• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER
Logo 468x120

Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

gangstonc

Member
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
299
Location
Meridianville
I listened to Trey Gowdy on Face the Nation, who helped draft the Memo and who actually read the FISA application. He is not a partisan hack and I found what he had to say to be thoughtful and extremely fair. If you haven't seen his interview, don't comment. Just...don't. He said the Russian investigation would be happening without the dossier. What's happening here is Trump's bloviating and distoring the point of the memo (and a lot of other talking heads) by trying to say the investigation is a sham and this memo proves it. It does not. The point of this memo is that a paid political collection of information (the dossier) should never be used in a FISA application as evidence to spy on an American citizen (your opponent)...period. It should never have been part of the application process. For any reason. And according to Gowdy, (who read the application) he was adamant to state at no time was the judge ever told that the DNC and Hilary's campaign had paid for the dossier. A lie by ommission. This is the rub. His issue was the process the surveillance was obtained/signed off on, not the surveillance itself. The investigation needed to have happened based on other factors. This is a separate issue. Trey Gowdy has nothing but respect for the FBI and especially the Director, but there were issues within the FISA application that was unprecendented and raised serious concern. Those concerns were addressed in the memo. To quote Gowdy, "The ends should never justify the means." He has been demonized by the left over this memo and their reaction to it has been so over the top ridiculous they should be embarrassed. But their motives for distoriing the point of this memo are for entirely different reasons. Nafarious things are going here. I believe on BOTH sides.

After hearing what Trey Gowdy had to say, I don't blame him for wanting to leave office. I'd want to leave too.
It was a pretty reasonable interview. However, many other sources say the Justice department made the court very well aware the origins of the dossier. It's a reasonable thing to ask, but I don't think it should be done so publicly. I guess we will see what the Democratic Memo says.

There should be no doubt that nefarious things are going on both sides. It's always been that way and is getting worse.

I still think the bigger news right now should be Trump not enacting the bipartisan sanctions bill to penalize Russia for their meddling. There is not excuse for that.

And this just days after Russian spy leaders visited with Pompeo in DC? These people are not our friends. If Obama had done this, people would have called for his impeachment.
 
Last edited:

Mike S

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,991
Reaction score
1,118
Location
Meridianville, Al
Special Affiliations
  1. SKYWARN® Volunteer
Trump hasn't tweeted about the stock market since 1/20/2018. I wonder why?
 

KoD

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
697
Location
Huntsville, AL
What goes up must come down. Big drop over 1100 points for the Dow. I got great returns on investments last year, 27.4%. I'm sure it'll bounce back eventually.
 

Arcadia

Member
Messages
167
Reaction score
75
Location
Huntsville
It was a pretty reasonable interview. However, many other sources say the Justice department made the court very well aware the origins of the dossier. It's a reasonable thing to ask, but I don't think it should be done so publicly. I guess we will see what the Democratic Memo says.

There should be no doubt that nefarious things are going on both sides. It's always been that way and is getting worse.

I still think the bigger news right now should be Trump not enacting the bipartisan sanctions bill to penalize Russia for their meddling. There is not excuse for that.

And this just days after Russian spy leaders visited with Pompeo in DC? These people are not our friends. If Obama had done this, people would have called for his impeachment.


I don't believe the origins of the dossier were made known in full and by whom. Apparently it was some convoluted footnote that was purposely vague. My point, however, is all the shoulder shrugging about the fact that content paid for by a political opponent was used as evidence to gain a FISA warrant to spy on a US citizen. Whether the dossier was considered alongside other evidence is irrelevant. It shouldn't have been used at all. That is the issue. That was the primary focus of the memo. And since you brought up the Democrat's memo... the Intelligence Committee voted to release it using the same process they voted to release the Republican memo. Just as I predicted they would. Adam Schiff is a typical disingenuous politician telling half-truths every time he stands in front of a camera. I hear no one screaming this go round about what a threat it will be to our national security and their memo is several pages longer. Funny that.
 

