Show me a man whose wife is an avid liberal and whose children are all liberals, and I'll show you a liberal. 99.999999999% of the time.
This is the guy that the Left/MSM have been claiming is a "registered Republican" to help shield him from criticism of partisanship.
It's pretty clear that being "registered Republican" was a calculated political career decision based on expediency.
Do you know who else is constantly swaddled with the label of "registered Republican"? Do you know who else is described as having integrity that is "beyond reproach" just as Comey once was? Do you know who else's actions also go counter to the narrative being spun about him in the media?
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
It was a lot more than just a reaction to their specific attacks from trump, they were Clintonistas from the get go. Trump lost no friends in the Comey family when he criticized Comey.
Well I guess Comey is a Democrat then.
(no message)
If anyone wants to read about a man settling scores, this is YOUR book.
What a "professional"! Along with McCabe, Strzok, and obviously Rosenstein and Mueller - what a team of "consumate apolitical professionals" as told to us by some on the Left. Yeah, it's real clear after the book and interview that Comey would NEVER allow political calculations into his job (snicker).
You might want to take a deep breath.
Telling people that the president is a self-absorbed douchebag really doesn't damage the FBI.
Shooting people unjustly. Imprisoning people unjustly. Torture. Those are bad.
This book? Not the classiest move. But damaging the FBI? Hardly.
At their level, it is just a political arm, to be wielded against political enemies, just like the IRS.
Why would he pretend to biased one way to cover up bias for the other?
in his professional. He was the head of the FBI and that means republican identification.
most law enforcement folks are republican and maybe that is how planned to be perceived.
he was a persecuting attorney, never a FBI agent.
For example he never was involved in investigation
language was even anti -Trump.
It's excellent cover for these "apolitical" positions where you are appointed by one party , but are supposedly from another. The president almost always know what they are appointing (trump excluded because he was an outsider (and stupid).
You can extra street cred that way. Kind of like Georgetown pretending to speak about Catholic Theology from a position of authority because they are known to be a catholic college when in fact they are about as far from catholicism as they can possibly get themselves.
If he is a Democrat, he is biased. If he is a Republican, he is biased.
It really doesn't matter if the guy appointing him gets some ethereal brownie points for appointing someone of the opposite party.
(no message)
we are discussing this specific case. A child can understand this.
If Comey is Republican, then he is biased. If Comey is Democrat, then he is biased. If Comey is a Green Party member, then he is biased.
Just because you believe it is one of these and not the one he claims doesn't change the fact that no matter what it is/was, the "problem" would still exist. I imagine the problem exists with all law enforcement. And in fact, I am willing to guess that more often than not, even in the FBI, the bias is in favor of Republicans.
We don't whine about. You shouldn't either.
Client. Fuck Putin, its these two who are bring the Trump Presidency down. This is truly inspirational. Haaaa!
(no message)
The collusion narrative. The initial allegations were, in my opinion, a political hatchet job intended to shine the light on Trump because he’s a very sleazy character. The hope was that he would slip up and the Grifter in Chief did not disappoint.
That’s not to suggest that there was no collusion, because I don’t know and it’s becoming a greater possibility with each passing day. Initially however, there was no proof.
As I’ve stated many times previously, Trump is a Special Prosecutor’s wet dream. Spare yourself and the rest of us the disingenuous outrage and remember....Given enough time and money, a special prosecutor can begin with a land deal gone bad and end up with impeachment over a blow job.
Trump being in bed with the Russians was a hot topic over the summer when Trump hired Manafort and especially when Trump called on Russia to steal Clinton’s emails. At that time, it was something to latch onto for democrats, giving credence to your narrative claim. Especially after the election.
But, we didn’t know in the fall of 2016, nor post election, the FBI had already started investigating the trump campaign back in May of 2016, because of what George Papadopoulos told the Australian ambassador, who then told the FBI. It wasn’t a narrative that got this started, it was a tip from an ally.
True in the US today as it was then in the USSR.
(no message)
In today's world, in the US, we are all guilty of something. I guarantee it.
Prosecutors should not select a man, and then investigate until they find a crime. They should be aware of a crime, and then investigate it. In this case, it seems like they are aware of a politically disliked man (which I get), and they will investigate until they find a crime (which is Stalinist). Allegations were made by a political opponent, an investigation ensued, and now people associated with the accused are being raided, accused and taken down one by one. That could very easily happen to the other side...and, I assume it will in the next go around, if Trump is smart and if the GOP has enough fight in them (which remains to be seen). The Left is setting up an inherently abusable system, and just relying on the Right not to abuse it. I don't like that.
