Blank Discussion Topic
Options
Comments
-
Health insurance for everyone, with lower premiums! No mandate! Pre-existing conditions will be covered! It'll be magic.Halifax2TheMax said:
yea, sure Donald. It takes more than tweeting.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:Obamacare continues to fail. Humana to pull out in 2018. Will repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans.
0 -
They had years.....YEARS....to develop a different plan.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:Obamacare continues to fail. Humana to pull out in 2018. Will repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans.
I LOVE MUSIC.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com0 -
sounds like socialism.Go Beavers said:
Health insurance for everyone, with lower premiums! No mandate! Pre-existing conditions will be covered! It'll be magic.Halifax2TheMax said:
yea, sure Donald. It takes more than tweeting.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:Obamacare continues to fail. Humana to pull out in 2018. Will repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans.
i hate it."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
but because they are republicans, all they know how to do is hold their ears and scream NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!mfc2006 said:
They had years.....YEARS....to develop a different plan.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:Obamacare continues to fail. Humana to pull out in 2018. Will repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans.
they had 8 years to come up with something, but when you spend your entire term campaigning you can't really do any kind of legislating.
legislating is waaaay more difficult than campaigning. they are learning that the hard way."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
You could be right on all of the above...this is where it gets sticky and above all of our pay grades. My only point on this matter is not that Flynn is "innocent" of anything but that there is certainly some underhandedness to this all that just doesn't smell right.mrussel1 said:
Actually you may be off base on this one on a few points. Feel free to do some research. I'm pulling in general knowledge from people I know that work in Defense (I'm relatively close to Pentagon City).BS44325 said:
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.mrussel1 said:
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.BS44325 said:
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!mrussel1 said:Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
When you achieve the top secret clearance that Flynn has, you give up certain privacy rights related to national security. You aren't giving up your Miranda rights or unlawful search and seizure in criminal case, but I believe the IC can tap you, follow you, etc. if they have reason to believe what you are doing could harm the national security interests. In this case, it clearly could.
Second, I'm not sure anyone is arguing that executive privilege would apply before inauguration. But it's not binary. It's not private citizen or executive privilege. There is also top secret access which Flynn had and with it comes certain responsibilities.
But I'm not sure anyone is saying Flynn broke the law. But the sights will now turn to Trump and what he knew and whether he allowed these conversations to happen. Either he did and he is lying to us, or he didn't and his future cabinet appointee was going rogue on day one. Which one is worse?
This article from someone who doesn't like Flynn at all really hits the nail on the head. The process on how someone is taken down matters.
http://theweek.com/articles/680068/americas-spies-anonymously-took-down-michael-flynn-that-deeply-worrying0 -
Except you can opt out and not pay premiums, until you're sick. Then your pre-existing condition will be covered. That'll keep costs down!gimmesometruth27 said:
sounds like socialism.Go Beavers said:
Health insurance for everyone, with lower premiums! No mandate! Pre-existing conditions will be covered! It'll be magic.Halifax2TheMax said:
yea, sure Donald. It takes more than tweeting.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:Obamacare continues to fail. Humana to pull out in 2018. Will repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans.
i hate it.0 -
-
Much betterCM189191 said:
Need brain bleach?mfc2006 said:
thanks for that image.Cliffy6745 said:If we want to talk about White House affairs, is there any doubt that Trump is piping Kellyanne?
Hope HicksPost edited by my2hands on0 -
There was nothing legal about delivering cash on a tarmac for an exchange of prisoners. The phone call detailing that transaction would probably be of some interest to congress. Either way you are just plain wrong on the point of law. An American cannot in fact become a target when spying on a foreigner without FISA court approval. You were probably one of those people equating Bush with Hitler for suggesting to do just that. Now as far as what Flynn was doing? It's called his job. Talking with foreign counterparts is his roll even during the transition period and as per the FBI he did not do anything of a criminal nature. No "negotiations" were had...only a discussion that all policies will be reevaluated once the next administration takes office. Could there be more? Maybe but at this point your plain just making shit up.Halifax2TheMax said:
That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.BS44325 said:
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.mrussel1 said:
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.BS44325 said:
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!mrussel1 said:Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
0 -
Meanwhile, back here in the real world, Mike Flynn just resigned. Which makes him the 3rd Trump team member to step down due to shady dealings with Russia.BS44325 said:
There was nothing legal about delivering cash on a tarmac for an exchange of prisoners. The phone call detailing that transaction would probably be of some interest to congress. Either way you are just plain wrong on the point of law. An American cannot in fact become a target when spying on a foreigner without FISA court approval. You were probably one of those people equating Bush with Hitler for suggesting to do just that. Now as far as what Flynn was doing? It's called his job. Talking with foreign counterparts is his roll even during the transition period and as per the FBI he did not do anything of a criminal nature. No "negotiations" were had...only a discussion that all policies will be reevaluated once the next administration takes office. Could there be more? Maybe but at this point your plain just making shit up.Halifax2TheMax said:
That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.BS44325 said:
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.mrussel1 said:
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.BS44325 said:
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!mrussel1 said:Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
I don't need to change your mind, this is the reality of the situation my friend.0 -