Evan

Member
Messages
2,254
Reaction score
1,377
Location
McCalla, AL
I listened to Trey Gowdy on Face the Nation, who helped draft the Memo and who actually read the FISA application. He is not a partisan hack and I found what he had to say to be thoughtful and extremely fair. If you haven't seen his interview, don't comment. Just...don't. He said the Russian investigation would be happening without the dossier. What's happening here is Trump's bloviating and distoring the point of the memo (and a lot of other talking heads) by trying to say the investigation is a sham and this memo proves it. It does not. The point of this memo is that a paid political collection of information (the dossier) should never be used in a FISA application as evidence to spy on an American citizen (your opponent)...period. It should never have been part of the application process. For any reason. And according to Gowdy, (who read the application) he was adamant to state at no time was the judge ever told that the DNC and Hilary's campaign had paid for the dossier. A lie by ommission. This is the rub. His issue was the process the warrant was obtained/signed off on. The Russian investigation needed to have happened based on other factors. This is a separate issue. Trey Gowdy has nothing but respect for the FBI and especially the Director, but there were issues within the FISA application that was unprecendented and raised serious concern. Those concerns were addressed in the memo. To quote Gowdy, "The ends should never justify the means." He has been demonized by the left over this memo and their reaction to it has been so over the top ridiculous they should be embarrassed. But their motives for distorting the point of this memo are for entirely different reasons. Nafarious things are going here. I believe on BOTH sides.

After hearing what Trey Gowdy had to say, I don't blame him for wanting to leave office. I'd want to leave too.

Part 1 of my response:

I've read the transcript, and I've also closely followed Gowdy's involvement in the Russia investigation (as well as the FISA controversy). I think Gowdy wants to have it both ways and is essentially being a fence sitter. He's just flat out wrong that partisan political information should never be used for a FISA source. First off, the Nunes memo claim that the FISC wasn't informed that the research was a product of the DNC/Hillary campaign is a lie by omission. Numerous reports have now stated that the FISC was informed that the research came from a political opponent. There are some very good non-partisan FISA experts and privacy attorneys out there that claim this is a red herring. Their logic is that private citizens and organizations functioning as a source are almost NEVER named in a FISA application. It's to protect their right to privacy, and it's also not needed because the required fundamentals are an accurate characterization of the source, corroboration of their information, and a lot of other technical details that are outside the purview of what we are discussing.

Gowdy assisted Nunes in drafting the memo, and it absolutely rubs me the wrong way that either of them think everyone in this country is incapable of seeing through half-truths, omissions, red herrings and non-confirmation confirmations. Let me give a few examples.

1. They inaccurately quote Comey's June 2017 testimony to make it appear as if Comey said the entire dossier is "salacious and unverified" That's a total mischaracterization of Comey's testimony, and if Gowdy cares so much about the FBI or Justice System he wouldn't be helping Nunes intentionally misquote sworn Congressional testimony. Now, you can argue an alternative theory...that the misquoting of Comey was done intentionally by Nunes and Gowdy didn't catch it, but that runs into two major issues. One, as a former federal prosecutor, I would hope Gowdy is better at reading and making references to sworn testimony than the memo shows, because a federal judge will crucify him if he tries a stunt like that in the courtroom.

Patrick Frey a well-known Conservative legal blogger and Los Angeles ADA lays all this out: https://www.redstate.com/patterico/...naccuracy-thememo-calls-credibility-question/


2. This is a lesser offense, but the memo really loves its weasel words and slippery language to IMPLY things even if it isn't technically and specifically actually claiming what it seems to imply. Particularly egregious is the mealy-mouthed part about Page being a Trump campaign advisor.

