Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Here's my response to your last post comrade troll sig

---

Keep digging.


BTW, the greatest threat to our democracy is people like you. You're willing to trample the Constitution because you're too stupid to put two thoughts together, and so your poor brain needs "protection" from scary facts and uncomfortable ideas.

Did you hear the patronizing from Friedman? The President would "explain" the problem in simple terms that the people would understand?? Jeez.

---

Simple like this sig.

Part One; Friedman is saying the Russians did it so lets take action, and is dismayed our president isn't doing so.

Part two; Sig is a Russian troll and upset because Friedman just criticized both Trump and Russia.


Did you sense the patronizing from me sig? Patronizing; To treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority:

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Golly. EXPERTS!!

So how might history look upon Trump?

---

Trump's mouth gives Experts all they need to know Trump spouts nonsense. Trump’s claim Mueller found ‘NO COLLUSION’ is Literal Nonsense.

One of Trump’s favorite methods to defend his innocence in the Russia investigation is to claim that any piece of evidence that does not explicitly assert his guilt is in fact evidence of his innocence. It is exactly like Trump saying he was cleared by the Warren Commission because the Warren Commission report makes no conclusion about Trump and Russia. However, Trump misread the indictment.

In fact the indictment declared that collusion has been detected. It didn’t name all of the conspirators, but the grand jury did definitely claim to know the names of conspirators who were not named in the indictment.

I quote paragraph 2 of www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download :

From in or around 2014 to the present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016.

The indictment explicitly states that there are known unindicted co-conspirators. It does not address the question of whether one is, say, named Donald Trump.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

We already knew there was Collusion with Hilliary. But this witch hunt was kicked off specifying Trump.

---

And so much more second. Like admitting on TV he fired Comey because the Russia thing. Telling the Russians in the Oval Office, that now that Comey was gone the Russia thing would go away. That shows intent.

Getting Trump impeached with a republican congress is next to impossible. With a democratic one it is inevitable.

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

We already knew there was Collusion with Hilliary. But this witch hunt was kicked off specifying Trump.

---

Signym, JewelStaiteFan and GOP wisdom in Washington agree that there’s little reason to believe that Robert Mueller’s ongoing investigation will end up proving much of interest.

But to believe that requires belief that after a decade of paying Manafort millions for his expertise to help pro-Russian candidates win elections in Ukraine, no one from Moscow thought to consult with him about how to help a pro-Russia candidate win an election in the United States.

And we have to believe that even though we know Trump Jr was enthusiastic about the idea of collaborating with Russia on obtaining anti-Hillary dirt, when he met with Russians on this very topic, they didn’t talk about it.

And we have to believe that Trump’s public call for Putin to hack more Clinton emails was completely random.

Trump–Russia skeptics call it a bizarre series of coincidences complete with a massive cover-up for no particular reason. Cover-up means Trump’s talk about firing Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, Jeff Sessions, the FBI, etc. and Trump saying "No Collusion!" a dozen times a day.

But Trump isn’t an idiot. When he keeps on doing something, it’s probably for a reason. The cover-up is likely covering up serious wrongdoing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
And so much more second. Like admitting on TV he fired Comey because the Russia thing. Telling the Russians in the Oval Office, that now that Comey was gone the Russia thing would go away. That shows intent.

Getting Trump impeached with a republican congress is next to impossible. With a democratic one it is inevitable.

---

Quote:

---

Part One; Friedman is saying the Russians did it

---

Quote:

---

so lets take action

---

Quote:

---

Part two; Sig is a Russian troll and upset because Friedman just criticized both Trump and Russia.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
And so much more second. Like admitting on TV he fired Comey because the Russia thing. Telling the Russians in the Oval Office, that now that Comey was gone the Russia thing would go away. That shows intent.

Getting Trump impeached with a republican congress is next to impossible. With a democratic one it is inevitable.