Ok. Fine. But you're missing the point. Obama didn't provide a viable plan either as was said when he forced it and is now playing out. So, what you are pointing out is irrelevant to the point being made. Obama. Failure.mfc2006 said:
They had years.....YEARS....to develop a different plan.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:Obamacare continues to fail. Humana to pull out in 2018. Will repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.0 -
That's funny, I don't remember you being so concerned about Comey releasing a statement that the FBI was investigating Hillary 10 days before the election.BS44325 said:
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.mrussel1 said:
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.BS44325 said:
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!mrussel1 said:Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Why did Flynn lie about it then?BS44325 said:
There was nothing legal about delivering cash on a tarmac for an exchange of prisoners. The phone call detailing that transaction would probably be of some interest to congress. Either way you are just plain wrong on the point of law. An American cannot in fact become a target when spying on a foreigner without FISA court approval. You were probably one of those people equating Bush with Hitler for suggesting to do just that. Now as far as what Flynn was doing? It's called his job. Talking with foreign counterparts is his roll even during the transition period and as per the FBI he did not do anything of a criminal nature. No "negotiations" were had...only a discussion that all policies will be reevaluated once the next administration takes office. Could there be more? Maybe but at this point your plain just making shit up.Halifax2TheMax said:
That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.BS44325 said:
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.mrussel1 said:
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.BS44325 said:
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!mrussel1 said:Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Maybe he just caught whatever makes Trump lie compulsively, it seems to be going around his administration.0 -
In the Hillary case the FBI didn't "leak" that there was an investigaton. The actual head came forward and made a statement. In this case the FBI made a statement of innocence on Flynn while intelligence agents selectively leaked information that put daylight between him and the vice president. Based on current reporting Flynn isn't gone because of "shady dealings" with Russia. He is gone because during the process of doing his job he stated something that wasn't true and damaged the Vice President's credibility. Could there be more to it then that? Sure...but at the moment nobody knows anything more then that.dignin said:
That's funny, I don't remember you being so concerned about Comey releasing a statement that the FBI was investigating Hillary 10 days before the election.BS44325 said:
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.mrussel1 said:
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.BS44325 said:
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!mrussel1 said:Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Why did Flynn lie about it then?BS44325 said:
There was nothing legal about delivering cash on a tarmac for an exchange of prisoners. The phone call detailing that transaction would probably be of some interest to congress. Either way you are just plain wrong on the point of law. An American cannot in fact become a target when spying on a foreigner without FISA court approval. You were probably one of those people equating Bush with Hitler for suggesting to do just that. Now as far as what Flynn was doing? It's called his job. Talking with foreign counterparts is his roll even during the transition period and as per the FBI he did not do anything of a criminal nature. No "negotiations" were had...only a discussion that all policies will be reevaluated once the next administration takes office. Could there be more? Maybe but at this point your plain just making shit up.Halifax2TheMax said:
That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.BS44325 said:
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.mrussel1 said:
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.BS44325 said:
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!mrussel1 said:Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Maybe he just caught whatever makes Trump lie compulsively, it seems to be going around his administration.0 -
That's not the current reporting, that is the story that the administration is trying to sell. From what I gather most news media isn't buying that, and I can't blame them for not trusting what this administration is peddling.BS44325 said:
In the Hillary case the FBI didn't "leak" that there was an investigaton. The actual head came forward and made a statement. In this case the FBI made a statement of innocence on Flynn while intelligence agents selectively leaked information that put daylight between him and the vice president. Based on current reporting Flynn isn't gone because of "shady dealings" with Russia. He is gone because during the process of doing his job he stated something that wasn't true and damaged the Vice President's credibility. Could there be more to it then that? Sure...but at the moment nobody knows anything more then that.dignin said:
That's funny, I don't remember you being so concerned about Comey releasing a statement that the FBI was investigating Hillary 10 days before the election.BS44325 said:
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.mrussel1 said:
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.BS44325 said:
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!mrussel1 said:Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Why did Flynn lie about it then?BS44325 said:
There was nothing legal about delivering cash on a tarmac for an exchange of prisoners. The phone call detailing that transaction would probably be of some interest to congress. Either way you are just plain wrong on the point of law. An American cannot in fact become a target when spying on a foreigner without FISA court approval. You were probably one of those people equating Bush with Hitler for suggesting to do just that. Now as far as what Flynn was doing? It's called his job. Talking with foreign counterparts is his roll even during the transition period and as per the FBI he did not do anything of a criminal nature. No "negotiations" were had...only a discussion that all policies will be reevaluated once the next administration takes office. Could there be more? Maybe but at this point your plain just making shit up.Halifax2TheMax said:
That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.BS44325 said:
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.mrussel1 said:
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.BS44325 said:
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!mrussel1 said:Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
Maybe he just caught whatever makes Trump lie compulsively, it seems to be going around his administration.
