Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

01-30-2017 , 04:58 PM
JFC are you telling me that all my friends got paid for going to LAX yesterday? Why didn't anybody say so?!?!?!?!?!
01-30-2017 , 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jman220
Not mentioning the Jews is straight from the holocaust deniers' playbook. There are two versions of holocaust denial with regard to the attempted extermination of the jewish people. The first version is that it didn't happen, and the second is that "a lot of innocent people died, it was war." It is a big deal that the administration is putting out the same viewpoint on the holocaust as anti-semitic white power hate groups.
the second part often includes denying that ovens were used as well.

but yes, that statement was straight out of that playbook.
01-30-2017 , 04:59 PM
The whole concept of funded by Soros is just a total canard.

The protests simply dont get close to requiring funding by Soros.

Protests are not expensive.
01-30-2017 , 05:01 PM
The best part is that the two stupid right wing arguments against the protests are that:
Lazy liberals don't have jobs
Funded by ((soros))

Can't have it both ways.
01-30-2017 , 05:02 PM
01-30-2017 , 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
Of course they are scared of Muslims. The media they consume have bred that into them with 15 years of relentless fear mongering against Muslims.

Yep, this. It's embedded in our culture. I just watched season 2 of "24" the past week and I was shocked at the level of xenophobia in the show. I won't watch the rest of the series. It's basically "Brown guys bad and want to kill us. White guys good and want to save us." And they covered their bases by having a black guy as president.
01-30-2017 , 05:02 PM
what is supposed to be funded wrt protests anyways? The poster board? If you don't have a sign it doesn't even cost money to protest outside of the costs to get there (minimal locally).
01-30-2017 , 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerin Hank
Obviously I cannot prove that a majority of the protests are funded by Soros. Since you took this as my meaning, I withdraw the comment. I intended no anti-Semitism.
Then prove one.
01-30-2017 , 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by True North
At which point the Rs will renege on whatever they were offering, having gotten what they wanted, playing the Ds for fools yet again.

I can't even conceive of what could be offered to that would be sufficient to confirm anyone Trump could bring forward, in any event.
Allowing key amendments/changes to important legislation that the Dems really want (Obamacare, immigration, etc.). Dems have leverage on a lot of stuff, there will be bills that the Rs can force through Congress that the Dems may want to make less bad. It comes down to what each side really wants and is willing to bargain for. Four years is a very long time in politics.
01-30-2017 , 05:05 PM
The funny thing about the conspiracy theory that the protestors were paid actors is that there IS actual evidence that some people were paid to cheer for Trump at some rallies.
01-30-2017 , 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalledDownLight
what is supposed to be funded wrt protests anyways? The poster board? If you don't have a sign it doesn't even cost money to protest outside of the costs to get there (minimal locally).
They believe that their bigoted opinions are a majority opinion. People protesting in mass is only because they get paid to do so, because no large amount of people would defend muslims/abortion etcetc in mass.
01-30-2017 , 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
The whole concept of funded by Soros is just a total canard.

The protests simply dont get close to requiring funding by Soros.

Protests are not expensive.
pro-oil drilling protests might get expensive. pro-seal clubbing protests would be costly.
01-30-2017 , 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlk9s
The funny thing about the conspiracy theory that the protestors were paid actors is that there IS actual evidence that some people were paid to cheer for Trump at some rallies.
People were paid to go to his inauguration as well.
01-30-2017 , 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirbynator
do you realize how deep in delusions you have to be to believe that massive protests around the country with millions of people are funded by one guy?

There are frickin protests in EUROPE over Trump for chrissakes
Nah, mass hysteria is the more likely culprit than one guy funding it.
01-30-2017 , 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTD
Honestly, and I don't want to start a debate on this, but this is totally unfair and incorrect in my opinion. Note that I'm talking about the logic of what you are saying rather then how politics of how certain words (or omissions) are perceived. Whoever drafts such a key statements has to consider many angles, and I'm not disputing the concern over the statement that was issued.



This is factually incorrect, it's not implicitly denying anything. I'm disappointed to read it quite honestly. Obv the Holocaust was a huge part of it, but I could just as easily say (and just as falsely) that your post is denying the extent to which others suffered in Poland.
you should just trust us. or you could google it and dive down into that crazy pit of hell and read all about denial and revision and all that. I dont recommend that, but hey, its ur brain.
01-30-2017 , 05:08 PM
i LOVE that broadwaySushy says he's from the ministry of truth. it's like sean spicer retweeting the onion article saying he provides misinformation
01-30-2017 , 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oroku$aki
You better start trying to cite at least a few Soros led Trump protests.
Hammerin Hank was presumably referring to this article, credited to Aaron Klein, of Tel Aviv, on Breitbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2...ee-halt-order/

The curious thing about Breitbart is that it was originally founded to push the views of the Israeli right in the US because Andrew Breitbart thought the mainstream US media weren't sufficiently pro the Israeli right: a startling notion, but that's what he thought. There is a weird nexus between American neo-Nazis and the Israeli right because they both hate brown Muslims. At least, that's about the only sense one can make of the whole cluster****.
01-30-2017 , 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammerin Hank
Obviously I cannot prove that a majority of the protests are funded by Soros. Since you took this as my meaning, I withdraw the comment. I intended no anti-Semitism.
How about 1 protestor? Could you swing that?
01-30-2017 , 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirbynator
im hearing weird stories from friends that live near the shooting in quebec

Apparently the guy was gay with an arab boyfriend and there was something wrong with the mosque like they rejected him or something.

