Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
- Status
drbrumley
Well-known member
Oh, come on Rusha. You're saying you're showing your loyalty to the US by completely ignoring massive corruption and treason by the politicians on you like. And that is supposed to make you credible? Don't claim patriotism is the screaming about possible corruption on side of the political aisle while ignoring massive corruption on the other side of the aisle. That dog won't hunt.
Nope ... never said that. I show MY loyalty to the US by not supporting a treasonous, serious liar who has no business having access to the nuclear codes. Most politicians are corrupt ... but there has never been anyone so completely lacking of morals, sound judgment and patriotism as the guy who worked with a foreign adversary and puts their causes above that of the United States.
Do you even understand what the deep state is? Your post makes no sense. The deep state works against those who disagree with their political ideology, thus guaranteeing that a president on one side of the political aisle will be much more powerful than one from the other side of the aisle. One can do whatever he wants, the other can get hardly anything done because the bureaucrats are working against him by not doing their job, causing as many slowdowns as they can, leaking sensitive information, and just generally throwing monkey wrenches into the workings of the bureaucracy so that little or nothing of the business of the state along those lines gets done.
These people don't care if work that needs to be done for the good of all us doesn't get done. They just want to frustrate their political opponents. To me it's not much different than treason for they don't care if the country goes down the tubes while they are playing politics.
IF that were the case, you might have a point. However, thus far, there has not been any policies that have come from Trump that are beneficial to America. His only goal has been to seek revenge on Obama and thus far his presidency is focused more on Obama than ... Americans.
And where is your condemnation of Hillary, Obama, and the rest of that incredibly corrupt administration? I have yet to see you say a single word critical of what they have done. I'll bet you voted for Hillary, and are still proud of that fact.
As to what I bolded, that describes Clinton, Obama, Comey, and Mueller to a tee. Yet you're silent on all their corruption. You won't even acknowledge anything has been said about them. That makes your statements far less than credible.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Lessons From the Deep State
By Andrew P. Napolitano
August 4, 2016
On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks — the courageous international organization dedicated to governmental transparency — exposed hundreds of internal emails circulated among senior staff of the Democratic National Committee during the past 18 months.
At a time when Democratic Party officials were publicly professing neutrality during the party’s presidential primaries, the DNC’s internal emails showed a pattern of distinct bias toward the candidacy of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a marked prejudice toward the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Some of the emails were raw in their tone, and some could fairly be characterized as failing to respect Sanders’ Jewish heritage.
The revelation caused a public uproar during the weekend preceding the opening of the Democratic convention in Philadelphia last week, and it caused the DNC to ask its own chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to resign. When she declined to do so, President Barack Obama personally intervened and implored her to leave. She submitted to the president’s wishes, gave up her public role as chair of the convention and eventually resigned as chair of the DNC late last week.
In order to take everyone’s eyes off this intrusive and uncomfortable bouncing ball, the leadership of the DNC, in conjunction with officials of the Clinton campaign, blamed the release of the DNC emails on hackers employed by Russian intelligence agents. Many in the media picked up this juicy story and repeated it all last week.
Clinton promptly named Wasserman Schultz as a campaign consultant and complained that the Russians are trying to influence the presidential election. She did not complain about the unfairness manifested in the emails, complete with their religious prejudice; she only complained about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s helping Donald Trump.
But the Russians had nothing to do with it.
Last week, William Binney, a 30-year career official at the National Security Agency turned whistleblower, revealed the unthinkable. Binney, who devised the software that the NSA has used to capture the contents of emails and cellphone conversations of all in America but resigned from the NSA because of the unlawful and unconstitutional manner in which the software was used, told a Philadelphia radio audience that the DNC hacking was most likely done by NSA agents.
Why would the NSA hack into DNC computers, and why would the NSA leak what its agents saw?
Here is where the deep state meets the political world. The deep state consists of intelligence, military, law enforcement and administrative agency personnel who aggressively protect their own interests, which transcend elections. Stated differently, many of these folks remain in opaque positions of power, and the governmental departments and agencies for which they work continue to expand, no matter which party wins the White House or controls Congress.
The deep state stays in power by a variety of means, some of which are lawful and not the least of which was visited upon the DNC last week. Binney knows the inside workings of NSA computers because he designed them. He knows how easy it would have been for any of the NSA’s 60,000 agents, many of whom have great antipathy toward Clinton, to employ their skills to frustrate her drive toward the presidency.