And I'm wondering if you have an excuse as to why Flynn would lie?0 -
Fear uncertainty doubtPJfanwillneverleave1 said:Obamacare continues to fail. Humana to pull out in 2018. Will repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans.
0 -
That's not the point that I was trying to make. Whether you agree with ACA/Obamacare (same thing, by the way. Some people actually don't understand that.) or not, it was a start to provide healthcare to all Americans. Did I think that it would be altered later on? Yes. Does it have flaws? Of course. Most acts/laws are updated over time, that's nothing new.EdsonNascimento said:
Ok. Fine. But you're missing the point. Obama didn't provide a viable plan either as was said when he forced it and is now playing out. So, what you are pointing out is irrelevant to the point being made. Obama. Failure.mfc2006 said:
They had years.....YEARS....to develop a different plan.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:Obamacare continues to fail. Humana to pull out in 2018. Will repeal, replace & save healthcare for ALL Americans.
The thing that irks me is that all Republicans did was complain about it for years...and YEARS. They wasted that time by complaining instead of coming up with updates/changes to ACA.I LOVE MUSIC.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com0 -
And on an unrelated not, but relevant to this thread....
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0I LOVE MUSIC.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com0 -
Yup, congressional investigations, treasury, CIA, NSA and FBI are all investigating because I just plain make shit up. Flynn wasn't ensnared as much as he was duped. This is what happens when your version of "brilliance" meets brilliance and cunning a la Putin. Flynn's ties go beyond phone calls to the Russian ambassador. Bank transactions and travel records are being looked into. Sure, I make shit up. And if the cash on the tarmac was so illegal, where are the multiple republican committee investigations of democrats and criminal investigations and charges? Who's making shit up now? But love how you revert to criticism of the Obama Administration as a defense of your untenable candidate and administration. You own this shit storm. You can follow your wishful thinking. I'll follow the money right through impeachment and removal from office.BS44325 said:
There was nothing legal about delivering cash on a tarmac for an exchange of prisoners. The phone call detailing that transaction would probably be of some interest to congress. Either way you are just plain wrong on the point of law. An American cannot in fact become a target when spying on a foreigner without FISA court approval. You were probably one of those people equating Bush with Hitler for suggesting to do just that. Now as far as what Flynn was doing? It's called his job. Talking with foreign counterparts is his roll even during the transition period and as per the FBI he did not do anything of a criminal nature. No "negotiations" were had...only a discussion that all policies will be reevaluated once the next administration takes office. Could there be more? Maybe but at this point your plain just making shit up.Halifax2TheMax said:
That's a stretch, "potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal." Please name them. Kerry was negotiating a treaty at the behest of his CIC as SOS. What was Flynn negotiating with the Russians? Even as part of the transition team? Obama was still president until January 20th. False equivalency. There's a whole lot of there, there. Way more than Podesta's or Hillary's email's and server. Also, an American can become a target if they are found to be communicating with a foreigner, as long as the American was not the initial target of the investigation. They were monitoring the Russian ambassador's phone and lo and behold, who's he talking to? Is this sanctioned? Its inappropriate to say the least. Was Flynn going rogue? Or was he acting on behalf of the president-elect? What was being discussed? Quid pro quo? Follow the money. 18.5% of a multi-billion dollar oil empire was sold to an unknown entity, with money transferred to off shore accounts. Other actions that favored Russia were either taken, ratcheted down or not taken at all. Feel comfortable with Trump's lack of criticism of Putin and Russia? Feel comfortable with Russia violating the medium range nuclear arms deal? Have confidence that Trump will respond appropriately? All brilliant in your mind, I'm certain.BS44325 said:
Well this is an interesting question because democrats are stating that Flynn does not have "executive privilege" which means they are leaning towards labeling him as a private citizen. If he is a "senior official of the transition team" (which I and most people believe) then executive privilege should still apply even if Trump hadn't actually been sworn in at the time (probably a controversial point of law). Irrespective of this do the intelligence agencies have the right to ensnare a "senior official of the transition team" who was a non-target of the spying? My guess is nobody would think this is ok if the shoe was on the other foot. Would it have been ok for the CIA to release recordings of John Kerry discussing potentially illegal aspects of the Iran nuclear deal with an agent of Iran? Of course not.mrussel1 said:
Was he a citizen like everyone else or was he acting in the capacity of senior official of the transition team? Do we all have conversations with Russian ambassadors regarding sanctions. This one is truly false equivalency.BS44325 said:
Woah. During the Bush years it was considered "Un-American" to record the conversations of private US citizens. What changed? Does the fact you caught a fish you like make the release of these recordings all of the sudden necessary? How John Bolton of you!mrussel1 said:Fox news is hyper focused on the "leaker". I guess Trump gave them the marching orders. Pathetic. Un-American.
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
my advice to the Trumpsters: pick a better candidate next time. or better yet, just stop voting.0
-
by the way, how's the show Canada? are we being entertaining enough for you all? or shall we dial it down a bit?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help