---

I guarantee that the Democrats will NOT get the necessary 2/3 majority in the 2018 election. Democrats shouldn’t get their hopes up that the special counsel will “save” them or the country from Trump. And as you said, Trump appeared on national television and explained to an NBC News audience that he improperly used his powers of office to remove FBI director Comey in an effort to shield his friends and associates from criminal scrutiny. The GOP shrugged that off, and eventually, the public (both Democrats and Republicans) moved on.

My guess is that whatever revelations are forthcoming from Mueller will fit a similar pattern — most people already have a negative view of Trump, so it’s hard to move the needle too much more on public opinion, and the whole GOP has already wagered so heavily on the Trump experiment that they’re not going to pull the plug regardless of what happened.

I think the best a Democrat can hope for is that Trump does not get reelected. And maybe there will be enough Democrats in the Senate after 2018 election to monkey-wrench Trump from replacing Supreme Court Justices with Anthony Scalia clones. The GOP did it to Obama and maybe the Democrats can take revenge on Trump nominated Justices.

---

It should not be easy to remove a sitting president. Still, we know so much already that demands he be removed, in MHO. What we know is like a window into what transpired between Trump and the Russians. For myself and others who hope that Trump will be removed, that may be realized by what is yet to be learned and or revealed.

Mueller is looking into everything. I heard today we are going to learn a lot about how foreign lobbyists operate, and how that effects policy. Also, Trump has adhered to corrupt business practices from day one. With Muellers' investigation, the state DA at some point, will have access to more than enough evidence of corruption to go after Trump.

One way or the other...

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SECOND:
Trump, after being criticized for his response to Russia's election meddling, challenged Jeff Sessions, his attorney general, to launch an investigation into the Obama administration for failing to do enough to stop the 2016 election foreign interference.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/966321700588711936

"He has been tougher on Russia in the first year than Obama was in eight years combined," White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said during Tuesday's White House briefing.

Why, if Trump believes the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered, hasn't he enforced the sanctions he signed into law last August which were passed by Congress to punish Russia for its actions?

Sanders reiterated that Trump has been "tougher on Russia" than his predecessor.

www.businessinsider.com/sarah-sanders-trump-russia-sanctions-after-mue
ller-indictments-2018-2]

---

I know, it's astounding isn't it. Nothing about Putin and Russia. Nope it's back to Obama, investigate Obama. This guys a bigger clown then we possibly could have imagined. And the people who back him still are much sicker that I thought.



T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
They had 13 trolls operating to sway American public opinion. Wow. 13. !

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
At times we reflect back on history. We remember events that have happened, especially ones of importance. Some of those historical events so boggle the mind they elicit a common response. How could people be so stupid?

Well, I give you Jack. People this stupid really do exist. The history of Trump and Russia is already being written. The truth of it will never penetrate Jacks sphere of ignorance. And people like always move on to their next insane interpretations of current events. Sadly, another thing history has taught us is that there is never a shortage of stupid people.

Being stupid is not a crime. Nor should people be punished and ridiculed for being inflicted with this abnormality. Unless, I'll say that again, Unless, they are being stupid in a mean spirted way. Again, I give you Jack. He is an angry drunk lashing out, choosing to troll rather than offer substantive feedback or acknowledge even the simplest of truths.


T

---

Quote:

---

She's REALLY downplaying it AGAIN??? This wasn't a HOBBY for these people, undermining this country was their DAY JOB. No matter the EFFECT, it's the principle! - TWITCHY

---

Quote:

---

It was you and Sigs that turned that thread into a massive shit show by the next day, and your behavior has only gotten worse since then.- SIX

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Mueller asking if Manafort promised banker White House job in return for loan

Federal investigators are probing whether former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort promised a Chicago banker a job in the Trump White House in return for $16 million in home loans, two people with direct knowledge of the matter told NBC News.

The banker, Stephen Calk, president of the Federal Savings Bank, was announced as a member of candidate Trump's Council of Economic Advisers in August 2016.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-asking-if-manafo
rt-promised-banker-white-house-job-return-n849916

T

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
A post that you actually said was righteous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Would you be so huffy if you knew that American "professionals" did the same, or worse, to other countries?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Would you be so huffy if you knew that American "professionals" did the same, or worse, to other countries?