Ironically, Patrick Frey ended up writing something on this as well, but I noticed it myself right after the memo was released. I knew Carter Page was long gone from the campaign, so I was ticked at the game Gowdy and Nunes were trying to play.

https://www.redstate.com/patterico/...mpaign-adviser/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

3. There's another 2-3 similar instances of bad-faith or misrepresenting claims/evidence in the Nunes memo. One is that it is somehow the FBI's fault for not predicting and preventing Steele from talking to the media. The memo really tries to blow this up to discredit Steele and the dossier, but the FBI actually handled it appropriately unless we expected them to use their top secret time machine.
 

Evan

Member
Messages
2,254
Reaction score
1,377
Location
McCalla, AL
Part 2 of my response:

A). As another example, what does it mean when the memo says verification of the Steele dossier was in its infancy? Infancy is the specific word used, and normally means the early stage of a process, or something not yet fully developed. The Steele dossier is made up of 17 memos. What if the FBI had only verified or corroborated info from 1-2 memos? Or, say, just the parts of 3-4 memos? You'd be technically correct (and even potentially legally correct) to say that means the verification was still in its infancy. But, what if what was verified was 5 meetings Carter Page held with Russian nationals in Russia(including the time and date), and included overseas communications intercepts of the Russians discussing said meetings via phone, and those discussions happen to corroborate several key claims about Carter Page from one of the 17 Steele memos that make up the dossier? Considering there were hundreds of facts/claims in the Steele dossier, it would still be technically accurate to state verification of the dossier was still in its infancy, even if the FBI had verified some significant pieces of evidence about Carter Page, wouldn't it? But would you be telling the full-truth and giving the truly relevant details about the Steele dossier in reference to the Carter Page FISA application?

B). I'll keep this part short. Even though they mischaracterized his actual quote, Gowdy and Nunes actually quoted a specific phrase uttered by Comey. They use actual quotes elsewhere in the memo as well, but for some bizarre reason they don't actually quote Andrew McCabe's testimony about how critical the Steele dossier was in securing the FISA warrant. Instead, they paraphrase. Also, unlike some of the other direct quotes, the actual transcript of McCabe's testimony has not been released. And guess whose decision that is? Devin Nunes. It's testimony from his House Sub-Committee, so he could've released it if he'd wanted to. Why would you paraphrase McCabe AND refuse to release the transcript of his testimony. Naturally, it's not surprising that the Democrats and other "sources" dispute the accuracy of the McCabe paraphrase and say it is used in a misleading way in the memo. I guess we should just go check the transcript. Oh, wait, we can't.

C). Christopher Wray had nothing to do with the Carter Page FISA warrant. Comey and McCabe are now both gone. Sally Yates is gone. If the Nunes & Gowdy memo was accurate, and not playing misleading semantical word games (as well as omitting evidence), then why did Wray issue the following statement?

"With regard to the House Intelligence Committee's memorandum, the FBI was provided a limited opportunity to review this memo the day before the committee voted to release it," the statement said. "As expressed during our initial review, we have grave concerns about material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo's accuracy."

I think that's pretty damning. Especially in light of the numerous examples I just laid out of Nunes & Gowdy doing EXACTLY what Wray and the FBI alleged: omitting material facts which in turn impacts the accuracy of the memo.

D). The affair and texting scandal of FBI personnel (Peter Strzok and Lisa Page). The Nunes memo that Gowdy helped write makes various inaccurate or disproven claims about the texting scandal. It says that the FBI agents showed a clear bias against Trump and for Hillary, extensively discussed the "investigation" orchestrated leaks, and it brings up the infamous "insurance policy" text. The WSJ journal, hardly a bastion of pro-Dem or anti-Trump sentiment has reviewed the vast majority of the texts, and their conclusion is that much of what I just referenced is inaccurate, untrue, misleading, etc. Essentially, their conclusion is that there's no there there except for the obvious affair and lack of professionalism. Now, I absolutely think the affair and spurts of a lack of professionalism is a huge deal, Mueller was correct to remove them from the investigation, and I do believe they should be fired because of that, but the work they did is not impeached by that by anymore than a police detective's work on a drug case is impeached because of an affair with a colleague. The principle point, however, remains that the memo yet again mischaracterizes, exaggerates, and misleads about a key conclusion that it purports to be reporting on.



