Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 20:46:40 GMT
can you please provide me substantiating corroboration of the authors assertion? Jan. 5, 2017, meeting at the Obama White House. It was at this meeting that President Barack Obama gave guidance to key officials who would be tasked with protecting his administration’s utilization of secretly funded Clinton campaign research, which alleged Donald Trump was involved in a treasonous plot to collude with Russia, from being discovered or stopped by the incoming administration.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 20:46:47 GMT
I"M NOT A LIBERAL COMMIE FASCIST! Likely story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 20:48:16 GMT
It is, indeed. But I was responding to farmer's "The 'spying on a presidential campaign' meme is not exactly correct, and since that is the basis for much of your argument, the source of much of the confusion" comment. I'm also reminded of what I learned during the Clinton impeachment period...that there is no getting through to the dyed in the wool, top down, socialistic, big centralized government supporters. Those of us suspicious of power, like the founders of a Federated USA of 50 co-equal states, have no interest in wanting centralized power at the top...or anywhere else. All politics is local, and should remain so. Others are not so mindful of the grave dangers such a centralization of power can be toward individual freedoms and liberty. So be it. Well, I can't say that this description applies to farmer. Rather, it seems to me that he favors a particular narrative, one that I find flawed. I don't even really subscribe to the counter-narrative to the extent I can be certain it's free of it's own flaws. Although some of the specific elements, particularly of the Flynn and Stone cases, and particularly about Strzok, are real eyebrow raisers. I'm suspicious of Comey, McGabe and Rice, but they were better at forming firewalls of deniability than the hapless Pete. One major peril about digging in and taking a position is the inevitable effigy we create in our mind of the person on the other side of it.
well why can't you say it?
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 20:48:57 GMT
can you please provide me substantiating evidence of the authors assertion? Jan. 5, 2017, meeting at the Obama White House. It was at this meeting that President Barack Obama gave guidance to key officials who would be tasked with protecting his administration’s utilization of secretly funded Clinton campaign research, which alleged Donald Trump was involved in a treasonous plot to collude with Russia, from being discovered or stopped by the incoming administration.Chill bro', as far as I know that particular point is still speculative. .. but apparently, the fact of the meeting isn't .. I haven't spent enough time to figure out what is known about what was said in it.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 20:50:25 GMT
Well, I can't say that this description applies to farmer. Rather, it seems to me that he favors a particular narrative, one that I find flawed. I don't even really subscribe to the counter-narrative to the extent I can be certain it's free of it's own flaws. Although some of the specific elements, particularly of the Flynn and Stone cases, and particularly about Strzok, are real eyebrow raisers. I'm suspicious of Comey, McGabe and Rice, but they were better at forming firewalls of deniability than the hapless Pete. One major peril about digging in and taking a position is the inevitable effigy we create in our mind of the person on the other side of it.
well why can't you say it? The only thing that will satisfy you right now is ".. orange man bad. " ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 21:05:47 GMT
well why can't you say it? The only thing that will satisfy you right now is ".. orange man bad. " ... I rescind the like. I was just humoring you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 21:12:09 GMT
I"M NOT A LIBERAL COMMIE FASCIST! Likely story. not to mention this economic hierarchy we got going on here. the final decadences of a doomed system I would think.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 21:23:16 GMT
The only thing that will satisfy you right now is ".. orange man bad. " ... I rescind the like. I was just humoring you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2020 21:24:17 GMT
, jeez, I mean, pay some 'tension ta' what yer writin'. Son. I mean, ain't the DOJ part of the 'xecutive branchin'?? past presidents rarely interfered in DOJ business but Trump has now normalized this perverse behavior
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on May 15, 2020 21:33:22 GMT
Likely story. not to mention this economic hierarchy we got going on here. the final decadences of a doomed system I would think. Seems to me a step up from feudal times or before that, a literal slave trade driven by actual genocidal conquest. There are imbalances, no doubt, and those lead, inevitably, to instabilities. Your thoughts about it are all a part of those cycles.
So, the billionaires club irks ya'? I say that it's fine those people get to live out the wildest material dream possible - and it's not because I have any illusions about ever getting anywhere near close to it. What's destructive to society overall is the influence on it they get to wield. You can see past patterns of social evolution - away from slavery and conquest, for example, that suggest what the next evolutionary steps might be. But I don't think that necessarily means outlawing wealth, even extreme wealth.
|
|