P.D.X. wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 11:56 am
+ the developing story that one of the Russian oligarchs was literally just dumping $ into Cohen's slush fund. You know, the one that is used to "fix" things for DJT.
I'm very confident Trump has been laundering money for Russian and Kazakhstani oligarchs and gangsters for more than a decade. It's amazing how little effort Trump and his cronies put into hiding any of these activities, and even more amazing he was able to get elected with all of this out there. The only way this was possible is because his insanity, lies, narcissism, racism... threw out so much horribleness for us to get angry over, it's taken 2 years to root out the barely below the surface criminal shit.
There's very little question in my mind and we've been talking about and posting links to articles on here for close to 2 years now.
And I've been saying for 2 years that none of these guys WANTED to win, because a) they thought they could just boost their respective brands and not have to actually do any of the hard work they all knew would come with winning the office AND, more importantly, b) the Trumps all know how incredibly shady they've been since the recession wiped them out and they started doing business with Russian oligarchs.
Eric is on record, multiple times, talking about how Russian money is keeping them afloat (in various iterations.)
And this stuff WASN'T really out there. It was out there for folks like us that have been extremely skeptical about Trump before he ever announced his candidacy. But now we've had over a year of wall to wall coverage and journalists are FINALLY coming around to the reality that this guy and his family and everyone around him are crooks.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Just read it for the joy of seeing a guy level multi-syllabic insults against a true piece of shit...
Pence, one of evangelical Christians’ favorite pin-ups, genuflects at various altars, as the mobocratic spirit and the vicious portion require.
It is said that one cannot blame people who applaud Arpaio and support his rehabilitators (Trump, Pence, et al.), because, well, globalization or health-care costs or something. Actually, one must either blame them or condescend to them as lacking moral agency. Republicans silent about Pence have no such excuse.
There will be negligible legislating by the next Congress, so ballots cast this November will be most important as validations or repudiations of the harmonizing voices of Trump, Pence, Arpaio and the like. Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic. Pence is what he has chosen to be, which is horrifying.
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
P.D.X. wrote: ↑Wed May 09, 2018 11:56 am
+ the developing story that one of the Russian oligarchs was literally just dumping $ into Cohen's slush fund. You know, the one that is used to "fix" things for DJT.
I'm very confident Trump has been laundering money for Russian and Kazakhstani oligarchs and gangsters for more than a decade. It's amazing how little effort Trump and his cronies put into hiding any of these activities, and even more amazing he was able to get elected with all of this out there. The only way this was possible is because his insanity, lies, narcissism, racism... threw out so much horribleness for us to get angry over, it's taken 2 years to root out the barely below the surface criminal shit.
no question in my mind he was laundering money. The Russians didn't just decide to invest in him when his business was not particularly successful. At the the time he started doing this he did not know he would run for president, so he probably never gave a thought to the level of scrutiny this would come under. And then he just responded the way he always has. Denies and attacks the people investigating him. I think he is cunning, but not smart. Basically your typical schoolyard bully.
And considering the amount of inter-racial relationships and mixed race kids that make up the military family as well, that is some selective attendance.
However, maybe the opportunity presented itself to a wider pool of potential attendees and the ones who know better said "nah"?
(Nah.)
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 11:49 am
And considering the amount of inter-racial relationships and mixed race kids that make up the military family as well, that is some selective attendance.
However, maybe the opportunity presented itself to a wider pool of potential attendees and the ones who know better said "nah"?
(Nah.)
14.5 percent of armed forces are women as well. Granted, many of those are probably married to spouses also in the armed forces, but seems kinda 1950s/Donna Reed-ish to exclude male military spouses unless the White House is trying to convey a patriarchal, hetero-normative worldview on the armed forces. But that doesn't seem like something Trump and the GOP does.
Sounds like it was not at the White House and it was not on Wednesday. It was in April. It was not all military, it was just Air Force. An event hosted by the military with Ivanka invited as guest speaker that is why she is in the picture.
The picture does pose some questions but this type of reactionary reporting doesn't help.
I have to defer to Johnnie on the facts. Is the Trump government doing good things to help the military? Such as more money, aid/pensions for veterans, this Spousal Committee announced today (Military Spouse Day), is it good?
Male, non military spouses don't even dawn on me because of how uncommon it is. Despite saying that, there's one in my squadron and he's really cool. He's prior service (Marines) and is typically one of the first to help organize squadron events.
In general, you'd want a mix of all demographics when putting together an event that focuses on the military family. It coincides with inclusivity and the "strength in diversity" mantra.
As far as what's being done to keep the military strong and strengthening benefits? I have no idea. I'm in a bubble and I'm insulated from the madness that everyone else is dealing with. Politics isn't allowed to be discussed in the work center, so I don't bring it up. We just keep moving forward, follow orders, and execute the mission. Kind of a lame answer, but it's the truth.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
degenerasian wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 11:58 am
Some false reporting there.
Sounds like it was not at the White House and it was not on Wednesday. It was in April. It was not all military, it was just Air Force. An event hosted by the military with Ivanka invited as guest speaker that is why she is in the picture.
The picture does pose some questions but this type of reactionary reporting doesn't help.
I have to defer to Johnnie on the facts. Is the Trump government doing good things to help the military? Such as more money, aid/pensions for veterans, this Spousal Committee announced today (Military Spouse Day), is it good?
I think the date of when the picture was taken is much less important than why it wouldn't dawn on the White House to maybe include some people of color since they comprise 40 percent of the armed forces. You don't agree that's a legitimate question to ask?
Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 12:21 pm
Male, non military spouses don't even dawn on me because of how uncommon it is. Despite saying that, there's one in my squadron and he's really cool. He's prior service (Marines) and is typically one of the first to help organize squadron events.
In general, you'd want a mix of all demographics when putting together an event that focuses on the military family. It coincides with inclusivity and the "strength in diversity" mantra.
As far as what's being done to keep the military strong and strengthening benefits? I have no idea. I'm in a bubble and I'm insulated from the madness that everyone else is dealing with. Politics isn't allowed to be discussed in the work center, so I don't bring it up. We just keep moving forward, follow orders, and execute the mission. Kind of a lame answer, but it's the truth.
I think the date of when the picture was taken is much less important than why it wouldn't dawn on the White House to maybe include some people of color since they comprise 40 percent of the armed forces. You don't agree that's a legitimate question to ask?
Sure absolutely it should be more diverse but this was the military's event. The Joint Armed Forces of Washington. Not the White house's. The only connection is Ivanka.
So they have some explaining to do possibly.
Did they invite everyone and this is who accepted?
What is the membership of this organization like?
Was there something wrong in the marketing?
Was inviting Ivanka Trump wrong?
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
There's not going to be anymore "explaining" than when they posted their all-white intern photo or the cabal of white men discussing women's issues. The content IS the message.
brian wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 12:43 pm
The GOP is essentially a white nationalist party now.
But, what does Kanye West say about it? I mean, on behalf of black people?
This is nothing new, the GOP have always viewed social programs as a safety net for white people, and people of color on social welfare programs as lazy drains on society or malignant abusers of the system. I'd love to see how they attempt to justify the disparity in how the program plays out. They should hire Rudy Giuliani to explain, "they wanted to create a system where white people could collect medicaid, but they could prevent The Coloreds from abusing the system, so we created this law to ensure the darkies had to work, but the white people didn't."
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
Saw a picture from the Trump rally last night. A lot of signs reading "Keep America Great," which means it only took 16 months to make the country great again!
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
The Sybian wrote: ↑Fri May 11, 2018 2:47 pm
This is nothing new, the GOP have always viewed social programs as a safety net for white people, and people of color on social welfare programs as lazy drains on society or malignant abusers of the system.
See Ronald Reagan and his 'strapping young bucks buying T-Bone Steaks'...
I dunno on this one. Was Trump's top operative angling behind the scenes to leverage his rising popularity to broker a deal in Russia? Almost certainly.
Does this somehow prove collusion or, really, any illegal activity?
I'm not seeing that connection. Other than the obvious and blatant bullshit about Trump having no interests in Russia. Which, while technically true, really doesn't pass the smell test at this point.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 9:07 am
I dunno on this one. Was Trump's top operative angling behind the scenes to leverage his rising popularity to broker a deal in Russia? Almost certainly.
Does this somehow prove collusion or, really, any illegal activity?
I'm not seeing that connection. Other than the obvious and blatant bullshit about Trump having no interests in Russia. Which, while technically true, really doesn't pass the smell test at this point.
