Liberal Forum

Termin8tor » 14 Apr 2017 6:03 pm » wrote:
Oh gosh, more deceitful leftist propaganda from a smear artist.

He's already developed more influence with the Chinese against North Korea than Obama did in eight years.

Misty » 18 Apr 2017 11:52 pm » wrote: WHO SAYS THAT PUTIN IS TELLING THE TRUTH? LINK?

Misty » 18 Apr 2017 11:52 pm » wrote: WHO SAYS THAT PUTIN IS TELLING THE TRUTH? LINK?

Misty » 18 Apr 2017 9:25 pm » wrote:WTF is going on?
What the unauthorized statement said in part:
That sounds like a political statement and not something that a CENTCOM spokesperson would say.
So who is making unauthorized statements like that?

Misty » 18 Apr 2017 9:25 pm » wrote:WTF is going on?
What the unauthorized statement said in part:
That sounds like a political statement and not something that a CENTCOM spokesperson would say.
So who is making unauthorized statements like that?

Termin8tor » 18 Apr 2017 6:41 pm » wrote: What did the Clinton's do for the 10's of millions of dollars they and their cronies got from the Russians?

And the 10's of millions they got from other foreign countries and special interests?

Misty » 18 Apr 2017 9:25 pm » wrote:WTF is going on?


What the unauthorized statement said in part:
That sounds like a political statement and not something that a CENTCOM spokesperson would say.
So who is making unauthorized statements like that?

Misty » 18 Apr 2017 9:39 pm » wrote:U.S. aircraft carrier supposedly sent as warning to North Korea sailed in opposite direction.

Bunch of incompetent amateurs trying to run a country.

Cannonpointer » 18 Apr 2017 11:50 pm » wrote: How?

Termin8tor » 19 Apr 2017 10:03 am » wrote:
This is the best you can do?

Misty » 18 Apr 2017 11:53 pm » wrote:
Good question.

larryc12 » 19 Apr 2017 10:08 am » wrote:
Leftists like Miss T don't like us fighting to WIN - too many of the enemy get killed.

Termin8tor » 19 Apr 2017 10:09 am » wrote:
Maybe the fact that he bombed Putin's ally Assad's airport gives you a hint?

Maybe the strong statements of anger from Russian officials gives you another hint?

Imbeciles.

larryc12 » 19 Apr 2017 10:13 am » wrote: Yeah, but you see, Trump and Putin put that together to get the heat off Trump for buddying with Putin. All fake....you see.

larryc12 » 19 Apr 2017 10:13 am » wrote: Yeah, but you see, Trump and Putin put that together to get the heat off Trump for buddying with Putin. All fake....you see.

Misty » 07 Apr 2017 6:09 pm » wrote:Because the Russians were not trying to help get her elected you stupid jackass.
And she was not the one praising Putin all over the place.

Confirmed: John Brennan Colluded With Foreign Spies to Defeat Trump
George NeumayrApril 19, 2017, 12:04 am
This is the open scandal that Congress should investigate.


An article in the Guardian last week provides more confirmation that John Brennan was the American progenitor of political espionage aimed at defeating Donald Trump. One side did collude with foreign powers to tip the election — Hillary’s.


Seeking to retain his position as CIA director under Hillary, Brennan teamed up with British spies and Estonian spies to cripple Trump’s candidacy. He used their phony intelligence as a pretext for a multi-agency investigation into Trump, which led the FBI to probe a computer server connected to Trump Tower and gave cover to Susan Rice, among other Hillary supporters, to spy on Trump and his people.


John Brennan’s CIA operated like a branch office of the Hillary campaign, leaking out mentions of this bogus investigation to the press in the hopes of inflicting maximum political damage on Trump. An official in the intelligence community tells TAS that Brennan’s retinue of political radicals didn’t even bother to hide their activism, decorating offices with “Hillary for president cups” and other campaign paraphernalia.


A supporter of the American Communist Party at the height of the Cold War, Brennan brought into the CIA a raft of subversives and gave them plum positions from which to gather and leak political espionage on Trump. He bastardized standards so that these left-wing activists could burrow in and take career positions. Under the patina of that phony professionalism, they could then present their politicized judgments as “non-partisan.”