Who is this mystery political opponent and what were that allegations? Are you talking about Hillary? Are you actually arguing that Hillary set this whole thing up, leading right to Cohen's doorstep? Amazing that she couldn't stop Comey from breaking protocol to hand Trump the election, given how omnipotent she was and still is.
What's even crazier is the Trump explicitly behaves the way you describe. Trump has openly alleged crimes by his political opponents. "Lock her up!".
This is what scares me. You are so afraid of being wrong about Trump that you latch onto whatever makes you seem right. A lot of Americans (probably the same amount that think we've never landed on the moon) are in the same boat as you. It's disturbing.
Just to be clear, I don't have any money on collusion or no collusion. I have no idea, and I've said before that my hunch is that it didn't happen. However, I don't have any reason to believe that anything done in this investigation was improper, at least in any substantive way (manufactured evidence, destroyed evidence, improper warrants, etc.) I don't care if you are right or wrong on Trump. But you are so deeply invested in his defense you aren't seeing clearly anymore.
The allegations are Russian collusion. You may have heard of that.
You asked: "Are you talking about Hillary? Are you actually arguing that Hillary set this whole thing up, leading right to Cohen's doorstep?" Yes, of course I'm saying that. And, whether or not I'm right, you have to realize that more than 10% of the country believes this. Closer to half. And, in politics, perception is reality, so the Left may want to think about the volatile situation it is creating. I think they think they can control it, and use the crisis to their advantage. Maybe.
"Amazing that she couldn't stop Comey from breaking protocol to hand Trump the election, given how omnipotent she was and still is." Yeah, he thought she was going to win, which is why he did it. He didn't think he was sabotaging her win. He thought he was safeguarding her presidency. Listen to his interviews. He has said this himself.
"This is what scares me. You are so afraid of being wrong about Trump that you latch onto whatever makes you seem right. A lot of Americans (probably the same amount that think we've never landed on the moon) are in the same boat as you. It's disturbing." Wrong. I'm not at all worried about being wrong about Trump. My eyes are quite open regarding Trump. I'm worried about the Democrats destroying our Constitutional system of checks and balances.
I know you think I am a Trump shill, but I have not been actively defending him much. I know my posts are interpreted that way when they are viewed through Left partisan glasses, but I don't start a lot of threads about him, and I sit a lot of them out. I do comment a lot on the hysteria of the Left, which I believe to be harmful to our form of government...and I know the Left would agree if the Right were doing the same types of things.
"Just to be clear, I don't have any money on collusion or no collusion." Neither do I. (And, after all, its not even a crime.)
"However, I don't have any reason to believe that anything done in this investigation was improper, at least in any substantive way (manufactured evidence, destroyed evidence, improper warrants, etc.)" I don't think you have the entire story, then. There is a lot of evidence of impropriety. It is just that your news sources don't report it.
"I don't care if you are right or wrong on Trump. But you are so deeply invested in his defense you aren't seeing clearly anymore. I'm actually not defending Trump half as much as I am attacking the actions of the Left, which I believe are undermining our constitutional form of government. If the Right did half the things the Left has done in this "investigation" (go back to the list of things Cole listed last week), the Left would be screaming bloody murder. But they aren't...not because they think those actions are ok, but because of who is doing them.
Again, they are selecting the man, and looking for the crime (or exonerating the crime), depending on politics. If the Right did this to Hillary, you would be "defending Hillary" or "defending the Constitution." Which would it be?
That's a fair and reasoned answer.
(no message)
I hate a lot about Trump. I've been clear on that. On a fundamental level, he offends everything I believe as a Christian, liberal, moderate, conservative, grown-up and thinking person.
But I can be objective about facts. I haven't seen overwhelming indications that he did this, and for everything I hate about him, colluding with the Russians doesn't fit who I think the man is.
While I do not feel that any collusion is looking more likely, i have little doubt that trump broke laws in his past. But, I knew that when i voted for him, but the alternative was worse.
And we saw that the same laws were not enforced with Hilary, so they should not be against Trump since the Dems cannot be allowed to practice by a different set of rules.
Their outrage is very funny to watch given what they ignored with Hilary - many times, it was the exact same thing that they now want vengeance on Trump for doing.
Let the investigation play out. It's unseemly how you dwell on it when we will find out soon enough.
(no message)
Almost as funny as your Persian dromedariophilia post. Almost. Your on a roll. You can't push my buttons, but you can make me laugh.
(no message)
It's not my investigation.
The Left has been obsessed with collusion for the past year. That's why we are where we are.
For anyone to say that the Right is obsessed with collusion is...no offense intended...funny.