Also he has an identical twin.


https://electronicintifada.net/blogs...ench-far-right

Quote:
Jean-Michel Allard-Prus, a fellow student, told Le Journal de Quebec that he often talked politics with Bissonnette.

“He has political ideas on the right, pro-Israel, anti-immigration,” Allard-Prus said. “I had a number of debates with him about Trump. He was obviously pro-Trump.”
Quote:
The Facebook page showed that Bissonnette has “liked” a number of political figures and entities which, if taken as signs of his views, may indicate far-right leanings.
His “likes” include the official Facebook pages of Trump, Le Pen, the “Israel Defence Forces” and a group called “United with Israel.”

He “liked” Richard Dawkins, a leading proponent of “new atheism,” which often veers into strident Islamophobia.

Bissonnette also “liked” the nationalist Parti Québécois which ran a losing general election campaign in 2014 on a “Charter of Values” that was widely seen as promoting intolerance of Muslims. The party has strongly condemned the attack.
Quote:
But the Quebec publication La Presse reported that Bissonnette was known as a troll to members of a Facebook group called Bienvenue aux réfugiés – Welcome to Refugees.

According to the group’s administrator, Bissonnette often posted comments attacking foreigners in general and feminists, who he termed “feminazis.”
01-30-2017 , 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalledDownLight
this depends. Sure, in a normal deal like this lots of people would know because it would be talked about and more efficient to pull more people in, but I'm confident that the money could be moved and the ownership transferred into shell companies with no more than a half dozen people having access if the primary concern was secrecy and not efficiency or timing. If the money is clean and the transaction legal it also doesn't matter if someone's assistant sees some paperwork or emails or fields a phone call. How many people were actually involved just depends on:

1. how many people they trust
2. how much of a priority speed was
3. how secretive they needed to be

Its not really harder from an operational standpoint to put $10B of shares into an account than it is $10MM.
Aren't there a bunch of checks and balances built within our financial system that would make it easy for the people facilitating the various transactions to connect the dots if they were aware of the suspicions? I work closely with a European bank professionally and I am confident that if this happened in Europe a lot of people would see enough to connect the dots.

Like I said it wouldn't give them the smoking gun, but it would give them enough confirmation that there is no reasonable doubt left. This isn't money being moved around to dodge some taxes, which isn't sexy or lucrative enough for the involved parties to speak up or leak, this is watergate x10. Of course like you said if they had enough time to prepare they would just set it up so that the people involved are ones they can trust 100%, but I think something of this nature would have a very high relative probability of leaking once more than a handful people are in the know.
01-30-2017 , 05:18 PM
heh you caught me before i edited then deleted my post, my friends "sources" seemed shaky at best after pushing a bit
01-30-2017 , 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheatrich
This is exactly what should be discussed in the media rather than the other stuff. Old people still hate russia. Let's show how trump is a russian agent (I mean if you haven't figured it out by now that trump made a deal with putin to conquer the whole world together as the end game goal I don't know what to tell you), that might actually flip some people. This other **** won't at all. It just deepens the opposition resolve more to defending trump.

also, spoiler alert, the guy who got it is trump.
pretty sure I saw a graph that showed like 80% of republicans now think favorably of russia. it used to be like 20%.
01-30-2017 , 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirbynator
do you realize how deep in delusions you have to be to believe that massive protests around the country with millions of people are funded by one guy?

There are frickin protests in EUROPE over Trump for chrissakes
In Britain, the petition to Parliament to cancel Trump's state visit has long passed the million mark in just one day -- more people than could be bothered to turn out for Trump's inauguration.
01-30-2017 , 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red
Hammerin Hank was presumably referring to this article, credited to Aaron Klein, of Tel Aviv, on Breitbart.

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2...ee-halt-order/

The curious thing about Breitbart is that it was originally founded to push the views of the Israeli right in the US because Andrew Breitbart thought the mainstream US media weren't sufficiently pro the Israeli right: a startling notion, but that's what he thought. There is a weird nexus between American neo-Nazis and the Israeli right because they both hate brown Muslims. At least, that's about the only sense one can make of the whole cluster****.
Uhh, maybe? I guess we'll soon find out if Hank can come up with anything that won't get laughed out of the forum. Obv I don't think he can, and I think he's better off apologizing for spreading bull****.
01-30-2017 , 05:26 PM
It looks like Obama used his One Time to comment on the Trump Muslim ban and protests.

      
m