---

So help me gawd, if you start blathering about Obama or The Clintons again...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You just really hate when relevance combats your nonsense, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Sorry SIX if I turned your post into a shit show. I don't recall it; but you're right: we need to come together, on things we can really agree on, not just on hold-hands-and-sing-Kumbaya. Which is why I think it is so important that we actually discuss what AMERICA'S interests are, to find out where we agree and where we disagree. Unfortunately, most people around here seem unprepared to discuss what we should actually be defending, and insist on hyperventilating and screeching. (Oh, and launching baseless defamatory attacks on other posters.)/b]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

You just really hate when relevance combats your nonsense, right?

---

Quote:

---

Would you be so huffy if you knew that American "professionals" did the same, or worse, to other countries?- SIGNY

So help me gawd, if you start blathering about Obama or The Clintons again... - TWITCHY

You just really hate when relevance combats your nonsense, right? - JSF

No, I hate it when people blather on about things no one can do anything about, or even really know the details of, and isn't really relevant TO RIGHT NOW. TODAY.
I wish we could completely do away with presidents having ANY influence on culture and make them stick to foreign relations, and military affairs.- TWITCHY

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Just my $0.02.

---

Quote:

---

ready to not only resist mounting a proper defense of our democracy- SECOND

---

Quote:

---

he’s actually ready to undermine some of our most important institutions, the FBI and Justice Department, to keep his compromised status hidden.- SECOND

---

Quote:

---

Just like Trump comrade sig always wants to criticize Americans and our institutions, while shielding Russia from any blame. She is always harping on our dishonest CIA, FBI, media and judicial systems but nothing about our attackers, Russia. I'll ask again comrade sig, why's that?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Just like Trump comrade sig always wants to criticize Americans and our institutions, while shielding Russia from any blame. She is always harping on our dishonest CIA, FBI, media and judicial systems but nothing about our attackers, Russia. I'll ask again comrade sig, why's that?

---

Because Russia will do what Russia will do, and we have no control over what THEY do.

---

And there you have it folks. Sig informs us Russia will do what it will do and there is nothing America can do about it. Russia, who has the same budget as Italy yet we can do nothing. No offence meant to the Italians.

For the dummies her let me break that down to it's simplest form. Sig says we should not do anything against Russia. Nothing zip, and with that, she is stating they can do whatever they see fit to do and we should just accept it.

That's it, nothing more to say, and again no condemnation for what they are doing. As I've said for a very long time now. Sig trolls on behalf of Russia. The rest of you who don't call her out on that, you know who you are, are definitely not American. Nope, no way are you American.

Sig, kiki, Rappy, JSF, Jack, no way are you American.



T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

he’s actually ready to undermine some of our most important institutions, the FBI and Justice Department, to keep his compromised status hidden.- SECOND

---

The institutions have undermined themselves. The NSA started an (illegal) universal snooping program under GWB which accelerated under Obama, as revealed by various whistleblowers including Snowden. There is, it is said, a giant NSA database of illegally-obtained surveillance which the NSA shares with other agencies, the game of which is to be able to re-create a plausible LEGAL pathway, applicable in court, for illegally-obtained information. That big data center in Utah? It's not there for shits and giggles, yanno.

The CIA illegally snooped on the Senate Intelligence Committee (yanno, the one that's supposed to provide "oversight" for our security state) as the committee was investigating CIA torture programs, and Brennan got up and lied, bald-faced, to Congress and the American people about it. And that's not including the CIA's illegal torture, rendition, gun-and-drug-running, and media infiltration programs which have made us so popular around the world.

