The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 12:29 pm

Blackhawk wrote:Trump winning or Trump losing - I wonder which would be worse for the Republican party?

Who cares? They dug their own grave. Now they can crawl into it.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:12 pm

Blackhawk wrote:Trump winning or Trump losing - I wonder which would be worse for the Republican party?

Near term, Trump losing. Mid/long term? Trump winning.

Trump losing means they could potentially move on from this disaster, and at the very least return to the Republican party of 2012, or maybe even after some soul searching, move on to something better (maybe merging with the Libertarian party or with the Evan McMullins)

Trump winning means they're stuck with that sort of mindset for at least the next 4+ years if not far longer. And that's a losing mindset for the long term (assuming it doesn't change/expand it's base) as younger people and minorities claim a bigger part of the electorate.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:22 pm

hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote: He isn't wrong, and it was a lot more than $400M.
That's one way of looking at it. It's wrong, but it's certainly one way.
It was $1.7B and semantics aside
It's only an issue of simply semantics to those with an agenda. Like the conservative sites you frequently link to (or the white supremacy sites, which you've done on occasion). My link was to Fortune.com. Not exactly a left leaning institution.

Let's sum this up, shall we?

It wasn't a ransom. Period.

Benghazi wasn't a government conspiracy, nor was it the fault of one individual. Period.

There is no evidence of wide spread voter fraud. Period

Peddle your conspiracy theories on sites where they might believe you.

...like Townhall.com.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is declining to comply with an investigation by leading members of Congress about the Obama administration’s secret efforts to send Iran $1.7 billion in cash earlier this year, prompting accusations that Lynch has “pleaded the Fifth” Amendment to avoid incriminating herself over these payments, according to lawmakers and communications exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) initially presented Lynch in October with a series of questions about how the cash payment to Iran was approved and delivered.

In an Oct. 24 response, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik responded on Lynch’s behalf, refusing to answer the questions and informing the lawmakers that they are barred from publicly disclosing any details about the cash payment, which was bound up in a ransom deal aimed at freeing several American hostages from Iran.

The response from the attorney general’s office is “unacceptable” and provides evidence that Lynch has chosen to “essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries regarding [her] role in providing cash to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism,” Rubio and Pompeo wrote on Friday in a follow-up letter to Lynch, according to a copy obtained by the Free Beacon.

The inquiry launched by the lawmakers is just one of several concurrent ongoing congressional probes aimed at unearthing a full accounting of the administration’s secret negotiations with Iran.

“It is frankly unacceptable that your department refuses to answer straightforward questions from the people’s elected representatives in Congress about an important national security issue,” the lawmakers wrote. “Your staff failed to address any of our questions, and instead provided a copy of public testimony and a lecture about the sensitivity of information associated with this issue.”

“As the United States’ chief law enforcement officer, it is outrageous that you would essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries,” they stated. “The actions of your department come at time when Iran continues to hold Americans hostage and unjustly sentence them to prison.”

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... -payments/

Seems strange to take the 5th if you were just giving someone back money that was theirs all along and not in any way a ransom.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:54 pm

Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote:
hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote: He isn't wrong, and it was a lot more than $400M.
That's one way of looking at it. It's wrong, but it's certainly one way.
It was $1.7B and semantics aside
It's only an issue of simply semantics to those with an agenda. Like the conservative sites you frequently link to (or the white supremacy sites, which you've done on occasion). My link was to Fortune.com. Not exactly a left leaning institution.

Let's sum this up, shall we?

It wasn't a ransom. Period.

Benghazi wasn't a government conspiracy, nor was it the fault of one individual. Period.

There is no evidence of wide spread voter fraud. Period

Peddle your conspiracy theories on sites where they might believe you.

...like Townhall.com.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is declining to comply with an investigation by leading members of Congress about the Obama administration’s secret efforts to send Iran $1.7 billion in cash earlier this year, prompting accusations that Lynch has “pleaded the Fifth” Amendment to avoid incriminating herself over these payments, according to lawmakers and communications exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) initially presented Lynch in October with a series of questions about how the cash payment to Iran was approved and delivered.

In an Oct. 24 response, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik responded on Lynch’s behalf, refusing to answer the questions and informing the lawmakers that they are barred from publicly disclosing any details about the cash payment, which was bound up in a ransom deal aimed at freeing several American hostages from Iran.

The response from the attorney general’s office is “unacceptable” and provides evidence that Lynch has chosen to “essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries regarding [her] role in providing cash to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism,” Rubio and Pompeo wrote on Friday in a follow-up letter to Lynch, according to a copy obtained by the Free Beacon.

The inquiry launched by the lawmakers is just one of several concurrent ongoing congressional probes aimed at unearthing a full accounting of the administration’s secret negotiations with Iran.

