| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
When it comes to differing views have you ever thought about sitting on the fence?Originally Posted by Wales-Bales
I try to remain neutral, but it's not an easy job. The news media have a habit of pushing narratives, and we've known for ages about dodgy government actions going back to the days of Edgar Hoover. I also can't believe Trump would tweet any of this stuff without having any knowledge about what is going on. He gets to see all the unredacted staff, and former NSA chief Admiral Rogers briefed him personally on all of the spying stuff.
See if you can maintain your famed neutrality after reading and watching this.
https://hillreporter.com/pat-roberts...-gods-plan-300
While even I can see that this bloke's name is obviously too similar to Clinton for this to be genuine.
https://hillreporter.com/trumps-pers...aid-wages-3498
And Mr Scrooge only paid him $75,000 a year too ... wait a minute, how do I apply for the job!
I'd start by sending him copies of your posts on here over the last two years.
And telling him to cancel all meetings for the next month while he tries to work through them.
Admittedly my CV is more impressive than lardy's regarding the things we get right
Do "made up facts", as you called them, count as things you've got right then?Admittedly my CV is more impressive than lardy's regarding the things we get right
They are neither made-up facts nor disproved facts. They are the views of people who should have a fair idea about what is going on.
There are facts and non facts, nothing else - made up facts and disproved facts do not exist, it's impossible for them to do so. Granted, it seems that it's so much harder to tell facts from non facts these days, but you have to try and find a way to do so.
You've outlined how you do it and it seems a little naive to me if I may say so, but each to their own and all that. The trouble is that you are very selective when applying that label "people who should have a fair idea about what is going on" aren't you - let's take current and past Presidents of the USA and the beaten candidate (you know, the one who got more votes than the winner!) in the last Presidential election as examples.
Two of the three Presidents before this one must surely have had a fair idea about what is going shouldn't they and yet you never appear to believe anything they do or say, the same applies to the beaten candidate in 2016 - all three of them, obviously, do not have "a fair idea of what is going on" as far as you are concerned and yet you present so much of what the current President says as fact.
For myself, I've said before that I prefer to use fact checkers rather than the men and women themselves as an aid towards deciding what are facts and non facts. It had been a while since I checked the one I use for American related issues, so I've just had a look this morning and you'll be pleased to know that your idol, the man who can do no wrong in your eyes, the man who "should have a fair idea of what's going on" is scoring a little better on the Truth o Meter these days;-
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...truth-o-meter/
Sadly though, your man is still not doing well overall - for every time he says something that can be taken as true or even half true, there are two occasions when he says something which is mostly false or a downright lie;-
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Compare his figures with the two ex Presidents who you think did not "have a fair idea of what is going on"
Trump's predecessor is thought to have been at least half truthful three times for every time he utters a falsehood and for Bill Clinton, it's much the same - as, indeed, it is for his wife.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bill-clinton/
http://www.politifact.com/personalit...llary-clinton/
Now, of course, I realise that the people working for the fact checker are probably all socialists and members of the Fabian Society just like Theresa May and Angela Merkel are, but I'll take that risk for now.
I'm dogmatic and quite one eyed in my political thinking and have the unfortunate habit of still thinking of things in terms of red and blue or left and right, but my dogma is as nothing compared to you, the man who tries to make out that he has moved beyond such old fashioned concepts!
One last thing, you really should realise that self praise is no recommendation whatsoever.
The simple version is an outsider has made it into the Oval Office, and everybody from the media to past presidents are terrified of what he may uncover. Hence a plot was hatched to prevent said outsider from winning the election, and then to remove him from office once he became president. The situation is still very fluid and it has neither been proven nor disproven to any satisfactory level. We are still waiting for the knockout blow from either side. I read both sides of the the arguement, so I am aware of an alternative narrative and the facts surrounding them, while others can't see past the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, etc..
Therefore I will be keeping an open mind while people are still writing articles such as these ...
http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/395...trump-campaign
http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/09/di...2016-election/
http://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/396...ump-dossier%3F
May the best team win!
So, who is the last "outsider" to become President?
You'd have to go back a bit. In recent times, the Bush Sr. > Clinton > Bush Jr. > Obama > (Hillary) path for the transition of power was seen as very desirable for some, but Trump replacing Hillary has really messed things up. I think it's a good idea to be looking into any plots that may have been hatched in order to subvert the democratic process. However, if nothing transpires, we can simply revert back to the status quo. On the other hand if any wrongdoing is uncovered, a good opportunity to clean up the system will have presented itself. Surely this is a win-win situation, so why in one side in perpetual panic mode?
PRESS RELEASE | JULY 10, 2018
Goodlatte Statement on Lisa Page Defying Congressional Subpoena
Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) issued the following statement after Lisa Page decided to defy the Committee’s subpoena:
“It appears that Lisa Page has something to hide. She plans to blatantly defy a congressional subpoena by refusing to appear for her deposition. She has known for months that the House Judiciary Committee has sought her testimony as part of our joint investigation with the Oversight Committee into decisions made by the Justice Department in 2016, and she has no excuse for her failure to appear. Lisa Page is a key witness, and it is critical that she come before our committees to answer questions as part of our investigation.
“We will use all tools at our disposal to obtain her testimony. Americans across the country are alarmed at the bias exhibited by top officials at the Justice Department and FBI, and it is imperative Congress conduct vigorous oversight to ensure that never happens again.”
https://judiciary.house.gov/press-re...onal-subpoena/
You reckon Reagan was an outsider then? I can see what you mean about the four Presidents before Trump all being a little samey in some ways, But I don't see Reagan as an outsider - the first President I can remember is Kennedy and I don't think there has been what I would call an outsider as President among those I can recall - Trump is the closest one to it I suppose, but he always strikes me as someone who would love to become an "insider" if he could.
Anyway, if we say you're right, that means that there will be plenty of influential people still around who can remember what it was like with the outsider Reagan in charge and don't you think their experience of the Reagan years would make them better able to cope with the threat Trump poses to them better than being in a perpetual panic ?
Whose campaign do you think the decision to reopen the investigation into Hilary Clinton's e-mail account shortly before the election by an organisation which you say is supposed to be on the side of the globalist elite damaged most?
The New York FBI forced the reopening of the Hillary e-mail server investigation after classified information was found on the Anthony Weiner/Huma Abedin laptop, which the dismissed former Deputy FBI Director McCabe tried to ignore. All of this is well documented.
Thanks for that, but you didn't answer my question.
And never will
I don't have all the answers, but I do know your Trump Russia Collusion story was a load of bull. Ditto Stormy, etc..
I don't think Trump is the only one wanting to see an end to the globalist experiment, so he makes deals where he can. He's probably got his backers behind the scenes, and he seems to have good relations with the military too. It's hard to know for certain, as he hasn't really made any big moves yet. With the mid-term coming up in November I would expect some kind of movement on that front. He definitely has a strategy, but the big question is when will he play his hand? Or will Mueller play it for him?
The investigation was reopened after a forensic examination concluded that copies of the emails sent from the Clinton email server were also being forwarded to a foreign entity, which was not Russia.
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave at 18.09 on 12/7/18.
The reopening of the investigation was down security breaches that may have affected national security, it had nothing to do with elections or helping a particular party. The timing was entirely dependent on the discovery of the data which was then forensically examined. A more pertinent question might be to ask why an exoneration occured, because that is where a political element comes into play.
No thanks, I'll stick to my original question, which candidate did the decision to reopen the investigation hurt most? Trump or the candidate the FBI was supposed to be in cahoots with?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote