Help
sigh yet another puff piece this time by NBC news tonight on their sunday magazine show regarding my old home town of Chicago and the increasing violence, yes somehow increasing, in my old home town of Chicago. Long on wishes, hope, very long on emotion, short on actual facts or science on what may improve the situation. Yet another shoddy piece of what passes for journalism, when it comes to Chicago.
Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?
#6961
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 16,793
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2017-July-30, 19:43
#6962
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 16,793
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2017-July-30, 19:59
Upon thinking of the news piece it seems just so racist. Black kids on the West side of Chicago are told if they leave the school gym and go outside you risk grave harm, you may be killed. As a parent your first response is what? Boy I hope my kid wins one of the many division state championships???? Boy I hope you learn teamwork on your basketball team????
#6963
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 6,080
- Joined: 2005-May-16
- Gender:Male
Posted 2017-July-31, 06:26
Better batten down the hatches, boys.... if this analysis is correct, you have not yet begun to Trump 
from CNN
"
Trump is coming off the worst week of his presidency, a disastrous seven days in which the infighting he stokes broke into public, the Senate's attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act foundered, and Trump himself attacked his own attorney general, delivered a series of heavily political speeches that made clear his growing frustration with his current position and ousted his chief of staff Reince Priebus.
The decision to part ways with Priebus and bring on Department of Homeland Security chief John Kelly as chief of staff, all which Trump announced via Twitter late Friday, was cast by allies of the President as a much-needed reset for a White House that had lost its direction.
RELATED: Republicans try to move forward
"To the extent that we can do more and do it more quickly in the disruptive fashion in which we're accustomed to with Donald J. Trump, I think that having the tools in place is very important," Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, said on "Fox News Sunday."
Maybe.
Kelly is, by all accounts, a highly disciplined and organized leader. The Trump White House needs that. He is also a highly decorated military man and someone Trump regards as an equal; Priebus was neither of those things. Kelly is the man Trump wanted. Priebus was the guy he accepted as, in his mind, a sop to a Republican establishment fretting over what sort of President he might be.
The problem with all of the talk of a "reset" in the White House led by Kelly is that Donald Trump is still the President. Priebus proved ineffective at managing Trump's erraticness -- leaping from issue to issue within a single day, tweeting out things that directly contradicted his White House's official line, fomenting competition among top staffers into a sort of blood sport.
RELATED: Who is John Kelly, Trump's new chief of staff?
This is, quite literally, who Trump is. He has lived his entire adult life a certain way. At 71, the idea that anyone -- Kelly included -- can fundamentally alter who Trump is -- or who Trump is willing to be for political purposes -- seems very far-fetched.
No one, ever, has wrangled Trump for any extended period of time. Sure, for a day or even a week during his first six months in office, Trump would avoid sending an inflammatory tweet or straying way, way off the teleprompter when delivering a speech. But it never lasted. He always returned to what he knows: the brash, unapologetic provocateur who is as interested in making a stir as he is in getting things done.
Trump didn't bring in Kelly to hamstring his natural instincts. Ditto Anthony Scaramucci, the new White House communications director who spent his first week on the job savaging Priebus (and chief strategist Steve Bannon) to The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza. Trump brought both men in because he sees them as equals, as men who understand who he is and will work to implement his wishes as opposed to trying to fit him into a traditional political frame.
"The thing that General Kelly should do is not try to change Donald Trump," Corey Lewandowski, who managed Trump's 2016 primary campaign, told NBC's Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "I say you have to let Trump be Trump. That is what has made him successful over the last 30 years. That is what the American people voted for. And anybody who thinks they're going to change Donald Trump doesn't know Donald Trump."
RELATED: Donald Trump's DC swamp purge is really picking up speed
That last line from Lewandowski is the most important one: "Anybody who thinks they're going to change Donald Trump doesn't know Donald Trump."
That's 100% right. It's also why the chances of the next 193 days being any different than the past 193 days are very, very small.
Trump doesn't look back on the past six months as a failure on his part. He views it as a failure of the experiment he undertook to play nice with the Washington establishment. He put Priebus and Priebus' allies (Sean Spicer, Katie Walsh) in senior roles -- right alongside the likes of his daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner -- and they failed to deliver. Their attempts to manage Trump made him angry; their inability to grind the gears of official Washington to work for him infuriated him.
The lesson Trump learned from these first six months office wasn't that he needs to change. It was that trying to change him into a Washington figure or anything close to a traditional politician wouldn't work. And that even if it had worked, he didn't want to do it anyway.
To the extent Trump is "starting over" then, it is really, in his mind, a return to his roots -- to who he should always have been from the start. He has put in place a team -- from Kelly to Scaramucci and on down -- that is much more likely to affirm and amplify his gut instincts to "let Trump be Trump" than to block them.
That is the only reset anyone watching this White House should expect. Trump isn't going to change. Instead, he's going to double down on being exactly who he's always been.
from CNN
"
Trump is coming off the worst week of his presidency, a disastrous seven days in which the infighting he stokes broke into public, the Senate's attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act foundered, and Trump himself attacked his own attorney general, delivered a series of heavily political speeches that made clear his growing frustration with his current position and ousted his chief of staff Reince Priebus.
The decision to part ways with Priebus and bring on Department of Homeland Security chief John Kelly as chief of staff, all which Trump announced via Twitter late Friday, was cast by allies of the President as a much-needed reset for a White House that had lost its direction.
RELATED: Republicans try to move forward
"To the extent that we can do more and do it more quickly in the disruptive fashion in which we're accustomed to with Donald J. Trump, I think that having the tools in place is very important," Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, said on "Fox News Sunday."
Maybe.
Kelly is, by all accounts, a highly disciplined and organized leader. The Trump White House needs that. He is also a highly decorated military man and someone Trump regards as an equal; Priebus was neither of those things. Kelly is the man Trump wanted. Priebus was the guy he accepted as, in his mind, a sop to a Republican establishment fretting over what sort of President he might be.
The problem with all of the talk of a "reset" in the White House led by Kelly is that Donald Trump is still the President. Priebus proved ineffective at managing Trump's erraticness -- leaping from issue to issue within a single day, tweeting out things that directly contradicted his White House's official line, fomenting competition among top staffers into a sort of blood sport.
RELATED: Who is John Kelly, Trump's new chief of staff?
This is, quite literally, who Trump is. He has lived his entire adult life a certain way. At 71, the idea that anyone -- Kelly included -- can fundamentally alter who Trump is -- or who Trump is willing to be for political purposes -- seems very far-fetched.
No one, ever, has wrangled Trump for any extended period of time. Sure, for a day or even a week during his first six months in office, Trump would avoid sending an inflammatory tweet or straying way, way off the teleprompter when delivering a speech. But it never lasted. He always returned to what he knows: the brash, unapologetic provocateur who is as interested in making a stir as he is in getting things done.
Trump didn't bring in Kelly to hamstring his natural instincts. Ditto Anthony Scaramucci, the new White House communications director who spent his first week on the job savaging Priebus (and chief strategist Steve Bannon) to The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza. Trump brought both men in because he sees them as equals, as men who understand who he is and will work to implement his wishes as opposed to trying to fit him into a traditional political frame.
"The thing that General Kelly should do is not try to change Donald Trump," Corey Lewandowski, who managed Trump's 2016 primary campaign, told NBC's Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "I say you have to let Trump be Trump. That is what has made him successful over the last 30 years. That is what the American people voted for. And anybody who thinks they're going to change Donald Trump doesn't know Donald Trump."
RELATED: Donald Trump's DC swamp purge is really picking up speed
That last line from Lewandowski is the most important one: "Anybody who thinks they're going to change Donald Trump doesn't know Donald Trump."
That's 100% right. It's also why the chances of the next 193 days being any different than the past 193 days are very, very small.
Trump doesn't look back on the past six months as a failure on his part. He views it as a failure of the experiment he undertook to play nice with the Washington establishment. He put Priebus and Priebus' allies (Sean Spicer, Katie Walsh) in senior roles -- right alongside the likes of his daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner -- and they failed to deliver. Their attempts to manage Trump made him angry; their inability to grind the gears of official Washington to work for him infuriated him.
The lesson Trump learned from these first six months office wasn't that he needs to change. It was that trying to change him into a Washington figure or anything close to a traditional politician wouldn't work. And that even if it had worked, he didn't want to do it anyway.
To the extent Trump is "starting over" then, it is really, in his mind, a return to his roots -- to who he should always have been from the start. He has put in place a team -- from Kelly to Scaramucci and on down -- that is much more likely to affirm and amplify his gut instincts to "let Trump be Trump" than to block them.
That is the only reset anyone watching this White House should expect. Trump isn't going to change. Instead, he's going to double down on being exactly who he's always been.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
#6964
- 5555
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,519
- Joined: 2003-September-04
- Gender:Male
Posted 2017-July-31, 06:36
Tired of all the winning yet, Donald?
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
#6965
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,273
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2017-July-31, 08:14
rmnka447, on 2017-July-29, 21:30, said:
Winnie, Winnie, Winnie, there you go again. You present a piece from a biased source as authoritative. The only problem is that it isn't.
The Washington Post states:
This isn't fact, it's conjecture. The summation in the third sentence starts "It's entirely possible" which are weasel words and no where near something like "It's absolutely certain". Furthermore, there's no way to know if there's no connection between the work for Prevezon and the Trump dossier without a thorough investigation. There's no way the Washington Post has the necessary tools to even do that.
Also, the second sentence makes an unwarranted assumption that the Russian wouldn't do anything that might make themselves look bad. But if Russia's overarching goal is to weaken the US by fostering chaos, discord, and division among Americans and between Americans and the American Government, then the Russians might well do something that casts themselves in a bad light if it progresses their main objective.
What is known is that Prevezon has connections to the Russian government when its owner's father is a confidant and close friend of Putin (according to William Browder's testimony). It is also known that Fusion GPS did work for Prevezon. According to William Browder, it was a completely bogus smear campaign against Magnitsky and himself.
What's not known is if somehow in the course of doing business with Prevezon, Fusion GPS did something that compromised themselves with the Russians.
So the best you can say about this piece is that it provides a few facts, but is really an opinion.
I would refer you to view the Browder testimony. It's available on-line at www.c-span.org . Parts of his testimony are definitely his opinion, but some of what he said about the Russians and how they operate is downright scary.
The Washington Post states:
This isn't fact, it's conjecture. The summation in the third sentence starts "It's entirely possible" which are weasel words and no where near something like "It's absolutely certain". Furthermore, there's no way to know if there's no connection between the work for Prevezon and the Trump dossier without a thorough investigation. There's no way the Washington Post has the necessary tools to even do that.
Also, the second sentence makes an unwarranted assumption that the Russian wouldn't do anything that might make themselves look bad. But if Russia's overarching goal is to weaken the US by fostering chaos, discord, and division among Americans and between Americans and the American Government, then the Russians might well do something that casts themselves in a bad light if it progresses their main objective.
What is known is that Prevezon has connections to the Russian government when its owner's father is a confidant and close friend of Putin (according to William Browder's testimony). It is also known that Fusion GPS did work for Prevezon. According to William Browder, it was a completely bogus smear campaign against Magnitsky and himself.
What's not known is if somehow in the course of doing business with Prevezon, Fusion GPS did something that compromised themselves with the Russians.
So the best you can say about this piece is that it provides a few facts, but is really an opinion.
I would refer you to view the Browder testimony. It's available on-line at www.c-span.org . Parts of his testimony are definitely his opinion, but some of what he said about the Russians and how they operate is downright scary.
From the Browder testimony:
Quote
During the Senate Judiciary Committee, Browder was asked by Senator Lindsey Graham’s on the apparent contradiction of Russia allegedly having ties to the unverified dossier on Trump while also rooting for him to win the presidency.
Browder replied: “What you need to understand about the Russians is there is no ideology at all.
“Vladimir Putin is in the business of trying to create chaos everywhere.”
Senator Richard Blumenthal asked: “They’ve got you both ways: with the carrot of continued bribery, and the stick of exposure and blackmail if you defect?”
Browder replied: “That is how every single one of their relationships work. That’s how they grab people and keep them.
“And once you get stuck in with them, you can never leave.”
Browder replied: “What you need to understand about the Russians is there is no ideology at all.
“Vladimir Putin is in the business of trying to create chaos everywhere.”
Senator Richard Blumenthal asked: “They’ve got you both ways: with the carrot of continued bribery, and the stick of exposure and blackmail if you defect?”
Browder replied: “That is how every single one of their relationships work. That’s how they grab people and keep them.
“And once you get stuck in with them, you can never leave.”
That would mean Trump and family are still shills for Russia? At the least, it helps explain why Trump erupts with talk that Mueller will look into his finances and business dealings.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#6966
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,273
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2017-July-31, 11:35
Something to consider: Trump has personally attacked China, Australia, Germany, and others yet he leaves it up to Pence to denounce Russia for expelling diplomatic staff - why delegate that task?
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#6967
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,273
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2017-July-31, 12:51
The "well-oiled machine" runs S-M-O-O-T-H-L-Y.
Quote
Anthony Scaramucci Out At White House After An Unbelievable 10 Days
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#6968
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 889
- Joined: 2017-March-11
Posted 2017-July-31, 13:36
Winstonm, on 2017-July-29, 14:00, said:
You must have poor sources to read as it is easily found that Fusion was first hired by the Republicans until Trump won the nomination at which point the company was hired by the Democrats to continue to dig up dirt on Trump.
This is from Politico: (emphasis added)
The issue I've read is the claim that Simpson also was hired to lobby for Russian interests unrelated to the Steele dossier but he claims he was working for an attorney and was not lobbying.
This is from Politico: (emphasis added)
Quote
Simpson hired Steele, a Russia expert, during the GOP primary and Steele continued his work after Trump was picked as the nominee. In its 35 pages was a seamy tale of a years-long conspiracy by the Kremlin to recruit Trump as an ally, to blackmail him through business deals and to entrap him in acts of sexual misconduct.
The issue I've read is the claim that Simpson also was hired to lobby for Russian interests unrelated to the Steele dossier but he claims he was working for an attorney and was not lobbying.
Winstonm, on 2017-July-30, 09:47, said:
I read the Browder testimony a number of days ago. It is eye-opening for sure. The big question to answer concerning Simpson is whether or not he personally lobbied for Russian interests and so far nothing confirms that. I have no problem with Congress investigating non-disclosure for FARA purposes, but that should include Flynn, Manafort, and anyone else who lobbied for a foreign government. This is not a time for partisanship finger-pointing. Russia is the mutual enemy of both the right and left. Most of Congress seems to understand this; it would be nice if the executive branch knew it, too.
As for sources, let's be clear: if you think the major newspapers that still have investigative reporters are not reliable there is nothing to discuss.
As for sources, let's be clear: if you think the major newspapers that still have investigative reporters are not reliable there is nothing to discuss.
RedSpawn, on 2017-June-10, 11:22, said:
Sorry, I missed all of your response. It seems that you don't believe that a $4.8 billion loan tranche was made to Russia in July 1998. Keep in mind that Former President Clinton vehemently denied the affair allegations on 01/26/98. I have provided a time line of the scandal from CNN if you want to review.
The Baltimore Sun discusses the $4.8 billion loan that the International Monetary Fund made to Russia. What is very interesting to note is that the 182-country organization of the IMF is apprehensive about making the $4.8 billion loan to Russia but it "was welcomed by the Clinton administration." And why did the IMF feel pressured by the Clinton administration to make this large loan to Russia? Hmmmm.
This doesn't prove outright, but it makes one wonder why did the Clinton Administration pressure the IMF to make this loan package as Former Admiral James “Ace” Lyons suggested? What motivation(s) would Former President Clinton have to pressure the IMF to make this huge loan to Russia while its economy was failing and its ruble currency was imploding? Was Russia financially desperate enough to potentially blackmail him? Does this scenario give any credence to the scenario that Lyons outlined?
https://broom02.revo...ancial%20crisis ===> Says $5 billion in IMF loans went POOF! gone.
- http://articles.balt...illion-in-loans ===> $4.8 billion loan to Russia in July 1998. Please see 1st quote below.
- http://articles.chic...smee-russia-imf ===> Also mentions $4.8 billion loan to Russia and discusses "pressure" from Clinton administration to execute transaction.
- http://samvak.tripod.com/pp157.html ====> The $4.8 billion the IMF sent is alleged to have disappeared and didn't prop up the Russian economy as expected.
- http://money.cnn.com...01/markets/imf/ ===> WOW! The IMF will not release another $4.3 billion loan tranche to Russia in 09/1998 since the initial $4.8 billion disappeared and didn't work as expected. The parliament had not enacted budgetary measures to turn the economy around. Date of article 09/01/98.
- http://www.cnn.com/A...insky/timeline/ ===> Overall timeline on Lewinsky affair
The Baltimore Sun discusses the $4.8 billion loan that the International Monetary Fund made to Russia. What is very interesting to note is that the 182-country organization of the IMF is apprehensive about making the $4.8 billion loan to Russia but it "was welcomed by the Clinton administration." And why did the IMF feel pressured by the Clinton administration to make this large loan to Russia? Hmmmm.
This doesn't prove outright, but it makes one wonder why did the Clinton Administration pressure the IMF to make this loan package as Former Admiral James “Ace” Lyons suggested? What motivation(s) would Former President Clinton have to pressure the IMF to make this huge loan to Russia while its economy was failing and its ruble currency was imploding? Was Russia financially desperate enough to potentially blackmail him? Does this scenario give any credence to the scenario that Lyons outlined?
https://broom02.revo...ancial%20crisis ===> Says $5 billion in IMF loans went POOF! gone.
Interesting, Russia is all of a sudden this vicious enemy under Putin who could potentially blackmail President Trump for acts of sexual misconduct (see purple quotation for sexual misconduct blackmail conspiracy). However, it is absurd to suggest that the same Russia would blackmail President Clinton for his Monica Lewinsky peccadillo (acts of sexual misconduct) to obtain very desperately needed IMF loans over which the US President has very strong influence. That could NEVER happen under Yeltsin's rule. His Russian administration and intelligence community is beyond reproach, right?
We will accept one form of conspiracy for Trump but not the other for a Democratic President. It's the same corrupt RUSSIA!
#6969
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,273
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2017-July-31, 15:30
RedSpawn, on 2017-July-31, 13:36, said:
Interesting, Russia is all of a sudden this vicious enemy under Putin who could potentially blackmail President Trump for acts of sexual misconduct (see purple quotation for sexual misconduct blackmail conspiracy). However, it is absurd to suggest that the same Russia would blackmail President Clinton for his Monica Lewinsky peccadillo (acts of sexual misconduct) to obtain very desperately needed IMF loans over which the US President has very strong influence. That could NEVER happen under Yeltsin's rule. His Russian administration and intelligence community is beyond reproach, right?
We will accept one form of conspiracy for Trump but not the other. It's the same corrupt RUSSIA!
We will accept one form of conspiracy for Trump but not the other. It's the same corrupt RUSSIA!
Are you on drugs?
There is no suggestion anywhere that Trump has potential blackmail due to sexual misconduct. The Steele dossier describes Trump hiring prostitutes to urinate on the bed that Barrack and Michelle Obama slept in - not a sexual act but one of a sick and sordid defilement - if it is true.
There is no doubt Trump has had business ties to many Russians. It is the financial and business ties that are the potential for blackmail as a "useful idiot" if not downright conspirator to launder money.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#6970
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 889
- Joined: 2017-March-11
Posted 2017-July-31, 15:33
Winstonm, on 2017-July-31, 15:30, said:
Are you on drugs?
There is no suggestion anywhere that Trump has potential blackmail due to sexual misconduct. The Steele dossier describes Trump hiring prostitutes to urinate on the bed that Barrack and Michelle Obama slept in - not a sexual act but one of a sick and sordid defilement - if it is true.
There is no doubt Trump has had business ties to many Russians. It is the financial and business ties that are the potential for blackmail as a "useful idiot" if not downright conspirator to launder money.
There is no suggestion anywhere that Trump has potential blackmail due to sexual misconduct. The Steele dossier describes Trump hiring prostitutes to urinate on the bed that Barrack and Michelle Obama slept in - not a sexual act but one of a sick and sordid defilement - if it is true.
There is no doubt Trump has had business ties to many Russians. It is the financial and business ties that are the potential for blackmail as a "useful idiot" if not downright conspirator to launder money.
Winstonm, on 2017-July-29, 14:00, said:
You must have poor sources to read as it is easily found that Fusion was first hired by the Republicans until Trump won the nomination at which point the company was hired by the Democrats to continue to dig up dirt on Trump.
This is from Politico: (emphasis added)
The issue I've read is the claim that Simpson also was hired to lobby for Russian interests unrelated to the Steele dossier but he claims he was working for an attorney and was not lobbying.
This is from Politico: (emphasis added)
Quote
Simpson hired Steele, a Russia expert, during the GOP primary and Steele continued his work after Trump was picked as the nominee. In its 35 pages was a seamy tale of a years-long conspiracy by the Kremlin to recruit Trump as an ally, to blackmail him through business deals and to entrap him in acts of sexual misconduct.
The issue I've read is the claim that Simpson also was hired to lobby for Russian interests unrelated to the Steele dossier but he claims he was working for an attorney and was not lobbying.
READ THE PURPLE QUOTATION MARKS.
Winston, stop playing around. If Trump is susceptible to blackmail (for business reasons) and he is also allegedly susceptible to ENTRAPMENT for acts of sexual misconduct, then it can be said that the such acts can used as a form of blackmail. What type of entrapment of sexual misconduct are YOU thinking about, because the one I am thinking about involves someone suggesting payment for keeping things on the down low.
You honestly think think that Russia would have proof of Trump's sexual misconduct as per the purple quote but wouldn't blackmail him for it. . . only the business dealings (money laundering)? Seriously?
Let's not forget that our own FBI threatened to expose Dr. Martin Luther King's adulterous acts if he didn't commit suicide and stop the Civil Rights movement, so how deep is the rabbit hole, really? Isn't that a form of black mail by an investigation/intelligence agency?
The only thing missing from the letter below is the "enclosed pictures" of adulterous sexual acts and/or orgies that the FBI had of Dr. King which were obtained through illegal surveillance. Granted, this type of blackmail occurred under J. Edgar Hoover's administration, but let's stop acting like it is a "conspiracy" thought for a governmental authority to blackmail LEADERS for adulterous acts (sexual misconduct). Our own FBI used such methods to try to stop the Civil Rights Movement, so Russia's intelligence community is ALSO quite capable of such low handed tactics.
Source: https://www.nytimes....lk-reveals.html
#6971
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,215
- Joined: 2004-September-22
- Location:Northern Maryland
Posted 2017-July-31, 18:09
Al_U_Card, on 2017-July-28, 16:26, said:
Will experience in the Trump administration become a "resume stain" ?
I have this vision of a man excitedly telling his wife (reverse the gender roles if you like): "Honey. Great news. I have just been offered the job of communications director for the White House". The next scene shows his wife packing her bags, explaining to a friend that she is not going to stay married to a moron.
Ken
#6972
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,273
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2017-July-31, 18:59
RedSpawn, on 2017-July-31, 15:33, said:
READ THE PURPLE QUOTATION MARKS.
Winston, stop playing around. If Trump is susceptible to blackmail (for business reasons) and he is also allegedly susceptible to ENTRAPMENT for acts of sexual misconduct, then it can be said that the such acts can used as a form of blackmail. What type of entrapment of sexual misconduct are YOU thinking about, because the one I am thinking about involves someone suggesting payment for keeping things on the down low.
You honestly think think that Russia would have proof of Trump's sexual misconduct as per the purple quote but wouldn't blackmail him for it. . . only the business dealings (money laundering)? Seriously?
Let's not forget that our own FBI threatened to expose Dr. Martin Luther King's adulterous acts if he didn't commit suicide and stop the Civil Rights movement, so how deep is the rabbit hole, really? Isn't that a form of black mail by an investigation/intelligence agency?
The only thing missing from the letter below is the "enclosed pictures" of adulterous sexual acts and/or orgies that the FBI had of Dr. King which were obtained through illegal surveillance. Granted, this type of blackmail occurred under J. Edgar Hoover's administration, but let's stop acting like it is a "conspiracy" thought for a governmental authority to blackmail LEADERS for adulterous acts (sexual misconduct). Our own FBI used such methods to try to stop the Civil Rights Movement, so Russia's intelligence community is ALSO quite capable of such low handed tactics.
Source: https://www.nytimes....lk-reveals.html
Winston, stop playing around. If Trump is susceptible to blackmail (for business reasons) and he is also allegedly susceptible to ENTRAPMENT for acts of sexual misconduct, then it can be said that the such acts can used as a form of blackmail. What type of entrapment of sexual misconduct are YOU thinking about, because the one I am thinking about involves someone suggesting payment for keeping things on the down low.
You honestly think think that Russia would have proof of Trump's sexual misconduct as per the purple quote but wouldn't blackmail him for it. . . only the business dealings (money laundering)? Seriously?
Let's not forget that our own FBI threatened to expose Dr. Martin Luther King's adulterous acts if he didn't commit suicide and stop the Civil Rights movement, so how deep is the rabbit hole, really? Isn't that a form of black mail by an investigation/intelligence agency?
The only thing missing from the letter below is the "enclosed pictures" of adulterous sexual acts and/or orgies that the FBI had of Dr. King which were obtained through illegal surveillance. Granted, this type of blackmail occurred under J. Edgar Hoover's administration, but let's stop acting like it is a "conspiracy" thought for a governmental authority to blackmail LEADERS for adulterous acts (sexual misconduct). Our own FBI used such methods to try to stop the Civil Rights Movement, so Russia's intelligence community is ALSO quite capable of such low handed tactics.
Source: https://www.nytimes....lk-reveals.html
Maybe you should play more bridge and lay off the vino? What occurred to Dr. King in 1960 has no bearing on what is happening now. And to rely on a characterization made in a quote as proof of an action is silly. Read the dossier - then make up your own mind.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#6973
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 889
- Joined: 2017-March-11
Posted 2017-July-31, 20:20
RedSpawn, on 2017-July-31, 15:33, said:
READ THE PURPLE QUOTATION MARKS.
Winston, stop playing around. If Trump is susceptible to blackmail (for business reasons) and he is also allegedly susceptible to ENTRAPMENT for acts of sexual misconduct, then it can be said that the such acts can used as a form of blackmail. What type of entrapment of sexual misconduct are YOU thinking about, because the one I am thinking about involves someone suggesting payment for keeping things on the down low.
You honestly think think that Russia would have proof of Trump's sexual misconduct as per the purple quote but wouldn't blackmail him for it. . . only the business dealings (money laundering)? Seriously?
Let's not forget that our own FBI threatened to expose Dr. Martin Luther King's adulterous acts if he didn't commit suicide and stop the Civil Rights movement, so how deep is the rabbit hole, really? Isn't that a form of black mail by an investigation/intelligence agency?
The only thing missing from the letter below is the "enclosed pictures" of adulterous sexual acts and/or orgies that the FBI had of Dr. King which were obtained through illegal surveillance. Granted, this type of blackmail occurred under J. Edgar Hoover's administration, but let's stop acting like it is a "conspiracy" thought for a governmental authority to blackmail LEADERS for adulterous acts (sexual misconduct). Our own FBI used such methods to try to stop the Civil Rights Movement, so Russia's intelligence community is ALSO quite capable of such low handed tactics.
Source: https://www.nytimes....lk-reveals.html
Winston, stop playing around. If Trump is susceptible to blackmail (for business reasons) and he is also allegedly susceptible to ENTRAPMENT for acts of sexual misconduct, then it can be said that the such acts can used as a form of blackmail. What type of entrapment of sexual misconduct are YOU thinking about, because the one I am thinking about involves someone suggesting payment for keeping things on the down low.
You honestly think think that Russia would have proof of Trump's sexual misconduct as per the purple quote but wouldn't blackmail him for it. . . only the business dealings (money laundering)? Seriously?
Let's not forget that our own FBI threatened to expose Dr. Martin Luther King's adulterous acts if he didn't commit suicide and stop the Civil Rights movement, so how deep is the rabbit hole, really? Isn't that a form of black mail by an investigation/intelligence agency?
The only thing missing from the letter below is the "enclosed pictures" of adulterous sexual acts and/or orgies that the FBI had of Dr. King which were obtained through illegal surveillance. Granted, this type of blackmail occurred under J. Edgar Hoover's administration, but let's stop acting like it is a "conspiracy" thought for a governmental authority to blackmail LEADERS for adulterous acts (sexual misconduct). Our own FBI used such methods to try to stop the Civil Rights Movement, so Russia's intelligence community is ALSO quite capable of such low handed tactics.
Source: https://www.nytimes....lk-reveals.html
No, sir. You lay off the wine. Stop asking me to accept some dossier file reeking of conspiracy theory on Trump but anything I present to you with the FBI fingerprints all over it about blackmailing US citizens which is PROVEN you are quick to dismiss.
Your own supplied quote said Trump was entrapped on acts of sexual misconduct and even mentions blackmail for his business dealings but now you want to suggest that Russia would never use such compromising intelligence against Trump to blackmail him for favorable treatment?
Only blackmail for the money laundering, eh?
And I show you our own government will blackmail a leader for sexual misconduct and tell him through innuendo in written letter to commit suicide to try to stop the Civil Rights Movement. It was 50 years ago, but you do realize that our own government declassified this horrendous, contemptible letter in 2014, right?
How can I prove things to you when our government classifies its own dirt for 2 and 1/2 generations (50 years)?
Winston, if you don't want to acknowledge THE TRUTH of some of America's ugly history, then you are doomed to be a victim when our government OR OTHERS repeat similar behavior and you don't ask the tough questions that need to be asked.
Earlier, I asked you who in the U.S. government authorized a dangerous former military counterintelligence official from the Kremlin, Akhmetshin, to be granted American citizenship in the 1st place? You provide no answer for the government's incompetence in this matter.
The U.S. government gets a hall pass on this Kushner scandal and how this allegedly dangerous man emigrated from Russia to America to even be a part of the scandal. Hmmm.
#6974
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 889
- Joined: 2017-March-11
Posted 2017-July-31, 20:40
Winstonm, on 2017-July-28, 17:25, said:
Here is the reason the USA Today sees as why the Russia investigation will take a long time.
So we need a special investigator and contracted consultants to figure out what IRS agents can't even when Trump's filed tax forms for several years are under audit review? Very interesting...
#6975
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,026
- Joined: 2008-September-10
- Gender:Male
Posted 2017-July-31, 23:56
RedSpawn, on 2017-July-31, 20:40, said:
So we need a special investigator and contracted consultants to figure out what IRS agents can't even when Trump's filed tax forms for several years are under audit review? Very interesting...
This is either classic misdirection or more likely, complete lack of understanding of what an IRS audit is trying to accomplish. The IRS does not care where your money came from, whether it was illegal or legal. They only care that you are reporting all your income correctly, following the applicable tax law, and then paying the required taxes.
Ever hear about Al Capone being jailed for tax evasion?
#6976
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 889
- Joined: 2017-March-11
Posted 2017-August-01, 09:59
johnu, on 2017-July-31, 23:56, said:
This is either classic misdirection or more likely, complete lack of understanding of what an IRS audit is trying to accomplish. The IRS does not care where your money came from, whether it was illegal or legal. They only care that you are reporting all your income correctly, following the applicable tax law, and then paying the required taxes.
Ever hear about Al Capone being jailed for tax evasion?
Ever hear about Al Capone being jailed for tax evasion?
Each time Trump or any of his business entities that he owns moves over $10,000 between financial accounts, there are electronic Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) that are sent to the Department of Treasury (IRS) about it. Surely there should be enough CTR's of deposits and withdrawals between 1980 and 2017 to figure this out, by now?
That is over 37 years of data for depository and withdrawal information.
So you telling me with this stringent reporting standard filed to the Department of the Treasury under the Bank Secrecy Act, we still are in the dark about where Trump's money goes to and comes from for an alleged billionaire? Seriously?
If Trump has been laundering money through shell companies that he owns, then someone at the Department of the Treasury has been asleep for decades! But oh that right, the government gets another hall pass.
https://en.wikipedia...ank_Secrecy_Act
#6977
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,026
- Joined: 2008-September-10
- Gender:Male
Posted 2017-August-01, 10:29
RedSpawn, on 2017-August-01, 09:59, said:
Each time Trump or any of his business entities that he owns moves over $10,000 between financial accounts, there are electronic Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) that are sent to the Department of Treasury (IRS) about it. Surely there should be enough CTR's of deposits and withdrawals between 1980 and 2017 to figure this out, by now?
That is over 37 years of data for depository and withdrawal information.
So you telling me with this stringent reporting standard filed to the Department of the Treasury under the Bank Secrecy Act, we still are in the dark about where Trump's money goes to and comes from for an alleged billionaire? Seriously?
If Trump has been laundering money through shell companies that he owns, then someone at the Department of the Treasury has been asleep for decades! But oh that right, the government gets another hall pass.
https://en.wikipedia...ank_Secrecy_Act
That is over 37 years of data for depository and withdrawal information.
So you telling me with this stringent reporting standard filed to the Department of the Treasury under the Bank Secrecy Act, we still are in the dark about where Trump's money goes to and comes from for an alleged billionaire? Seriously?
If Trump has been laundering money through shell companies that he owns, then someone at the Department of the Treasury has been asleep for decades! But oh that right, the government gets another hall pass.
https://en.wikipedia...ank_Secrecy_Act
Wow
In case you didn't notice, the key phrase in that form "Form 104 - Currency Transaction Report" is "Currency". Since you apparently know how to find things on Wikipedia, but not really understand what you are looking at, this is from the entry from Form 104 - Currency Transaction Report,
"A currency transaction report (CTR) is a report that U.S. financial institutions are required to file with FinCEN for each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency, or other payment or transfer, by, through, or to the financial institution which involves a transaction in currency of more than $10,000.[1][2] Used in this context, currency means the coin and/or paper money of any country that is designated as legal tender by the country of issuance. Currency also includes U.S. silver certificates, U.S. notes, Federal Reserve notes, and official foreign bank notes.[3]"
Just to be clear, if a company or individual, let's make up a name, say "Putin Enterprises", electronically wired Trump 500 million rubles, it would not be a currency transaction and no form would be filed.
edit: My guess is that Trump personally had zero CTR's filed because I don't know why he would be dealing with $10,000+ in cash. Any large transactions would be by check or wire transfer. Probably his golf courses or hotels occasionally have $10K+ cash transactions, but those are business entities.
#6978
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,273
- Joined: 2005-January-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
- Interests:Art, music
Posted 2017-August-01, 10:34
Part of interview with political scientist Katherine Cramer:
My parents came from rural backgrounds as well did my current wife and her family. (yes, I re-married.) My limited personal experience compliments the above statements, though, that there is an undercurrent of white privilege outside the urban areas. My best guess is that this is due to the lack of contact with other cultures and races.