The ultimate conclusion is that Trey Gowdy is not a Nunes level partisan hack, but he definitely has been very partisan on this issue as he was to a large extent with the Benghazi investigation. I believe the reason for that is that Gowdy wants to have it both ways. He wants to protect the Mueller investigation, but also has to engage in enough partisanship to not lose his GOP bonafides for the future. Gowdy said that just a few months ago his colleagues had almost convinced him to take a federal judgeship, but he's decided against that. I believe there are two potential reasons why. One, he hopes to potentially land the Attorney General/FBI Director role in the current administration or a future GOP admin (Gowdy is very young), but be knows straight Nunes partisanship would never allow him to be confirmed. By the same token, becoming like Flake or Corker means he'd never be nominated for one of those roles by the current admin or a future admin. The other potential reason is he is sick of politics as he claims, but that's more of a function of the current environment than being done with politics forever. Moving back to the Justice System insulates him from having to be a true bonafide Nunes style partisan hack to maintain his current influence while preventing future opponents from claiming he abandoned the Party/President at their time of need.

I could be wrong, but Gowdy's actions over the past few years -- especially the memo situation has led me to conclude that. I used to be a Gowdy fan, but the memo's glaring inaccuracies and omissions, coupled with his constant hedging to make it appear he's playing it by the book (he did this with Benghazi to an extent and several other controversial Trump admin situations). Gowdy has vacillated between sounding like a true Trump partisan on quite a few issues to appearing to acknowledge some of the flaws and issues. It's not entirely dissimilar to how Marco Rubio has attempted to be a fence sitter on some of the controversial issues. I've seen too many discordant and changing positions from Gowdy to believe he's just following his actual beliefs.

At least on this issue, Arcadia, we disagree about Gowdy and the memo. I wanted to explain my point of view, and as mentioned the other day, I know the Democrats mishandled this situation and have their own partisanship issues. It's just that Gowdy isn't what he wants people to think he is. He wrote this memo with Nunes and is the one who actually viewed the underlying docs. So, he knows better. But, he also knows 98% of the GOP or those sympathetic to the GOP are going to largely trust him on this issue, especially since he's trying to appear balanced. He knows the FISA warrant will never see the light of day. And that fact should trouble anyone that mistrusts Trump or currently has issues with today's GOP. If all the info from the memo were really true, why all the inaccuracies, word games, and omissions? And, most importantly, why wouldn't you shut the Democrats AND FBI up by releasing a redacted version of the FISA application that supports the memo? There's no reasonable explanation for not doing so unless it wouldn't back the memo. If anyone has one I'm all ears.
 

Evan

Member
Messages
2,254
Reaction score
1,377
Location
McCalla, AL
What goes up must come down. Big drop over 1100 points for the Dow. I got great returns on investments last year, 27.4%. I'm sure it'll bounce back eventually.

Ironically, the S&P 500 was up over 40% during Obama's first two years. As of today, it is only up around 17-18% for Trump. So much for historic. I'm sure Trump will handle this with his usual grace and rationality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KoD

Arcadia

Member
Messages
167
Reaction score
75
Location
Huntsville
Give me some time to read your response, Evan, and the links you provided. I have questions but I need to read through the info first.
 

gangstonc

Member
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
299
Location
Meridianville
Give me some time to read your response, Evan, and the links you provided. I have questions but I need to read through the info first.
This is how discourse on this board is supposed to work. Take the time to read responses, then respond.

Now I need to practice what I preach...
 

Evan

Member
Messages
2,254
Reaction score
1,377
Location
McCalla, AL
Give me some time to read your response, Evan, and the links you provided. I have questions but I need to read through the info first.