The Guardian story is written in a style designed to flatter its sources (they are cast as high-minded whistleblowers), but the upshot of it is devastating for them, nonetheless, and explains why all the criminal leaks against Trump first originated in the British press. According to the story, Brennan got his anti-Trump tips primarily from British spies but also Estonian spies and others. The story confirms that the seed of the espionage into Trump was planted by Estonia. The BBC’s Paul Wood reported last year that the intelligence agency of an unnamed Baltic State had tipped Brennan off in April 2016 to a conversation purporting to show that the Kremlin was funneling cash into the Trump campaign.


Any other CIA director would have disregarded such a flaky tip, recognizing that Estonia was eager to see Trump lose (its officials had bought into Hillary’s propaganda that Trump was going to pull out of NATO and leave Baltic countries exposed to Putin). But Brennan opportunistically seized on it, as he later that summer seized on the half-baked intelligence of British spy agencies (also full of officials who wanted to see Trump lose).


The Guardian says that British spy head Robert Hannigan “passed material in summer 2016 to the CIA chief, John Brennan.” To ensure that these flaky tips leaked out, Brennan disseminated them on Capitol Hill. In August and September of 2016, he gave briefings to the “Gang of Eight” about them, which then turned up on the front page of the New York Times.


All of this took place at the very moment Brennan was auditioning for Hillary. He desperately wanted to keep his job and despised Trump for his alleged “Muslim ban,” a matter near and dear to Brennan’s heart. Not only was he an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood, but Brennan’s Islamophilia dated to his days in college, when he spent a year in Cairo learning Arabic and taking courses in Middle Eastern studies. He later got a graduate degree with an emphasis in Middle Eastern studies. In 1996, his ties to the Islamic world tightened after he became the CIA’s station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He once recalled that “during a 25-year career in government, I was privileged to serve in positions across the Middle East — as a political officer with the State Department and as a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques of Mecca and Medina. I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that privilege — that pilgrimage.”


Out of this Islamophilia came a special dislike of Michael Flynn, who had planned to rip up the Obama-era “reset” with Muslim countries. Furious with Flynn for his apostasy from political correctness, Brennan and other Obama aides couldn’t resist the temptation to take him out after rifling through transcripts of his calls with the Russian ambassador. They caught him in a lie to Mike Pence and made sure the press knew about it.
Were the media not so completely in the tank for Obama and Hillary, all of this political mischief would make for a compelling 2016 version of All the President’s Men. Instead, the public gets a steady stream of Orwellian propaganda about the sudden propriety of political espionage. The headline writers at Pravda couldn’t improve on this week’s official lie, tweeted out by the Maggie Habermans: “Susan Rice Did Nothing Wrong, Say Both Dem and Republican House Aides.”


Liberals pompously quote the saying — “the bigger the lie, the more it will be believed”
— even as their media enshrine it. Historians will look back on 2016 and marvel at the audacity of its big lie: whispers of an imaginary Trump-Russia collusion that wafted up from the fever swamps of a real collusion between John Brennan and foreign powers seeking Trump’s defeat.
https://spectator.org/fearless-and-meaningless/

Ya Got Took - Surprise: The New York Democrat is a New York Democrat

During the campaign, Donald Trump published a “Contract with the American Voter,” and he may even have read it.

He described the document as “my pledge to you.”

If anybody had been listening, they might have learned from his former business partners what a Trump contract is worth and from his ex-wives what value he puts on a solemn pledge.

I have some bad news, Sunshine: Ya got took.

One of the items on Trump’s Contract with the American Voter was a reiteration of his vow to designate the People’s Republic of China a currency manipulator, which would enable the implementation of certain economic sanctions from the federal government.

It was a dumb idea (every country that engages in monetary policy is a currency manipulator, “currency manipulator” being more or less Janet Yellen’s job description), but it was one that Trump stuck to — indeed, coming down on China for its economic policies is one of the few ideas to which Trump has consistently cleaved.

(Before it was China, it was Japan, the other Asian Economic Superman that was going to eat our national lunch but never quite got around to doing so; India probably is next up for that dubious honor.)

Every third word out of Trump’s mouth was “China.”

And now? “They’re not currency manipulators,” he says.

Trump says this is just strategy, that China stopped manipulating its currency months ago; in reality, there has been no major change in Chinese monetary policy.

He also says that bringing up the issue now would make it more difficult to get Beijing’s cooperation in dealing with North Korea.

That is true. It was true six months ago. It was true six years ago.
It may very well be true six years from now.

This is a typical Trump pattern: Do nothing, declare the problem solved, claim victory.