Quote
How does your research make you feel about the economics vs. culture/race debate around Trump’s success?
You can’t separate culture and economics. When people are telling me that they’re not getting their fair share, and they’re feeling like all the taxpayer dollars go to the cities, and that they pay in a lot of taxes but they don’t see that money in return, they’re also telling me, “That money is going to people who don’t deserve it as much as I do, and don’t seem to be working as hard as I do.” And some of that is racist sentiment. Whether we’re talking about cultural issues in terms of race or ethnicity or immigration, we’re also talking about it in terms of just the lifestyles of city people versus the lifestyles of people in rural areas, and the sense of who works hard: People who sit behind a desk all day or people who are doing manual labor? Economic insecurity is intertwined with their sense of deservingness, which is a very cultural notion. So in my mind you can’t really separate the two.
My research has also taught me that racism is very much a part of the conversation even when people aren’t saying blatantly racist things. I think a lot of times this debate between “is it racism or is it economics” gets caught up in whether individuals are racist and forgets that the whole system in which we are operating was founded on some pretty racist policies.
Right, and there is also the question of to what degree that rural identity itself is often based on race.
It’s definitely the case that these places are far less racially diverse, and it’s definitely the case that people in rural areas by and large have far less experience with people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds than folks who live in a more urban or sometimes even suburban space. Much of the “we are not the city” is partly about “but we are a good thing, which is close to the land, knowing our neighbors, a slower pace of life” types of concerns. I think being built around white identity is definitely a part of it, but I wouldn’t say that’s the essential part of rural identity.
You can’t separate culture and economics. When people are telling me that they’re not getting their fair share, and they’re feeling like all the taxpayer dollars go to the cities, and that they pay in a lot of taxes but they don’t see that money in return, they’re also telling me, “That money is going to people who don’t deserve it as much as I do, and don’t seem to be working as hard as I do.” And some of that is racist sentiment. Whether we’re talking about cultural issues in terms of race or ethnicity or immigration, we’re also talking about it in terms of just the lifestyles of city people versus the lifestyles of people in rural areas, and the sense of who works hard: People who sit behind a desk all day or people who are doing manual labor? Economic insecurity is intertwined with their sense of deservingness, which is a very cultural notion. So in my mind you can’t really separate the two.
My research has also taught me that racism is very much a part of the conversation even when people aren’t saying blatantly racist things. I think a lot of times this debate between “is it racism or is it economics” gets caught up in whether individuals are racist and forgets that the whole system in which we are operating was founded on some pretty racist policies.
Right, and there is also the question of to what degree that rural identity itself is often based on race.
It’s definitely the case that these places are far less racially diverse, and it’s definitely the case that people in rural areas by and large have far less experience with people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds than folks who live in a more urban or sometimes even suburban space. Much of the “we are not the city” is partly about “but we are a good thing, which is close to the land, knowing our neighbors, a slower pace of life” types of concerns. I think being built around white identity is definitely a part of it, but I wouldn’t say that’s the essential part of rural identity.
My parents came from rural backgrounds as well did my current wife and her family. (yes, I re-married.) My limited personal experience compliments the above statements, though, that there is an undercurrent of white privilege outside the urban areas. My best guess is that this is due to the lack of contact with other cultures and races.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
#6979
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 16,793
- Joined: 2003-October-07
- Gender:Male
Posted 2017-August-01, 10:57
In this day of the internet and tv...it is pretty hard to have a lack of contact with other races or for that matter cultures. I mean you do have contact.
Also part of the problem is that race is defined by politics not science.
Also part of the problem is that race is defined by politics not science.
#6980
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,576
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2017-August-01, 11:26
mike777, on 2017-August-01, 10:57, said:
In this day of the internet and tv...it is pretty hard to have a lack of contact with other races or for that matter cultures. I mean you do have contact.
Also part of the problem is that race is defined by politics not science.
Also part of the problem is that race is defined by politics not science.
There's a difference between seeing other races and culture in media and directly interacting with them on a daily basis.
When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's, I lived in the suburbs on Long Island. I think there was just one black student in my class in junior high school, and possibly no Latinos. The only minorities I saw much were menial laborers: maids, bellmen, garbage collectors, etc. There were black professionals on TV shows like "Room 222", but that was TV fantasy as far as my real world experience was concerned (it was also set in an urban environment, which was a very different culture than I experienced). I didn't start seeing black kids on a regular basis until we moved to a new town when I started high school; we lived in an upper middle-class town, but our school district included the neighboring town, which was literally on the other side of the tracks (the Long Island Railroad ran along the border between Dix Hills and Wheatley Heights). The other town was fairly poor (for suburbs), all the black kids came from there, and IIRC they were involved in most incidents of violence and drug abuse in the schools (but maybe that was just an illusion because the white kids often got away with things due to "white privilege").
I didn't consider myself racist -- I liked to think I learned things from watching shows like "All in the Family" and "Good Times" -- but I was mildly uncomfortable for many years around black people just due to lack of familiarity and associating them with those kids in school. We saw favorable depictions of black people on TV, but there was always that nagging feeling that families like the Huxtables were the exception. On the other hand, when TV showed black drug dealers, that supported our natural prejudices.