not benefited. Not much risk of putting reality-based sources on ignore around here. Public opinion polls say most people approve of Trumps handling of both the economy and the epidemic, the latter including some approval from Democrats (30%). Wow, that's a ton of poisoning the well, as preface. I can only guess that you feel you need to do that, to get the gullible or similarly partisan on board, before proceeding. Thanks for so readily illustrating my point. "for what they don't say" is literally "reading into stuff things that are not objectively there".
Obviously, you're getting that news from the usual conservative propaganda: https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...s-of-trumps-handling-of-coronavirus-pandemic/ Meanwhile, in reality, Trump is considered an idiot in his handling of the crisis and his offhand ignorant remarks.
What Trump and his supporters fail to realise is that greatness is not just about about wealth. Making the nation wealthy again is what Trump really meant. IMO. It has not a lot to do with making it great again. And his incompetence and the incompetence of his supporters have just cost the USA the ability to ride the COVID storm out with a functioning national economy. Throwing money only at the problem is not the solution. It takes voluntary good will and faith and genuine patriotism to get through. Some thing Trump only pays lip service to and has been poisoning since elected. It takes real leadership to make the USA "great"again...one that knows the value of "sustainability" and resilience etc..and doesn't waste precious time on ego-centric narcissism.
Apparently you can't be bothered to read the stuff you cite. Unless you think ABC News/Ipsos is "conservative propaganda". More likely is that you're just making an intellectually dishonest (intentional or not) genetic fallacy. Or are you really so obtuse that you think all these are "conservative propaganda" too? A majority of Americans now approve of President Donald Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, according to a new survey, as the administration has issued stricter federal guidelines in recent days and the president has adopted a more public-facing role in combating the disease. An ABC News/Ipsos poll released Friday reports that 55 percent of respondents approve of Trump’s management of the public health crisis, while 43 percent disapprove. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...prove-of-trumps-coronavirus-management-138570 Mr. Trump’s approval rating jumped to 53% in Harris’ national surveys conducted March 17 and 18, Tuesday and Wednesday, which was up from 49% in polling taken on March 14 and 15. Support for the president is tied to the public’s view of his handling the coronavirus outbreak and his approach to foreign affairs. Approval of Mr. Trump’s management of the coronavirus crisis rose 5 percentage points to 56% in polling conducted this week. His handling of foreign affairs rose 3 percentage points to 52% in the same timeframe. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/20/trump-approval-jumps-4-amid-growing-confidence-his/ A Morning Consult poll conducted Tuesday through Friday found 53 percent of voters approve of Trump’s handling of the spread of coronavirus, compared with 39 percent who disapprove. Taken together, it marks an increase of 10 percentage points in net approval of his coronavirus response since polling conducted March 13-16. https://morningconsult.com/2020/03/20/trump-approval-coronavirus-response/ In the new poll, 55% of Americans approve of the president's management of the crisis, compared to 43% who disapprove. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cor...lives-changed-pandemic-poll/story?id=69696172 Now, I'm sure the leftist sources you usually restrict yourself to have been really careful not to tell you about these three different polls, that all say a majority of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the outbreak. Politico, Morning Consult, and ABC News are all "conservative propaganda, huh? Okay, buddy. Someone needs to take you out for some ice cream or put you down for a nap or something. Trump both banned travel from China and established the coronavirus response team in January, when the Democrats were busy trying to impeach him.
Wow, so from the 502 people polled, just over half approved of Trump's handling of the situation, this the result of some 20,000+ people currently infected, where it's expected that soon the death rate will far exceed what Italy is going through right now. Yes, I see why you support Trump, you're both a$$holes. Lol. What planet are you on? January?
My wife was stocking up at the supermarket and ran into a woman who loudly proclaimed that Trump was handling the situation superbly and thanked God for sending him to the US at the right time. Now that is scary .....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yep, over 26,000 infected, in a country with a relative land mass and population to all of Europe. Compared to over 53,000 in Italy, 25,000 in Spain, 22,ooo in Germany, etc., which are comparable to single US states. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries The ABC/Ipsos poll was of 502 people, the Harris poll surveyed 2,050 Americans, and the Morning Consult poll surveyed 1851 registered voters. I guess looking into more than one of my citations was just too much to allow you to quell your cognitive dissonance. Calling people names while you can't be bothered to look at all credible citations seems like projection. What happened to your nonsense about "conservative propaganda"? Yep. January 31, 2020 at 6:48 PM EST The Trump administration on Friday dramatically escalated its response to the fast-spreading coronavirus epidemic by announcing quarantines and major travel restrictions that officials said were meant to limit contagion. ... The White House declared a “public health emergency” and — beginning on Sunday at 5 p.m. — will bar non-U.S. citizens who recently visited China from entering the United States, subject to a few exemptions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-p...ina-travel-restrictions-response-coronavirus/ Task Force formation On January 24, 2020, the Senate Health Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee hosted a briefing with top administration health officials regarding the coronavirus outbreak.[25] Five days later, The White House Coronavirus Task Force was established to coordinate and oversee efforts to "monitor, prevent, contain, and mitigate the spread" of COVID-19 in the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States#Task_Force_formation I suppose you think WaPo and Wiki are "conservative propaganda" too, huh? Well, children aren't expected to know what's going on in reality. We do want to protect them. Thanks for verifying why I have you on ignore. Because you have no clue as to what is actually going on, as clearly demonstrated above.
Ahhh! The now famous Iggy method employed by all Trump supporters and Trump himself...works a treat, doesn't it?
And thanks for verifying why I have you on ignore. Because you post so much banal sniping and have no clue to boot.