Of course. You know brevity is not my forte, unfortunately. Take all the time you need. Look forward to discussing.
 

Evan

Member
Messages
2,254
Reaction score
1,377
Location
McCalla, AL
I don't believe the origins of the dossier were made known in full and by whom. Apparently it was some convoluted footnote that was purposely vague. My point, however, is all the shoulder shrugging about the fact that content paid for by a political opponent was used as evidence to gain a FISA warrant to spy on a US citizen. Whether the dossier was considered alongside other evidence is irrelevant. It shouldn't have been used at all. That is the issue.That was the primary focus of the memo. And since you brought up the Democrat's memo... the Intelligence Committee voted to release it using the same process they voted to release the Republican memo. Just as I predicted they would. Adam Schiff is a typical disingenuous politician telling half-truths every time he stands in front of a camera. I hear no one screaming this go round about what a threat it will be to our national security and their memo is several pages longer. Funny that.

I understand where you are coming from. In a perfect Manichean world I'd be in total agreement. But consider the normal world of FISA warrants. Let's say Saudi Arabia informs us that a couple of American born Persians are spying for Iran. Surveiling our nuclear power plants.

As you know, Iran and Saudi Arabia are not just political enemies -- they are religious enemies fighting numerous proxy wars throughout the Middle East. In fact, let's say Saudi Arabia obtained the tip they provided to us by intercepting calls made from the USA to an Iranian proxy group in Iraq. Would you feel that usage of a political and religious opponent's info about a US Citizen (never before suspected of spying for Iran and a 100% clean record) should be off limits? My understanding from following a lot of privacy and FISA nerds over the years is that the evidence from Saudi Arabia alone likely wouldn't be enough. The FBI would need to corroborate substantial parts of it. Perhaps by following the men and seeing what they are up to. Perhaps by checking with allies to see if any communications were intercepted by them.

The standard is no different here. Although we haven't seen the underlying FISA app, and the Nunes memo doesn't really discuss additional info used in the app, it's been reported that the FBI didn't rely on the dossier alone.

Although FISA definitely has stricter standards than your typical surveillance or investigatory warrant, the courts have upheld far from neutral sources as legitimate warrant sources. Ranging from mortal enemies to domestic squabbles or even co-conspirators. It's just highly unlikely you are going to get a random disinterested observer that knows about criminal wrongdoing or terrorism. They always have complicated or even hostile motives.

What if Team Trump had been given info by an affiliated GOP rival after Trump won the primary that the Clinton campaign was taking illegal donations from Chinese nationals? Let's say they had good evidence...say their opposition researchers had posed as Chinese foreign nationals themselves and were hooked up with two US Citizens managing the incoming funds for the Clinton campaign. Should the FBI not be allowed to take a tip from the Trump campaign and corroborate it? What if they'd had a prior tip from an Australian Intel agency, but it wasn't detailed enough to move forward?

I'm sure you get the scenario and the potential for many like it. There may have been FISA abuses over the years, but to me it is very telling that many of the toughest FISA critics see the Nunes argument about using political sources as preposterous.

Even Glenn Greenwald (can't stand the guy or his overall beliefs) and people like Marcy Wheeler have said that although the government has certainly pulled some you know what with FISA in the past, this FISA app shouldn't be seen as even remotely controversial. Greenwald has almost NEVER met a FISA app he didn't loathe, and he spent a lot of time initially defending Trump on Russia.