---

Quote:

---

For the dummies her let me break that down to it's simplest form. Sig says we should not do anything against Russia. Nothing zip, and with that, she is stating they can do whatever they see fit to do and we should just accept it. - THUGR

---

Quote:

---

Signym, this is one of your typically fucking stupid, yet so articulate, arguments. These agencies are not self-funded, unlike organized crime. The Republicans, not the Democrats, in Congress could control the agencies with Congress' power over their budget. Hell, Congress could even attack a particular employee's salary, if Republicans cared to exert real pressure. But these agencies are doing what Congress wants. Congress is not threatening to lower budget by 5% or 10% or 15% to get them to obey. Congress is raising their budgets. The Republicans in Congress are not even targeting specific actions that Republicans might emptily claim they dislike.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Signym, this is one of your typically fucking stupid, yet so articulate, arguments. These agencies are not self-funded, unlike organized crime. The Republicans, not the Democrats, in Congress could control the agencies with Congress' power over their budget. Hell, Congress could even attack a particular employee's salary, if Republicans cared to exert real pressure. But these agencies are doing what Congress wants. Congress is not threatening to lower budget by 5% or 10% or 15% to get them to obey. Congress is raising their budgets. The Republicans in Congress are not even targeting specific actions that Republicans might emptily claim they dislike.

---

SECOND, this is one of your typically fucking stupid, yet so articulate, arguments. You're turning a non-partisan problem in yet another endless screed against Republicans. The violations and mismanagement of the security agencies has been happening under BOTH parties. I'm not pinning this on Dems, or Repubs, but on BOTH.

I even made the point a while back that the very same Republicans who issued the Nunes memo (under the banner of transparency) were the very same Republicans who voted for the FISA 702 extension.

Your constant partisan blather doesn't excuse the fact that our security agencies have been running roughshod not only over our Constitutional protections but also our political processes. They need an investigation, from anus to head, and they need to be reined in. Whether it is the GOP that does it, or the Dems, or both - or Trump- or someone else - it needs to be done. Stop blame-shifting. This isn't a blame-game, or at least it shouldn't be, because there's enough to wrap all the way around five times over.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You just really hate when relevance combats your nonsense, right?

---

No, I hate it when people blather on about things no one can do anything about, or even really know the details of, and isn't really relevant TO RIGHT NOW. TODAY.


I wish we could completely do away with presidents having ANY influence on culture and make them stick to foreign relations, and military affairs.
EVERYTHING ELSE should not have a thing to do with the president. We'd have a much more stable society.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Sorry SIX if I turned your post into a shit show. I don't recall it; but you're right: we need to come together, on things we can really agree on, not just on hold-hands-and-sing-Kumbaya. Which is why I think it is so important that we actually discuss what AMERICA'S interests are, to find out where we agree and where we disagree. Unfortunately, most people around here seem unprepared to discuss what we should actually be defending, and insist on hyperventilating and screeching. (Oh, and launching baseless defamatory attacks on other posters.)/b]

---

It was a group effort. I do remember especially asking you to tone it down because I'd never before seen you post like that (at least not that I could recall during my drunken idiocy). That night only stands out to me because of the election. I was totally drunk that night as well. Otherwise I would have probably forgotten all about it like most of the rest of them. I didn't even know T or G before I had turned into a drunk, so I didn't really know anything about them until January of last year.

Less than two months later I was sober and now I see what you were talking about. The RWED is far more of a shit show than I ever remember it being. There was always fighting, but there were also a lot of rational minds here back then as well. All that's left is the crazy people.

I wouldn't bother trying to have any rational conversations here or trying to change anybodies mind about anything if that's your intention. That's a complete waste of time. I only post here because it's one of the last places I still have an online presence and I haven't yet been able to eliminate the internet from my life entirely.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
You just really hate when relevance combats your nonsense, right?

---

No, I hate it when people blather on about things no one can do anything about, or even really know the details of, and isn't really relevant TO RIGHT NOW. TODAY.


I wish we could completely do away with presidents having ANY influence on culture and make them stick to foreign relations, and military affairs.
EVERYTHING ELSE should not have a thing to do with the president. We'd have a much more stable society.

---

We shouldn't let this slip by unnoticed. You have posted a valid worldview.

As soon as the Federal Budget is devoid of welfare, EPA, Dept of Uneducation, Art Grants, and all other welfare, your wish will be granted. I agree, and yes, I did vote for Johnson the last 2 times.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The CIA is everybody's problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

For the dummies her let me break that down to it's simplest form. Sig says we should not do anything against Russia. Nothing zip, and with that, she is stating they can do whatever they see fit to do and we should just accept it. - THUGR

---

Again, you're an idiot.