Never was. If you look at my posting history, I doubt it happened. Either way, I haven't much to say about it until the investigation is concluded.
There may be those on the Left that are obsessed with collusion. They do not post here. Baron does. I noted that he is more obsessed with it than anyone else here.
Regardless of your personal views, it is comical for you to accuse someone on the Right of being obsessed with collusion. It is like walking into a courtroom, and seeing the defendant (who believes he is wrongly accused) making his case, and then accusing the defendant of being obsessed with his defense. His defense would go away the moment the prosecution stops being obsessed with his prosecution. In fact, the defendant would very much like to never talk about his defense. You accuse the wrong party of obsession.
Your analogy relates to a person defending themselves, to people accusing them. No one is accusing "the Right", or Baron, of collusion. He is obsessed with defending Trump against an investigation that none of us are undertaking. I don't know what "Left" is obsessed, but they aren't here.
So yeah, I think Baron is obsessed with collusion, much more than anyone here. Which is the point. Or if it makes you feel better, he is obsessed with arguing President Trump's innocence of collusion to a bunch of posters that are not obsessed with arguing President Trump's guilt.
Just start yelling at clouds, if you want.
Your analogy relates to a person defending themselves, to people accusing them. No one is accusing "the Right", or Baron, of collusion. He is obsessed with defending Trump against an investigation that none of us are undertaking. Really? How about this: You are going into court and accusing the attorney for the defendant of being obsessed with defending his client. There. I fixed the analogy for you.
I don't know what "Left" is obsessed, but they aren't here. I can't believe you can say that with a straight face. I assume you are just trying to be provocative or funny?
"...to a bunch of posters that are not obsessed with arguing President Trump's guilt. I don't know how you can say that with a straight face. I assume you are kidding.
Just start yelling at clouds, if you want. That is a Left thing to do.
This started when I posted that Baron was obsessed with "collusion".
You posted in response "When the Left starts accusing the Right of being obsessed with collusion--admission they are losing?".
You were referring to ME, not "the Left". "The Left" (the liberals you think are obsessed with collusion) did not "start accusing the Right of being obsessed with collusion". The only person that did that is me. That's why I posted the question as to "what am I losing". At which point, you pivoted to talk about others.
So, win your argument that there are some on the Left that are more obsessed than Baron. That's fine. Just don't lump me in with them, like you tried.
You are an observer, making an accusation against someone who would not be doing what he is doing but for the obsessions of other people. Consistent reaction to the obsession of others is not itself obsession, I don't think.
(no message)
Just kidding everyone!!
And the FBI subsequently opened an investigation into the Trump campaign at that time, May 2016.
And that was the stated reason.
Pretexts, and post-initiation justifications are not the causes of investigations.
This is how the investigation started. This is why we are where we are.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/30/us/politics/how-fbi-russia-investigation-began-george-papadopoulos.html
So, George P allegedly used foreign resources to gain opposition research? Sounds kind of like what Hillary C did with the dossier. And yet, only one is being investigated. That shows that the acts alleged are not what led to the investigation. It is the alleged perpetrator which led to the investigation, which proves my point: Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime. They are only investigating because it is Trump. This investigation would be dead by now if it were someone else. I'm not saying either party is innocent. I'm saying that their innocence or guilt has nothing to do with what started the investigation.
Accuse your opponents of doing what you did;
when you are accused, say it's your opponents who did it;
dismiss any investigation as a witch hunt by your opponents;
with the proof being that your opponents haven't been prosecuted for it.
(no message)
After 1 3/4 years of intense searching by the entire IC, including 4 months where their target didn't even know he was being investigated and "wire tapped" yet, the Left drags on an investigation in hopes that they will find something - anything to prove Russian Collusion. Russia, Russia, Russia! They force the Right to respond to their incessant false claims, Fake News, and anonymous sources. All the while, evidence pours in that the lead investigators are corrupt and hopelessly biased with a preordained conclusion. And then this joker says, "Gee, you sure are focused on Russian Collusion, let's just wait and see what the investigation shows."
i initially gave him way more credit than he actually deserved because i thought he was joking around trying to simply get a response, but from his other posts, i can see that he at least half way believes it now. I wonder if this has been circling in the MSM as one of their talking points?
Please. Go back and check the records. You won't. You bring it up more than anyone. That is just a fact.
Foolish.
I guarantee you that the moment you drop this farce, i will stop mentioning it (other than the occasional time that I will remind you of your stupidity when it proves inevitably necessary to reign you in again).
(no message)
You post about more than anyone else. You started a thread on it.
It's a fact thing, I know. You all aren't into those.