The intelligence community’s antipathy toward Clinton has two general sources. One is her misuse of emails containing state secrets. Among the top-secret emails that the FBI discovered on Clinton’s non-secure private servers were some that revealed the names of U.S. intelligence agents operating undercover in the Middle East. Because Clinton emailed secrets to others who the FBI found were hacked by hostile foreign intelligence services and because she used a non-secure mobile email device while inside the territories of hostile governments, her “extremely careless” use of her emails resulted in the termination of the undercover work of those whose cover she caused to be revealed. Many in the intelligence community also suspect that in some cases, U.S. undercover agents lost their lives because Clinton failed to keep their identities secret.
The other source of intelligence community antipathy to Clinton stems from her secret war waged against the late Libyan strongman, Col. Moammar Gadhafi. When she waged that war — using intelligence, not military, personnel — with the approval of the president and a dozen members of Congress, she exercised her authority as secretary of state to grant exemptions to a U.N. arms embargo of Libya. She wanted Libyan militias to have heavy-duty, military-grade arms with which to topple the Libyan government.
But the CIA and others warned her that she was arming terrorist groups, which was potentially lethal for some American intelligence personnel and which is a felony under federal law. One of those groups may have used Clinton-authorized, embargo-free weapons to assassinate Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, at Benghazi. Clinton disregarded the CIA’s advice and didn’t worry about anyone’s finding out about it because she thought her emails would remain secret.
Binney’s conclusion that the NSA and not the Russians hacked the DNC is further supported by official White House silence. Last year, when Chinese intelligence agents hacked U.S. government computers and accessed personnel records of millions of federal government employees, the White House lodged long and loud protests with Beijing. This time, there have been no such protests to the Kremlin.
What does all this tell us?
It tells us that Hillary Clinton continues to be the queen of deception. It tells us that some of those in whose hands we repose our freedom for safekeeping do not wish to see her in the White House because of her demonstrated lawlessness and indifference to their work. And it recalls to our attention the danger and power of the deep state and its willingness to break the laws it has sworn to uphold.
By Andrew P. Napolitano
August 4, 2016
On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks — the courageous international organization dedicated to governmental transparency — exposed hundreds of internal emails circulated among senior staff of the Democratic National Committee during the past 18 months.
At a time when Democratic Party officials were publicly professing neutrality during the party’s presidential primaries, the DNC’s internal emails showed a pattern of distinct bias toward the candidacy of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a marked prejudice toward the candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Some of the emails were raw in their tone, and some could fairly be characterized as failing to respect Sanders’ Jewish heritage.
The revelation caused a public uproar during the weekend preceding the opening of the Democratic convention in Philadelphia last week, and it caused the DNC to ask its own chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to resign. When she declined to do so, President Barack Obama personally intervened and implored her to leave. She submitted to the president’s wishes, gave up her public role as chair of the convention and eventually resigned as chair of the DNC late last week.
In order to take everyone’s eyes off this intrusive and uncomfortable bouncing ball, the leadership of the DNC, in conjunction with officials of the Clinton campaign, blamed the release of the DNC emails on hackers employed by Russian intelligence agents. Many in the media picked up this juicy story and repeated it all last week.
Clinton promptly named Wasserman Schultz as a campaign consultant and complained that the Russians are trying to influence the presidential election. She did not complain about the unfairness manifested in the emails, complete with their religious prejudice; she only complained about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s helping Donald Trump.
But the Russians had nothing to do with it.
Last week, William Binney, a 30-year career official at the National Security Agency turned whistleblower, revealed the unthinkable. Binney, who devised the software that the NSA has used to capture the contents of emails and cellphone conversations of all in America but resigned from the NSA because of the unlawful and unconstitutional manner in which the software was used, told a Philadelphia radio audience that the DNC hacking was most likely done by NSA agents.
Why would the NSA hack into DNC computers, and why would the NSA leak what its agents saw?
Here is where the deep state meets the political world. The deep state consists of intelligence, military, law enforcement and administrative agency personnel who aggressively protect their own interests, which transcend elections. Stated differently, many of these folks remain in opaque positions of power, and the governmental departments and agencies for which they work continue to expand, no matter which party wins the White House or controls Congress.