YES, IT'S TERRIBLE (!!!) THAT 13 RUSSIANS TRIED TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTIONS! THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN! IT'S A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE!

There, is that enough hyperventilating for you?

So, NOW WHAT?


What are we supposed to do to "make" Russia conform to our ideas of what THEY should do? Bomb them? I mean, seriously, THUGR, what's your plan here??

Russia is a whole 'nother nation, like Britain or Brazil. How would you propose that we "make" Britain do what we want (like stay in the EU) or "make" Brazil do what we want (like clean up their corruption)? Are you saying that it is the right of the USA to go rampaging around the world, "making" other nations do what we want them to? I think we've been doing that for 50 years, and look where it's gotten us.

Defense of our interests is right and proper. Why don't we at least start with that, instead of hyperventilating about what somebody else is doing?

I guess this makes me something of an "isolationist". Look it up, THUGR. Before you start hyperventilating that it's "un-American" I think you'll find it's a venerable POV which has its origins with the Founding Fathers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

In most forums I've seen the political exchanges would spring up every 4 years, then settle back again mostly.
Maybe the change was Obama's 8 year nonstop campaign.
But the 2016 cycle does not seem to have tapered here. The crimes and Treason of Obama, Hilliary, et al are still being investigated. And Fake News has a greater online presence than a decade ago. Liberals have obliterated the independence of the public forums.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The CIA is everybody's problem.

---

No, it is not. It is a Republican problem. The CIA can throw away video recordings of torturing prisoners because it would make the CIA look bad, and they can get away with it. There will be no punishment for the CIA by Congress cutting the CIA budget. The White House can't punish the CIA, when controlled by a Democrat, because it can't even discover who did what at the CIA when the CIA decides to lose all the relevant records. The only way to handle a situation where an out-of-control organization protects particular employees from their justly deserved punishment is to punish the entire organization and that means a budget cut, which only the Congressional Republicans can do. This nonsense at the CIA has been going on for decades, where it worms its way around control by any Democrat in the White House and can always run to its protectors: the GOP Congressmen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Sorry SIX if I turned your post into a shit show. I don't recall it; but you're right: we need to come together, on things we can really agree on, not just on hold-hands-and-sing-Kumbaya. Which is why I think it is so important that we actually discuss what AMERICA'S interests are, to find out where we agree and where we disagree. Unfortunately, most people around here seem unprepared to discuss what we should actually be defending, and insist on hyperventilating and screeching. (Oh, and launching baseless defamatory attacks on other posters.)/b]

---

It was a group effort. I do remember especially asking you to tone it down because I'd never before seen you post like that (at least not that I could recall during my drunken idiocy). That night only stands out to me because of the election. I was totally drunk that night as well. Otherwise I would have probably forgotten all about it like most of the rest of them. I didn't even know T or G before I had turned into a drunk, so I didn't really know anything about them until January of last year.

Less than two months later I was sober and now I see what you were talking about. The RWED is far more of a shit show than I ever remember it being. There was always fighting, but there were also a lot of rational minds here back then as well. All that's left is the crazy people.

I wouldn't bother trying to have any rational conversations here or trying to change anybodies mind about anything if that's your intention. That's a complete waste of time. I only post here because it's one of the last places I still have an online presence and I haven't yet been able to eliminate the internet from my life entirely.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

In most forums I've seen the political exchanges would spring up every 4 years, then settle back again mostly.
Maybe the change was Obama's 8 year nonstop campaign.
But the 2016 cycle does not seem to have tapered here. The crimes and Treason of Obama, Hilliary, et al are still being investigated. And Fake News has a greater online presence than a decade ago. Liberals have obliterated the independence of the public forums.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The CIA is everybody's problem.

---

No, it is not. It is a Republican problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The CIA is everybody's problem.

---

No, it is not. It is a Republican problem.