The GOP has consistently stood up for FISA and even supported warrantless wiretapping of US Citizens, the old Bush admin programs that got slapped down, etc -- but now, suddenly, they see a problem with FISA on this one particular warrant whereas the normal critics don't? It just doesn't convince me that Nunes and company are sincere, and all past precedence as well as the FISA critics out there are saying this is simply not a defective warrant or FISA abuse.a

Just something to think about. I did want to mention one last detail. Because the Carter Page warrant was re-approved for numerous extensions, FISA critics and former FBI alike say that means "hot data" was being collected. In other words, they couldn't have gotten an extension without having additional justification based off of real data they were actually collecting. And, Carter Page did send a letter in 2013 purporting to be an advisor to the Kremlin. It's very possible Page is just a delusional idiot who loves Russians (and even may be the most likely result), but that's why Trump and team should've vetted their people better. I think this is a rough hill to die on considering the Clinton campaign and the FBI could leaked all of this during the campaign and didn't. Why didn't they if they had an insurance plan?
 

Arcadia

Member
Messages
167
Reaction score
75
Location
Huntsville
Part 1 of my response:

I've read the transcript, and I've also closely followed Gowdy's involvement in the Russia investigation (as well as the FISA controversy). I think Gowdy wants to have it both ways and is essentially being a fence sitter. He's just flat out wrong that partisan political information should never be used for a FISA source. First off, the Nunes memo claim that the FISC wasn't informed that the research was a product of the DNC/Hillary campaign is a lie by omission. Numerous reports have now stated that the FISC was informed that the research came from a political opponent. There are some very good non-partisan FISA experts and privacy attorneys out there that claim this is a red herring. Their logic is that private citizens and organizations functioning as a source are almost NEVER named in a FISA application. It's to protect their right to privacy, and it's also not needed because the required fundamentals are an accurate characterization of the source, corroboration of their information, and a lot of other technical details that are outside the purview of what we are discussing.

Gowdy assisted Nunes in drafting the memo, and it absolutely rubs me the wrong way that either of them think everyone in this country is incapable of seeing through half-truths, omissions, red herrings and non-confirmation confirmations. Let me give a few examples.

1. They inaccurately quote Comey's June 2017 testimony to make it appear as if Comey said the entire dossier is "salacious and unverified" That's a total mischaracterization of Comey's testimony, and if Gowdy cares so much about the FBI or Justice System he wouldn't be helping Nunes intentionally misquote sworn Congressional testimony. Now, you can argue an alternative theory...that the misquoting of Comey was done intentionally by Nunes and Gowdy didn't catch it, but that runs into two major issues. One, as a former federal prosecutor, I would hope Gowdy is better at reading and making references to sworn testimony than the memo shows, because a federal judge will crucify him if he tries a stunt like that in the courtroom.

Patrick Frey a well-known Conservative legal blogger and Los Angeles ADA lays all this out: https://www.redstate.com/patterico/...naccuracy-thememo-calls-credibility-question/


2. This is a lesser offense, but the memo really loves its weasel words and slippery language to IMPLY things even if it isn't technically and specifically actually claiming what it seems to imply. Particularly egregious is the mealy-mouthed part about Page being a Trump campaign advisor.

Ironically, Patrick Frey ended up writing something on this as well, but I noticed it myself right after the memo was released. I knew Carter Page was long gone from the campaign, so I was ticked at the game Gowdy and Nunes were trying to play.

https://www.redstate.com/patterico/...mpaign-adviser/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

3. There's another 2-3 similar instances of bad-faith or misrepresenting claims/evidence in the Nunes memo. One is that it is somehow the FBI's fault for not predicting and preventing Steele from talking to the media. The memo really tries to blow this up to discredit Steele and the dossier, but the FBI actually handled it appropriately unless we expected them to use their top secret time machine.


I've read every word, both yours and those of the articles you linked to. The inaccuracies of Comey's quote gives me concern. The other points you made I will also concede. My issue was what you addressed in a later post which was the fact that we're even talking about this dossier at all, that it was used at all. But I understand the points you made there as well. The whole thing leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and here's why: Everyone appears to be intentionally misleading or flat out lying. Including Comey. I'm going all the way back to Clinton's tiresome email scandal and how Comey recommended no charges against Hilary after making a case against her that led a rational person to believe he would. And the whole Lynch/Clinton tarmac meeting that got swept under the rug like it never happened. What does this have to do with Russia? Nothing. Except that it caused me to lose faith in these institutions. Did the FBI protect Hilary? Do they have an anti-Trump bias? Are they above reproach? Is the DOJ? The Obama admininstration did these institutions no favors and these institutions are partly responsible for the public's mistrust. It is a shame this is where we are.