“It is frankly unacceptable that your department refuses to answer straightforward questions from the people’s elected representatives in Congress about an important national security issue,” the lawmakers wrote. “Your staff failed to address any of our questions, and instead provided a copy of public testimony and a lecture about the sensitivity of information associated with this issue.”

“As the United States’ chief law enforcement officer, it is outrageous that you would essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries,” they stated. “The actions of your department come at time when Iran continues to hold Americans hostage and unjustly sentence them to prison.”
http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... -payments/

Seems strange to take the 5th if you were just giving someone back money that was theirs all along and not in any way a ransom.

Agreed. I thought that it had been clearly established that the correct answer was "I don't recall," and also that you trade *armaments* for hostages, not cash. Right?

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:27 pm

She didn't plead the 5th, though, did she? She simply said she refused to answer due to the sensitive nature of the information. That's not the same thing and Rubio knows it as he says "it's essentially pleading the 5th." Congress can compel testimony, right? If they really cared, why don't they?

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:31 pm

Executive privilege.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:52 pm

Isgrimnur wrote:Executive privilege.

That's not what has been claimed (as far as I can tell). From the article, members of the appropriate House and Senate committee can review the documents, they just can't say anything about it.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:01 pm

EP is why they can't compel testimony.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:07 pm

There are ways around EP - but the first is to establish that is the reason they are using for denying the information. Force them to claim it - then you can sue if you disagree that it should be covered. You don't just ask and then throw up your hands and say "whelp - we tried!"...unless you are just trying to make someone look bad that is.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:53 am

Now we know where Rip gets his information.

"I know conspiracy stuff cold. But this is all 30 years of Dungeons & Dragons,” he said. “There’s stuff in there that’s just obviously fiction. I don’t mean absurd potential news. I mean, there’s no shred of believability. One of the nations that’s ‘paying for Hillary’s hitmen’ is the one Doctor Doom runs.”

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:21 am

tgb wrote:Now we know where Rip gets his information.

"I know conspiracy stuff cold. But this is all 30 years of Dungeons & Dragons,” he said. “There’s stuff in there that’s just obviously fiction. I don’t mean absurd potential news. I mean, there’s no shred of believability. One of the nations that’s ‘paying for Hillary’s hitmen’ is the one Doctor Doom runs.”

Do we? Which of his fake stories did I pan?

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 9:30 am

Blackhawk wrote:Trump winning or Trump losing - I wonder which would be worse for the Republican party?

Trump losing because his voters will justifiably blame the RNC for lack of support, and just try to get those folks to vote Republican again after that.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:22 am

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 11:29 am

Rip wrote:

Your commentary is insightful.

Smutly · Post by **Smutly** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 5:43 pm

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 7:50 pm

Smutly wrote:

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:57 pm

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:02 am

Rip wrote:Seems strange to take the 5th if you were just giving someone back money that was theirs all along and not in any way a ransom.

This is the crap that produces stupid Facebook posts. I've seen half a dozen posts from people on Facebook claiming that Lynch pleaded the 5th amendment, therefore she and the admin have done something illegal. The conservative clickbait sites all have headlines saying she did this, with the resultant implication.

But she didn't. That wording came from two Republicans and they said she "virtually" pleaded the 5th. This is very misleading - there is a big difference between pleading the 5th and refusing to provide information due to other reasons.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:17 am

The amount of junk flooding the conservative space being scooped up is ... ungreat. They've built a parallel derpiverse and we just get glimpses into the depths when Rip et al. rip a tear for us to view its insanity.

em2nought · Post by **em2nought** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 8:16 am

I'm beginning to feel that it's $o close that I just made a donation.

One less Mosin Nagant I guess. sigh

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:05 am

$ucker !

tjg_marantz · Post by **tjg_marantz** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:42 am

We probably shouldn't lump in Conservatives with the idiot Trumpsters. I'm not sure what each branch should be called but there are plenty if Conservatives not voting for Trump. They do not deserve to be derided or mocked.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:28 am

Unagi wrote:$ucker !

Lol. The best part is Drumpf will use it to donate to Clinton's foundation to buy favours after Clinton becomes president.

Clinton thanks you, Em.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:30 am

tjg_marantz wrote:We probably shouldn't lump in Conservatives with the idiot Trumpsters. I'm not sure what each branch should be called but there are plenty if Conservatives not voting for Trump. They do not deserve to be derided or mocked.

There are only a couple of those here and they mostly get treated as adults.

If you're worried about generalizing the conservative population as a whole, well, fight the good fight I guess.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 1:23 pm

malchior wrote:The amount of junk flooding the conservative space being scooped up is ... ungreat. They've built a parallel derpiverse and we just get glimpses into the depths when Rip et al. rip a tear for us to view its insanity.