I still think Trump didn’t expect to win the election and was trying to get a jump on his post-campaign business ventures.
(As terrible as TrumpTV would have been I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t have started WW3.)
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 9:07 am
I dunno on this one. Was Trump's top operative angling behind the scenes to leverage his rising popularity to broker a deal in Russia? Almost certainly.
Does this somehow prove collusion or, really, any illegal activity?
I'm not seeing that connection. Other than the obvious and blatant bullshit about Trump having no interests in Russia. Which, while technically true, really doesn't pass the smell test at this point.
Haven't had a chance to read the article yet, but supposedly, a lot of Trump's funding for projects came from Russian government owned banks. The GOP radically changing their platform on Russia once Trump received the nomination certainly gives the appearance of impropriety when coupled with Trump negotiating terms for a loan and building a giant luxury tower in Moscow, all while saying "I have nothing to do with Russia. No business in Russia, never talked to a Russian."
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 9:07 am
I dunno on this one. Was Trump's top operative angling behind the scenes to leverage his rising popularity to broker a deal in Russia? Almost certainly.
Does this somehow prove collusion or, really, any illegal activity?
I'm not seeing that connection. Other than the obvious and blatant bullshit about Trump having no interests in Russia. Which, while technically true, really doesn't pass the smell test at this point.
I still think Trump didn’t expect to win the election and was trying to get a jump on his post-campaign business ventures.
(As terrible as TrumpTV would have been I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t have started WW3.)
Agree with the first point. Not so sure about the second.
Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri May 18, 2018 9:07 am
I dunno on this one. Was Trump's top operative angling behind the scenes to leverage his rising popularity to broker a deal in Russia? Almost certainly.
Does this somehow prove collusion or, really, any illegal activity?
I'm not seeing that connection. Other than the obvious and blatant bullshit about Trump having no interests in Russia. Which, while technically true, really doesn't pass the smell test at this point.
Haven't had a chance to read the article yet, but supposedly, a lot of Trump's funding for projects came from Russian government owned banks. The GOP radically changing their platform on Russia once Trump received the nomination certainly gives the appearance of impropriety when coupled with Trump negotiating terms for a loan and building a giant luxury tower in Moscow, all while saying "I have nothing to do with Russia. No business in Russia, never talked to a Russian."
Couple of things, I am on record, for a couple of years at this point, saying that Trump didn't want to win (at a minimum almost all of them are on record deep into the summer saying they didn't EXPECT to win.) And that's how they operated. Shady as fuck, and I have no trouble believing there was collusion that was explicit, but that there might've been firewalls in place to "protect" Trump. I don't think these morons are capable of pulling that off, and I think Mueller likely has the goods on them.
And I'm fully aware of changing the platform, praising Putin, talking about lifting sanctions, publicly calling for hackers to dig up stuff while pretty clearly according to timelines knowing that they already had...
We've been saying for over a year, there's a lot of smoke. This article adds to it. We just haven't seen it put in a way that is legally problematic yet.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
I’ll say this for Trump. His economy is still crushing what I call “the Laughlin test”.
(This is a legitimate economy theory I have based on admittedly first-person and semi-biased rationales but it’s a legitimate thing I’ll be happy to get into when I get on a computer eventually if anyone cares.)
brian wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 9:27 pm
I’ll say this for Trump. His economy is still crushing what I call “the Laughlin test”.
(This is a legitimate economy theory I have based on admittedly first-person and semi-biased rationales but it’s a legitimate thing I’ll be happy to get into when I get on a computer eventually if anyone cares.)
Of course, a good economy during his administration does not mean cause-and-effect.
brian wrote: ↑Sat May 19, 2018 9:27 pm
I’ll say this for Trump. His economy is still crushing what I call “the Laughlin test”.
(This is a legitimate economy theory I have based on admittedly first-person and semi-biased rationales but it’s a legitimate thing I’ll be happy to get into when I get on a computer eventually if anyone cares.)
Of course, a good economy during his administration does not mean cause-and-effect.
No but it does affect real unemployment and hiring especially in forlorn places. But I’ll get into it. You’re not wrong of course but my theory is based on a theory that “real” economic data trails boots on the ground experience which anyone who lived in both Michigan in 2005 and Nevada in 2007 could tell you.
With the benefit of hindsight I’m pretty sure I could foretell a serious market correction with about three months ahead.