The deep state stays in power by a variety of means, some of which are lawful and not the least of which was visited upon the DNC last week. Binney knows the inside workings of NSA computers because he designed them. He knows how easy it would have been for any of the NSA’s 60,000 agents, many of whom have great antipathy toward Clinton, to employ their skills to frustrate her drive toward the presidency.
The intelligence community’s antipathy toward Clinton has two general sources. One is her misuse of emails containing state secrets. Among the top-secret emails that the FBI discovered on Clinton’s non-secure private servers were some that revealed the names of U.S. intelligence agents operating undercover in the Middle East. Because Clinton emailed secrets to others who the FBI found were hacked by hostile foreign intelligence services and because she used a non-secure mobile email device while inside the territories of hostile governments, her “extremely careless” use of her emails resulted in the termination of the undercover work of those whose cover she caused to be revealed. Many in the intelligence community also suspect that in some cases, U.S. undercover agents lost their lives because Clinton failed to keep their identities secret.
The other source of intelligence community antipathy to Clinton stems from her secret war waged against the late Libyan strongman, Col. Moammar Gadhafi. When she waged that war — using intelligence, not military, personnel — with the approval of the president and a dozen members of Congress, she exercised her authority as secretary of state to grant exemptions to a U.N. arms embargo of Libya. She wanted Libyan militias to have heavy-duty, military-grade arms with which to topple the Libyan government.
But the CIA and others warned her that she was arming terrorist groups, which was potentially lethal for some American intelligence personnel and which is a felony under federal law. One of those groups may have used Clinton-authorized, embargo-free weapons to assassinate Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, at Benghazi. Clinton disregarded the CIA’s advice and didn’t worry about anyone’s finding out about it because she thought her emails would remain secret.
Binney’s conclusion that the NSA and not the Russians hacked the DNC is further supported by official White House silence. Last year, when Chinese intelligence agents hacked U.S. government computers and accessed personnel records of millions of federal government employees, the White House lodged long and loud protests with Beijing. This time, there have been no such protests to the Kremlin.
What does all this tell us?
It tells us that Hillary Clinton continues to be the queen of deception. It tells us that some of those in whose hands we repose our freedom for safekeeping do not wish to see her in the White House because of her demonstrated lawlessness and indifference to their work. And it recalls to our attention the danger and power of the deep state and its willingness to break the laws it has sworn to uphold.
This thread is entitled" TRUMP: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" ... not "But What About Hillary". And OF COURSE I am proud of voting for the candidate who did not collude with the Russians (who wish to destroy America) and who is sane enough to be trusted with the nuclear codes.
The left looks at all of that stuff just like Bill Maher does. He says it just doesn't matter what the left does. It's still not guilty of any wrongdoing. And it's very plain that the leftists here see things exactly the same way. They don't care how corrupt their own side is. It simply doesn't matter to them.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Says a so called Patriot.....Pathetic
I don't remember the threads you're referring to but I'll take your word for it. I'm more inclined to get involved in Trump related things but my lack of response to other things doesn't necessarily mean anything. I wouldn't support interfering with elections. We can't pretend to be a champion for democracy if we're actively undermining democracy in other places.
Yup, pretty much.
So, Donald Trump betrayed this country to the Russian dictator. And he wants to be a dictator himself.
I agree with your last sentence that I bolded. I would add, that if we are going to be consistent, that we then can't really show a whole lot of outrage if someone else tries to influence our elections. Turn about has always been fair play. If we want to be outraged about what someone else has done then we had better not be guilty of the same thing ourselves.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
No, I don't know it and neither do you, because you don't know me from Adam.
I'll have a conversation with you, but if you're just going to throw walls of conservasplain at me telling me all that you know and all that I don't know, we're not going to get very far.
Have a pleasant day.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Imagine if we hadn't meddled in Afghanistan in the 80s....
drbrumley
Well-known member
Yeah, imagine if we hadn't.....no Osama Bin laden, no 9/11, no war on terrorism, no tsa....no unpatriotic act and all its' reauthorizations etc...
And the 1000s who died in an unnecessary war.
Congrats.
Irrational illogical Fake News
LibsplainNo, I don't know it and neither do you, because you don't know me from Adam.
I'll have a conversation with you, but if you're just going to throw walls of conservasplain at me telling me all that you know and all that I don't know, we're not going to get very far.
Have a pleasant day.
Parrhetorical. (soon to be added to the TOL Lexicon)
- Status