Gorka was born in 1970.

regardless of what you are saying now, that last post was ******ed gibberish

They had that referendum in 2012. Mitt Romney lost.

nice catch

As opposed to?

Yeah guys. How could Gorka support Hitler WHEN HE WASN'T EVEN BORN YET?!?

Umm, no.

The article is a lot broader than being just about Vitezi Rend.

As with most of these cases, I would advise people to read the article and then form their own opinion, not just accept someone else's -possibly biased viewpoint.

I'm on board with tit for tat, but there's a problem if our opponent doesn't acknowledge the state of the game. Or they are "sincere" liars.


https://twitter.com/KatherineGanzel/...37758206959616

Eta I don't know much about game theory.

Erik Prince, a crown prince from the UAE, and a Russian connected to Putin had a secret meeting in the Seychelles before the inauguration to discuss foreign policy

My view: there's no narrative here, can we please focus on something sexy like expanding Medicaid eligibility

Lol. I was simply pointing out the obvious.

That he couldn't have joined the party at the end of the war. Quite mind boggling that I should even have to, but there you go.

Prince's sister is Betsy DeVos.

Nothing to see here.

This rice scandal seems weak as all hell; so we're not gonna hear the end of it.

The fact is, the voters will never be able to track the relationships between Trump's cabinet, their mercenary kingpin family members, the Arab royals, and the different Russian diplomats and bagmen they're all bargaining with. They'll just throw up their hands and assume everything is on the up-and-up.

Trump's lawyer is now finance chairman of the RNC.

The only question is are they just gonna raid the RNC for their own coffers after questionable at best if not illegal $ going into the RNC's coffers?

Fair, but like, you're taking voters at their word that "corruption" is what they actually didn't like about Hillary and isn't simply the reason that they gave. That criticism only goes one way; Trump supporters are Trump supporters for life, some illegal activity by the president isn't going to cause them to stop being on his side.

The Russia stuff is a political weapon to blunt the credibility of his office and maybe if illegal activity is eventually uncovered it can be used for impeachment, but I don't think Democrats are going to start winning elections because Russia.

Other obvious things include: the implications of signaling your affiliation with Nazi collaborators.

Yep, just another run of the mill interaction between people affiliated with the Trump campaign and Russia, where presumably all that was discussed was personal business and pleasantries about family.

He's also the Secretary of Education's brother. Secretary of Education Betsy Devos. The one with no qualifications except for having a lot of money, and a brother willing to liaise with Russian intelligence.

That article mentions Prince's comments on Breitbart:

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/...weiner-case/2/

Prince is obviously dealing out a bunch of lies here. But this passage makes me think he could have been looking to undermine the election in the event of a Clinton win:

Wouldn't be surprised to hear that he had a lot of Russian contact.

Remember when Huma flipped on Clinton and put her in jail?

Shameless liars.

More a sentimental affiliation towards his father than anything else, I would say.

I can't judge. My father served in many death squads. "Why don't you just keep a picture of him on your desk?" my friends always ask. "Why do you have to pledge undying allegiance to the death squads?" It's like they just don't understand what having a dad is all about.

lol. We'd love to put Trump Pick versus Obama Pick to a national vote. I suspect our side will win by at least, I don't know, just pulling a number of the air here, 2.9 million votes.

Yeah the idea that if the democrats roll over again the republicans will nominate super moderate candidates (which by the way is silly because in the modern landscape gorsuch is pretty conservative) is absurd.

Again it is really what the republicans want. They want to push gorsuch through with this threat but not actually being responsible for doing it. Then they can do it the next time and the next time. It has been a dumb argument regardless of which side of the aisle has advocated it.

Come now. This is sarcasm about the naivete of Democrats, which OK. But which party, exactly, is going to lambast Trump for being in cahoots with 'mercenary kingpins' like Erik Prince? You know the CIA signed a 250 million dollar security deal with the re-branded Blackwater during the middle of the Obama Administration, right? You know the current board of the company that is engaged in mercenary-for-hire work has guys like Jack Quinn (former counsel to Clinton, chief of staff to Gore) and Bobby Inman (Clinton nominee for Secretary of Defense), right?

You and I probably agree on a lot and I respect you as one of the smarter people here. But you must really disrespect everyone or have extremely low self-awareness if you think the charge of 'mercenary ****ing kingpin' is going to stick against guys like Prince for ANYONE except like genuine leftists. You are of course empirically correct that's exactly what Prince is, but it's why the whole Russian scandal is bordering on farcical. Because NO ONE CAN SAY IT. And it's a point Autocratic made months ago now and remains true to this day. The Democrats have precisely no frame on this, no credibility here, no way to tell this story. Because it's actually a story as you've correctly framed it: a bunch of global elites who bargain with each other over the fate of capital and don't give two ****s about nationalism or patriotism or any of the other stories they tell suckers.

So voters can't track the relationship to mercenary kingpins who bargain with Russians because no one will tell them, because elites on both sides are bargaining with them too. Like get ****ing real if you think the modern Democratic Party can tell a story that Academi or Xe or Blackwater or whatever they call themselves these days are hired mercenaries. They're gonna have a lot of explaining to do because Democrats cut deals with them too, because Democrats take their campaign money, because Democrats take their speech money, because Democrats sit on their boards.

So Democrats are going to resort to vague handwaving insinuations that our national virtues have been besmirched somehow, because sanctity of the things people don't care about. Because the real story about what they should care about (Trump, Erik Prince, Arab royals, Russians, and tons of name-brand Democrats) are actually in cahoots to shift public monies to their business interests.

It's really just the most short-sighted scandals until THAT story gets told. But it won't because who in the elite classes aren't embroiled in it in some way? You're correct it may ultimately be the MacGuffin that takes down Trump and I hope it is so, but you are counting on the most fantastical form of utter shamelessness, that the elites literally turn on each other and eat their own and then hope no one paid any attention the last 40 years.

When they predictably don't and won't do that, you're going to be left with a story about Russia that is light on a conclusion outside of "Trump: Suspicious" and in violation of sacred norms that ... zzzz no1curr lol, that is, whatever einbert is about to post about. All that stuff einbert is about to say that like really no one gives a **** about, honestly. And I think deep down you know that. Which is why your post quoted above is bad.

This is a nice, short and super-ironic read.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory...ppointment.htm