---

No it's not. It's everybody's problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The CIA is everybody's problem.

---

No, it is not. It is a Republican problem.

---

No it's not. It's everybody's problem.

---

If it were my problem, as President, I'd send the Secret Service over to the CIA's Headquarters in the George Bush Center for Intelligence in Virginia and trash their office. Then, with guns pointed, make them open their safes and steal their secrets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Relationship
_with_other_intelligence_agencies

Under the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, the Director of Central Intelligence is the only federal government employee who can spend "un-vouchered" government money. The Director and I will have a very ugly interrogation involving his head shoved underwater until he tells me where the money went.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The CIA is everybody's problem.

---

No, it is not. It is a Republican problem.

---

No it's not. It's everybody's problem.

---

If it were my problem, as President, I'd send the Secret Service over to the CIA's Headquarters in the George Bush Center for Intelligence in Virginia and trash their office. Then, with guns pointed, make them open their safes and steal their secrets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Relationship
_with_other_intelligence_agencies

Under the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949, the Director of Central Intelligence is the only federal government employee who can spend "un-vouchered" government money. The Director and I will have a very ugly interrogation involving his head shoved underwater until he tells me where the money went.

---

What guns? It thought you wanted them taken away from everybody. Or do the 1%'ers get to keep their guns in your Utopia?

Have fun with your violent hero fantasies though.

They don't change the fact that the CIA is everybody's problem.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

What guns? It thought you wanted them taken away from everybody. Or do the 1%'ers get to keep their guns in your Utopia?

Have fun with your violent hero fantasies though.

They don't change the fact that the CIA is everybody's problem.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Historians and Scholars decide if a president is good or not Jack. Very educated people. Historians and Executive Branch experts. These experts, Democrat, Republican and Independent, together rated Trump dead last ( worst ever ). And you, you Jack, can't see for yourself any reason why. Any reason Jack.

The reasons for treating you like someone who's opinion should be respected are non existent Jack, non existent.
T

Quote:

---

How Does Trump Stack Up Against the Best — and Worst — Presidents?
2014 RANK, CHANGE IN RANKING, UP OR DOWN, TOP 10 IN 2018
1. Lincoln 95
6. Truman 75
7. Eisenhower 74
8. Obama 71
9. Reagan 69
10. L.B. Johnson 69
13. Clinton 64
16. Kennedy 62
17. G.H.W. Bush 61
25. Ford 47
26. Carter
30. G.W. Bush 40
33. Nixon 37
BOTTOM 10
44. Trump 12

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/19/opin
ion/how-does-
trump-stack-up-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html

---

---

Golly. EXPERTS!!
So Expert that they think the Next Addition to Mt. Rushmore should be Washington, T Roosevelt, or Lincoln!! Hint: they are already there.

So how might history look upon Trump? In this survey of Liberal experts, White House Alumni trends from 2014 to 2018 show GOP Nixon up one spot, Reagan up 2 spots, Bush 41 settled at 17 - the top half, Bush 43 up 5 spots. And Democraps Carter settled in the bottom half, and Clinton dropping 5 spots. The future polls look bad for Obama and good for Trump.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The problem is that there aren't actually any Conservatives in Political Sciences. Their idea of a Conservative is anybody just a tad right of Karl Marx.

---

29 of the political scientists that contributed to the survey of Presidents were self-described Conservatives. 21 self-described as Republicans.
https://sps.boisestate.edu/politicals
cience/files/2018/02/Greatness.pdf

---

Of the 170 respondents, 9 (5.3%) self-identified as Conservative. 20 (12%) self-identified as somewhat conservative.

57% identify as Democrats. 32.5% self-identified as Liberal, 26% as somewhat Liberal, 24% as Moderates. Most telling, there was "no significant difference" and "little variation" in the results between "self-identified" Democrats, Liberals, somewhat Liberals, and Moderates.
This 82.5% block that mostly can't comprehend that they are ultra-Liberals ranked Reagan as 14th, yet the 5% of Conservatives swayed the results toward reality so much that Reagan ended up 9th overall. The study refused to breakdown the Conservative results, instead muddying them with self-identified somewhat Conservatives.