I am not a Trump supporter. I know you know that. So my feelings on this stem from just what is going on...who is to be believed...and how does anyone sort through it? It is unclear, to me, whether the FBI has done anything wrong thus far in the Trump/Russia investigation. But I have little doubt they protected Hilary. You may disagree. Moving forward, I think the only way to truly know with certainty the extent the Republican memo is misleading (intentionally) or whether there is corruption is to release the content in which it drew from. I doubt that will happen.

I aplogize for not answering more succinctly. I feel I rambled a bit and got off the main topic, but I wanted to explain where I was coming from.

Edit to add because you mentioned it: I think Carter Page is most likely a delusional idiot and is probably why he has not been charged with a crime.
 
Last edited:

ghost

Member
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
352
Location
NW AL
When I think of military parades showing off weaponry, I have images of Nikita Khrushchev saluting the troops on May Day in Red Square or Mao smiling at the thousands of soldiers and tanks filing by in Tiananmen Square. Or Kim Jong waving at goose steppers and missles passing by or Hitler and the Nazis.

These kind of shows just don't seem to fit in with America. Plus to move so many troops and weaponry to D.C. would cost probably billions in money. just adding to the deficit.. all for Trumps ego. Let him pay for it.
 

ghost

Member
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
352
Location
NW AL
Trump's campaign promise to "balance the budget fairly quickly" isn't off to a good start. The Federal deficit ran at $666 billion in 2017 which is a higher deficit than Obama had the last 3 years of his presidency. I guess Trump can blame his higher deficit on the Democratic majority in the House and the Senate.... oh wait....

Trump and the number 666.... coincidence?
 
Messages
267
Reaction score
226
Location
Smoke Rise, AL (25 mi. N of downtown Birmingham)
When you have people leading the Democratic Party like they do, they should be concerned about midterms. You have Nancy Pelosi trying to convince families that an extra couple thousand dollars in their pockets are crumbs. You have Bernie Sanders inaudibly screeching about successful Venezuela and hollering about socialism and free crap every turn. You have leftist political pundits from CNN, MSNBC, etc. playing identity politics nonstop and everything is white nationalism and racist. Apparently, the USA chant at the end of the SOTU was scary nationalism? They don't want to unite, they want to divide....and that was crystal clear under Obama. Their platform hasn't changed.

And oh, Hillary Clinton is still very actively involved with Democrats. They will think all they need to do is keep wailing about how terrible Trump is and Russia and #Resist. But really, Trump won because he ISN'T Clinton. He generated support because people don't like the ideals that the Democrats put up. "America" and "we" were common words Trump used....better than the "I" Obama pontificated to us. I actually enjoy not feeling like I get lectured to every time the president speaks.

I keep warning my farther left friends that Trump will win again because of this type of stuff (taking Russia off the table, of course... ). I wish we could send the far left and far right to their rooms and let the more moderate, sensible people in the middle take over.
 

Jacob

Member
Messages
1,287
Reaction score
824
Location
Roy, UT
I keep warning my farther left friends that Trump will win again because of this type of stuff (taking Russia off the table, of course... ). I wish we could send the far left and far right to their rooms and let the more moderate, sensible people in the middle take over.

I could certainly see a scenario where Trump loses the popular vote by a larger margin, but again wins the electoral vote.

Granted there's a lot that can happen in the next 3 years. The louder and farther left the far left goes only plays into Trump's hands.

Agreed on both fringes though.
 

KoD

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
697
Location
Huntsville, AL
Trump denies release of the Democratic Memo, on a Friday night.
DE7wAWg.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top