That isn’t deft diplomacy — it is a failure of nerve.

A few other things have come up: That wall across the entirety of the southern border that Mexico was going to pay for?

Mexico isn’t paying for it, which is convenient for everybody, since it isn’t going to be built.

There will be additional fencing put up, as there almost certainly would have been in any case, and the United States will pay for it.

And John Kelly, homeland-security secretary, says that the wall in many places will not be a wall at all, but an array of “technological sensors.”

Ryan Zinke, interior secretary, has been paying a little attention to the geographical arcana that escape the view from Fifth Avenue, including the fact that a very large portion of the border is a river.

“What side of the river are you going to put the wall?” he asks, not unreasonably.

“We’re not going to put it on our side and cede the river to Mexico.

And we’re probably not going to put it in the middle of the river.”

Wait until they hear about the Amistad Reservoir and the Santa Elena Canyon.

NATO was obsolete during the campaign. It has been un-obsoleted.

Rush Limbaugh this week attempted to put the best spin on that, saying that Trump’s anti-NATO position was only a bargaining tactic, a successful ploy to get NATO members to up their military spending to the 2 percent of GDP they’ve all agreed to.

He cited NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg’s statement earlier this week that NATO members are finally getting serious about their commitments.

One problem with that line of argument: They aren’t actually doing it.

Setting aside the question of whether that 2 percent agreement is in fact sensible and appropriate, NATO members are not living up to it and they are not going to live up to it.

Germany, which has Europe’s largest national economy and was long the dominant military power on the Continent, is spending about 1.2 percent of GDP on defense — and that after a large increase this year.

There is no radical increase even under discussion.

Europe’s second-largest economy is that of France, a big military spender by European standards, but one in which military spending is under 2 percent and likely to stay there.

Only two credible global military players in NATO — the United States and the United Kingdom — spend 2 percent or more; when something goes wrong in the world, no one shouts: “For the love of God, call the Greeks! Call the Estonians! Call the Poles!” in spite of their respective military outlays of 2.4, 2.2, and 2 percent of GDP.

A few NATO members — the ones nearest Russia — expect to be up to 2 percent soon.

Good on Latvia and Lithuania, but that’s hardly a diplomatic triumph for the United States.

No fighting China on currency, no wall, no NATO reform.

Add a few more items to the list: Janet Yellen was definitely out before she wasn’t; our relationship with Russia was “great” during the campaign but today is a “horrible relationship” that is “at an all-time low” (he may not know about the Cuban missile crisis); the president could not make war on Syria without congressional approval (“big mistake if he does not!”) until he could.

The Affordable Care Act remains the law of the land.

Steve Bannon of Goldman Sachs, Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs, Steven Mnuchin of Goldman Sachs, and Dina Powell of Goldman Sachs are firmly ensconced in their various roles throughout the Trump administration.

The alt-right basement-dwellers and sundry knuckleheads beamed that Trump was going to be a “nationalist,” and that he would give the boot to coastal elitists, moderates, and Ivy League snoots.

In reality, Trump is a New York Democrat who is being advised by other New York Democrats — Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner prominent among them — who are more or less the sort of people who brought you the Obama and Clinton administrations: business-friendly corporate Democrats, people who think of themselves as post-ideological pragmatists, consensus progressives who are much more interested in opening up backdoor channels to Planned Parenthood than they are in the priorities of people they consider nothing more than a bunch of snake-handling rustics and talk-radio listeners stockpiling gold coins and freeze-dried ice cream in their basements.

Trump was a Clinton donor and a Chuck Schumer donor, and he is acting like one.

Surprise.

‌Rush Limbaugh was right in his way: What Trump said during the campaign was, in fact, a load of nonsense deployed for the purposes of steamrolling the other side in difficult and delicate negotiations.

What Limbaugh and the rest of Trump’s admirers missed is that it wasn’t NATO and the Chi-Coms and Enrique Peña Nieto on the other side of the negotiating table getting hornswoggled.

It was them.

http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... N_STRIPPED

Termin8tor » 19 Apr 2017 10:29 am » wrote:Here's more on that wiretapping of Trump.

Misty » 19 Apr 2017 12:34 pm » wrote: What wiretapping?
You're still pushing that ****?

You remind me of Hiroo Onoda, the Japanese soldier who surrendered 29 years after World War II was over.

Misty » 19 Apr 2017 12:28 pm » wrote:
Told ya so.