You are obsessed.
You see? Your totally obsessed.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Like disgraced former sheriff Clarke up here in Beer Town, a "registered Democrat." Many other examples in my lifetime.
And, as you pointed out, most of the time, a wife shares the same party identification of her husband.
Why any thinking person would participate in the marches in question, where none of the participants seem to be able to articulate anything beyond their hatred for Trump, is beyond me. They couldn't pick a better way to confirm all the worst stereotypes of women than by marching and acting in the way they have in these events.
Hundreds of thousands of marchers across the country...zero arrests.
Bitches!
Not a good look, not very persuasive.
(no message)
Bobo clearly had something else imagined in his little mind. A common stereotype (I referenced common stereotypes) of women is that they are emotional rather than rational. A common stereotype of women is not that they are criminals. Forget about all Americans, what percentage of American women identify with these people? Probably about the same percentage as identify as "feminists": less than 20%. Women dressed as vaginas. Women with profane placards. Shrieking female celebrity has-beens who can't even evoke full applause before a sympathetic audience. It's like that old Onion article about a gay rights march that turns people ordinarily sympathetic or at least tolerant into people unsympathetic to the cause. What intelligent woman watched that spectacle and thought, "Boy, those are some serious people who are getting something done!" It's simply a better-organized group temper tantrum.
You're a lost cause. A big ball of emotion.
Your assertion that the protestors “acting in the way they did” was asinine. Just admit it.
BTW Chris, have you considered a possible flaw in your end point measurement for acceptable behavior (arrests)?
Do you have any idea at all how difficult it is to get yourself arrested dressed as a life size vagina?
Take my word for it. Not one cop will even look your way no matter how hard you try to get them to do so.
I have laid out examples of common, silly behavior exhibited by the marchers. You have first, attributed an argument I never made to me (that they behaved criminally) and now you've labeled my argument "asinine" without responding to the examples I gave and why I think it was silly, ineffective behavior. Now, an intelligent person who takes his brain seriously would explain why their behavior was considered and effective and thus why I'm incorrect. I doubt you will do that, in large part, because there isn't much evidence to suggest that their get-together was much more than a group temper tantrum. Prove me wrong.
Or stick to your usual fare.
This is your move, always: identify the fringe, claim it is the mainstream, attack!
You are either disingenuous, always, or you don’t understand math.
My personal favorite?
Viva La Vulva!
Link: https://www.google.com/search?q=vagina+hat+march&rlz=1C1GIWA_enUS626US626&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=tNToAf90vhkcuM%253A%252CnUH_2SwdAnNN9M%252C_&usg=___LNtVw1y0R_2CfK4pfQk6tNcE9I%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig3uWmvMHaAhUDy1kKHT15CHYQ9QEINzAG#imgrc=tNToAf90vhkc
(no message)
...confronted with the evidence in the photos, I think that we can all agree that this was more than just a few on the fringe (in actuality, that March had a LOT of fringe people there).
The point was made originally that these coocoo's reinforce a negative stereotype of feminists "by acting the way that they did".
That point is indisputable.
Earlier, you tried to create and equivalency between acting normally and not being arrested. This was silly since it is easily possible to act stupidly without getting arrested. Avoiding arrest is not equivalent to normalcy.
So, after photographic evidence debunked the idea that this was just a few people in about 6 photos, you have now shifted to trying to make the claim that I think that these kooks are "despicable".
Well, no Chris, I have no idea whether they are despicable or not, but I do know that they are radical, crude, buffoons who hurt the feminist cause.
(no message)
(no message)
think there is the slightest possibility that Comey is a Republican?! He's conor 2.0.
(no message)
And who's identification is more apt to change in marriage to match that of their spouse: the husband's or the wife's?
Image reposted because...well, Pajama Boy.
Link: https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/413079861922508800
...this is so common sensical that it is beyond his ken.
(no message)
(no message)
Learned who Kimba Wood was today.
Whenever I hear her name, I think of this...
You mean she is the one who gave the court order requiring Cohen to expose the name of hannity without any other specifics so that it could dangle in the MSM shark Tank all day?
You prove my point about the partisan nature of this whole fiasco.
But still, don't you realize that when you dangle that shit about Hannity our there, you only help him?
Hannity spent the night milking the whole thing fo the big reveal in the last 3 minutes. Guaranteed it helped his ratings immensely which is no favor to anybody on either side of the aisle.
And it shows how truly broke this ridiculous justice system is in our country that such a hyper-partisan could be presiding over this case. it is almost a certainty that the Left wing investigators angled for her courtroom from the start.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)