This comingled group ranked Obama 16th Greatest President? Yep, they were Commies.

And these esteemed "political Scientists" were so clueless that, when asked which President should be ADDED to Mt. Rushmore, 5 of the 170 respondents voted for Washington, T Roosevelt, Lincoln. Hint: they are already there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

What guns? It thought you wanted them taken away from everybody. Or do the 1%'ers get to keep their guns in your Utopia?

Have fun with your violent hero fantasies though.

They don't change the fact that the CIA is everybody's problem.

---

Not a fantasy, Jack. I'll give you one example of how an out-of-control bureaucrat was finally made to obey: J. Edger Hoover. Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy each considered dismissing Hoover as FBI Director, but ultimately concluded that the political cost of doing so would be too great. Hoover scared off LBJ, too, and the details are fascinating. The Republicans never had a problem with Hoover. They loved him, as they love the CIA. Eventually, J. Edger died an old man in charge of the FBI. That strategy of waiting for time to solve a problem doesn't work for Democrats when it is an immortal government agency such as the CIA, not just some gay man Republican such as Hoover protected by the GOP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover#Late_career_and_death

---

Quote:

---

In an interview published Monday by acTVism Munich, an independent media outlet, McGovern warned that U.S. intelligence agencies are too powerful to be held accountable, even by President Barack Obama. He explained:

“I will simply say that he is afraid of them. Now I would have never thought that I would hear myself saying that the president of the United States is afraid of the CIA. But he is. He’s afraid of the NSA as well. How else to explain that the National Intelligence director, who lied under oath to his senate overseers on the 12th of March 2013, is still the director of National Intelligence?”

Statements made under oath to Congress in 2013 by James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, in which he denied mass surveillance of Americans, were later revealed to be false by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. In 2014, some members of Congress, including California Rep. Darrell Issa, moved to have Clapper dismissed from his post, but their efforts were ultimately defeated.

McGovern continued: “How else to explain that the head of CIA, John Brennan, who deliberately hacked the computers of the senate’s intelligence community, that’s supposed to be overseeing him, he’s still in office?”

Brennan apologized to Senate leaders in July 2014 after CIA agents hacked Senate computers during a congressional investigation of the CIA’s use of torture, but neither the torturers nor the hackers would face any consequences for their actions. In January 2015, an internal CIA review board declared the hack had been a result of “miscommunication” and cleared all agents of wrongdoing.

In the interview, McGovern lamented the fact that political leaders, including President George W. Bush and Obama, have given their approval to unconstitutional behavior by government officials:

“Our bill of rights has been shredded. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits the kind of activities the NSA is involved in domestically.”

He also criticized Obama’s drone program, noting that “[t]he Fifth Amendment prohibits any president or anyone else from killing anyone without due process,” and dismissed the administration’s legal justifications for the killings as a “lawyerly diversion from the truth.”

“Not even George Bush claimed the right to kill American citizens without due process,” McGovern said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The problem is that there aren't actually any Conservatives in Political Sciences. Their idea of a Conservative is anybody just a tad right of Karl Marx.

---

29 of the political scientists that contributed to the survey of Presidents were self-described Conservatives. 21 self-described as Republicans.

---

Of the 170 respondents, 9 (5.3%) self-identified as Conservative. 20 (12%) self-identified as somewhat conservative.

57% identify as Democrats. 32.5% self-identified as Liberal, 26% as somewhat Liberal, 24% as Moderates. Most telling, there was "no significant difference" and "little variation" in the results between "self-identified" Democrats, Liberals, somewhat Liberals, and Moderates.
This 82.5% block that mostly can't comprehend that they are ultra-Liberals ranked Reagan as 14th, yet the 5% of Conservatives swayed the results toward reality so much that Reagan ended up 9th overall. The study refused to breakdown the Conservative results, instead muddying them with self-identified somewhat Conservatives.

---

One thing to notice with this survey, there is no weighted balance, which Libtards hate to do when they have 82% of their respondents as Liberals, and 5% Conservatives.