I think the tears are getting bigger. Today I saw that Biden blamed the economy on lazy women and the Clinton Foundation just bought $137M dollars of weapons scheduled for delivery mid-November.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:04 pm

tjg_marantz wrote:We probably shouldn't lump in Conservatives with the idiot Trumpsters. I'm not sure what each branch should be called but there are plenty if Conservatives not voting for Trump. They do not deserve to be derided or mocked.

Actually, they do, because they allowed this to happen to their party. They've been selling what the Trumpsters have bought hook line and sinker for decades. They cultivated that base very, very well.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:07 pm

Yeah i threw tinder on the small fire and then stood by while my friends threw logs and then tnt into it. I can't believe it is out of control now!

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:01 pm

Trump tells supporters to vote twice to fight voter fraud

Trump then instructed rally-goers to visit a nearby voting center and check to see if their first ballot had been counted, then, “they’ll void your old ballot, they’ll give you a new ballot.”

But according to Fox 31, Trump’s strategy might not be entirely permissible. Once a voting official has received a ballot, a voter cannot change their vote, according to the Colorado Secretary of State’s office. Whether a vote can be confirmed is unclear, but voiding a ballot does not seem to be an available process, though voters can request a replacement ballot. There is a website through which Colorado voters can check on the status of their ballot.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:17 pm

They should just use a congressional committee. A voter can ask the committee to find and confirm the ballot the voter cast is correct and was counted. The committee should be made up of whichever party the person voted for. So two committees I guess. That seems fair.

why not, if you've got nothing to hide, and more productive than anything they've been up to in awhile.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:45 pm

em2nought wrote:
Blackhawk wrote:Trump winning or Trump losing - I wonder which would be worse for the Republican party?
Trump losing because his voters will justifiably blame the RNC for lack of support, and just try to get those folks to vote Republican again after that.

They weren't really republican before. They're alt right. They'll vote for anyone that tells 'em they have a right to be angry at everyone that doesn't look or think exactly like them, or that the government is their enemy... especially if it's being led by someone who doesn't look or think exactly like them, of course.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 10:55 pm

Um...

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:21 pm

She promised us our very own taco truck parked right outside the door.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:42 pm

Meanwhile Trump has his own email issues.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:01 pm

Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?
This spring, a group of computer scientists set out to determine whether hackers were interfering with the Trump campaign. They found something they weren’t expecting.

A good read that offers circumstantial evidence, but no solid proof, that suggests that someone in Team Trump was talking to someone in Russia and trying to hide their communication.

hitbyambulance · Post by **hitbyambulance** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:04 pm

Defiant wrote:Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?
This spring, a group of computer scientists set out to determine whether hackers were interfering with the Trump campaign. They found something they weren’t expecting.

A good read that offers circumstantial evidence, but no solid proof, that suggests that someone in Team Trump was talking to someone in Russia and trying to hide their communication.

slate.com comments can be kinda amusing

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 9:25 pm

The biggest kicker is the shutting down of the original server and the standing up of a new one, with the russian server immediately looking for and finding it.

Drumpf is such a crook that I don't put anything by him. Even if the speculation were true it wouldn't change my opinion of him. I'm not even sure it would change his supporters opinion of him. They are so far down the rabbit hole there may be no way to get them back to the surface.

In the end, unless this leads to actual charges that can stick, it doesn't affect anything. At least I don't understand those on the fence or leaning toward Drumpf, knowing everything they already know, but this information suddenly pushes them towards Clinton.

As Fret said, Drumpf is under investigation for fraud right freakin' now but no one seems to care.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:01 pm

More reports of Trump's ties with Russia:

And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him.

Mother Jones has reviewed that report and other memos this former spy wrote. The first memo, based on the former intelligence officer's conversations with Russian sources, noted, "Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance." It maintained that Trump "and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals." It claimed that Russian intelligence had "compromised" Trump during his visits to Moscow and could "blackmail him." It also reported that Russian intelligence had compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on "bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls."

The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was "shock and horror." The FBI, after receiving the first memo, did not immediately request additional material, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates. Yet in August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which referred to members of Trump's inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI. "It's quite clear there was or is a pretty substantial inquiry going on," he says.

The article is from Mother Jones, so not the most objective site. I have no idea about the quality of their investigative reporting.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:08 pm

I mean...it's Mother Jones. Whatever their actual reputation, I generally discard something from them, especially if I'm not seeing it elsewhere. I saw this article in particular but didn't have much of a reaction based on the source.

Defiant · Post by **Defiant** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:48 pm

Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious Method to Avoid Paying Taxes

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:02 pm

Defiant wrote:Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious Method to Avoid Paying Taxes

Yeah, turns out that $916 million loss that Trump evidently used to not pay taxes for ~ 20 years was less than legit, as analyzed by...Trump's tax lawyers at the time, who wrote a letter listing six different reasons why using the loss that way was probably not legal.