Although they were able to obfuscate the actual figures for the 5% Conservatives, enough data is exposed that we can extrapolate and interpolate data to find a more accurate ranking.

The list below shows the resulting balanced Rank, and then balanced Rating, for the first 2 columns. The next 2 columns of Rank and Rating are results if we pretend that PoliSci experts who self-identify as "Moderates" are really not Liberals (and those results are not used in weighted balancing). In the 5th column I included the Rank presented in the Report. Then the Name and sequence number.

---

Quote:

---

-1.32 #1 93.71 #1 93.92 #1 95.03 Lincoln 16
+0.80 #2 93.39 #2 93.48 #2 92.59 Washington 1
-5.57 #3 83.52 #3 84.36 #3 89.09 FDR 32
-3.09 #4 78.30 #4 78.39 #4 81.39 T Roosevelt 26
-2.48 #5 77.06 #5 77.46 #5 79.54 Jefferson 3
+5.30 #6 74.54 #6 73.36 #9 69.24 Reagan 40
-0.78 #7 73.25 #8 72.78 #7 74.03 Eisenhower 34
-2.50 #8 72.65 #7 73.05 #6 75.15 Truman 33
+3.26 #9 64.16 10 63.53 17 60.90 Bush 41
+0.44 10 62.60 14 62.09 15 62.16 Jackson 7

-8.69 11 62.44 #9 63.99 #8 71.13 Obama 44
-0.85 12 62.39 13 62.59 14 63.24 Adams 2
-2.13 13 62.35 12 62.93 12 64.48 Madison 4
-6.90 14 62.16 11 63.41 10 69.06 LB Johnson 36
+6.63 15 62.12 18 60.55 19 55.49 McKinley 25
-2.36 16 61.89 15 62.00 13 64.25 Clinton 42
+0.49 17 61.23 17 61.36 18 60.74 Monroe 5
-6.46 18 60.94 16 61.43 11 67.40 Wilson 28
+3.36 19 57.45 19 56.35 20 54.09 Polk 11
+4.63 20 56.59 21 56.08 22 51.96 Taft 27
-6.36 21 55.50 20 56.26 16 61.86 Kennedy 35
+2.77 22 53.78 22 52.76 24 51.01 Cleveland 22 & 24

+10.09 23 52.32 24 51.44 28 42.23 Coolidge 30
-0.19 24 51.71 23 51.96 23 51.90 JQ Adams 6
-2.11 25 50.77 25 50.78 21 52.88 Grant 18
+2.65 26 49.93 26 49.13 25 47.28 Ford 38
+6.61 27 47.03 27 46.09 30 40.42 Bush 43
+0.27 28 44.54 28 44.25 27 44.27 Van Buren 8
+2.68 29 44.18 29 43.79 29 41.50 Hayes 19
+3.16 30 43.06 30 43.19 31 39.90 Arthur 21
+4.59 31 41.77 31 41.90 33 37.18 Nixon 37
-5.73 32 39.31 32 39.38 26 45.04 Carter 39
+2.34 33 39.03 33 38.60 34 36.69 Garfield 20
+0.95 34 38.58 34 38.04 32 37.63 B Harrison 23

+4.43 35 37.70 35 36.84 36 33.27 Hoover 31
+2.24 36 35.58 36 34.98 35 33.34 Taylor 12
+1.51 37 32.97 37 32.93 37 31.46 Tyler 10
+2.10 38 29.81 38 29.79 38 27.71 Fillmore 13
+3.50 39 28.76 39 29.05 39 25.26 Harding 29
-1.87 40 23.04 40 22.79 40 24.91 A Johnson 17
-0.83 41 22.42 41 22.42 41 23.25 Pierce 14
+0.61 42 19.63 42 19.41 42 19.02 WH Harrison 9
+6.79 43 19.13 43 18.51 44 12.34 Trump 45
-0.89 44 14.20 44 14.23 43 15.09 Buchanan 15

GOP red, Democrat blue, Whig buff.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
tick tock comrade

---