daz28
-
Posts
4,677 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by daz28
-
-
1 minute ago, Foxx said:
daz, you're doing it again.
your taking only one side of the equation and ruling out the other side. you can't do that and come to a fair and equitable conclusion of an evaluation.
your so close, you just need to push through the NLP they have whipped your ass with for these last 4 years.
No I'm not I said they're both guilty, and should both have to face the music.
-
2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
... ?
So, if the bait was laid out by American Intelligence officials, rather than the Russians you've been told -- that makes zero difference to your calculus?
It makes them all guilty. Now what can we do about it? I don't think it should let Don Jr. off the hook, and I don't think the officials should get off either. Why do you phrase everything as a supposition rather than just a question?
-
18 minutes ago, Doc said:
What do you think the meeting was for then, if it was supposed to be about giving DTJ dirt on Hillary? Sounded like all the world to be a sting, with them hoping DTJ would ask for the dirt and then they'd settle on a price and then boom, he's snared.
He kinda did ask for the dirt, and the way I read the law he wouldn't have had to receive it or need any money to transfer hands. I guess the only logic is they really did never have any intention to prosecute anyways, because to me the law appears to have been broken. Probably because they didn't want the can of worms opened that far.
29 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:That's the answer. They didn't need to invent dirt, or even hint at dirt in the meeting because it was unnecessary. All that was needed was to have Trump Jr in a meeting with "RUSSIANS!" so the media could run wild with innuendo and smears, flood the airwaves with them until even you -- an otherwise rational and intelligent person, assumes that something happened in that meeting that was nefarious.
He did take the bait, and it was nefarious.
-
3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
True indeed.
Not just men. Hillary made her career demolishing women who dared accuse her husband. She protected Weinstein and Epstein even after the dirt was known on both. That's not to make this about HRC, but to point out that this is deeper than men = bad. This is systemic and protected by those with power.
Because that's ultimately what it's about. Power. They have it, and want to abuse it.
Yes definitely about power, and I'm not trying to paint men bad. I'm trying to see it from both sides.
-
1
-
-
This is why this is such an interesting topic is that men have been getting away with this for a long time, and now women can accuse to get paid for their silence. How can we get to the truth of the matter?
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
U.S. President Donald Trump has demanded businesses reopen and stay-at-home orders be rescinded, putting him at odds with several state governors.
I would say he's anxious to get re-started, but I wouldn't say he's demanding.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, GG said:
Read Ronan Farrow's pieces on the Weinstein affair and how he was protected by the industry and powerful politicians. It's disgusting.
I don't care about Weinstein. I'm sure he's a scumbag and did it. What I am interested in is things like where you say he was being protected.
-
9 minutes ago, GG said:
Because there were recordings of the encounters, accusers filed police reports at the time, and everyone knew what was going on in real time!!! But other than that ...
Another thing to note is that while it's widely known that Trump has always had a loose interpretation of fidelity, none of his dalliances occurred with his underlings. Now compare that with the lecherous behavior of the people who are slinging the sharpest arrows at him. Even you have to admit there's no comparing an extramarital affair with a Playmate with a super-powerful boss forcing himself on his subordinates.
I'm only trying to discuss this as general accusations from the legal standpoint, and I like the idea that any accuser MUST file a police report if they are going to make an accusation public. I mean it's at least something to hold them to.
7 minutes ago, KRC said:Yeah...ignore that.
Don't need the peanut gallery to chime in when they have no idea what I'm discussing. I'm just trying to discuss what safeguards that the accuser and accused can do to protect themselves from rape or a false allegation.
-
10 minutes ago, Doc said:
Because she never had any to begin with?
If it was a setup it wouldn't have to be real dirt, much like in a drug deal rip it's baking soda not real cocaine. Even in the court of opinion the fake dirt would have been better ammo, and it would have left a backup plan of an actual crime if need be down the road. I mean that's how I or any logical criminal probably would have done it.
-
4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Obviously dragging his feet.
-
4 minutes ago, GG said:
How often does a rapist operate with a crew?
You're just solidifying my point. What made their stories more believable than Trump, Biden, and Kavanaugh's accusers?
...or for that matter any man, anytime, anywhere?
-
5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
I'm giving you the logical explanation for it -- you're just not seeing it yet because you're still laboring under the assumption that Trump/Russia was ever real. It never was. It was a piece of fiction created by the CIA, FBI, DOJ, and Obama White House in order to cover up a massive scandal uncovered by then acting NSA director Mike Rogers.
The logical explanation for why she'd try to sneak into a meeting under false pretenses is so that the meeting could then be weaponized by the media and the Clinton campaign to smear their opponent with accusations of "working with Russians" that would never stand up in court (but would in the court of public opinion during the height of election season).
It was a set up.
Then why didn't she offer up the dirt(fake or not), and finish the mission? You yourself said if they got intel it may have been a problem, so why would they stop just short of what their goal was. Again, no logical explanation for that.
-
19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Except his conviction in a court of law for those crimes...
The thing is how easy would it be for the victims to lie about it. There were no real "witnesses" other than him and the accusers. How many accusers does Trump have? I'm just saying this is a delicate issue.
-
8 minutes ago, Foxx said:
other than him making a whole lot of sense,
i mean, is that Jerry Stiller's brother? i thought he was gonna stroke out there for a bit.
https://twitter.com/AudreyAurus1/status/1252303264252641285
He's our new George Carlin.
-
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:
And that didn't happen in the meeting -- because the conversation was about Magnitsky/Adoptions, not the election. Thus, no crime was committed. Even if they had given the Trump campaign dirt in that meeting, it still wouldn't meet the bar of what you state above unless they didn't report it to the proper authorities. So we'll never know one way or the other what they would have done had they been given actionable intel.
But you're missing the bigger picture.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that if the FBI and USIC were so worried that NV was a Russian operative looking to disrupt the 2016 election, as they say now, that they moved mountains to not only let the woman into the country, but to assure she made that meeting? Isn't that strange to you?
Isn't it also strange that the same woman met with Glenn Simpson immediately before and after that meeting when Simpson himself testified he doesn't speak Russian and she doesn't speak English? Does the pre-existing connection to Natalia and Fusion GPS not stand out as strange as well in light of everything that came out after that meeting?
Yes it's strange, but that's all it is at this point. The keyword I think your missing is implied promise. I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, but it's sticky. I also believe, but can't prove they did give intel, but it wasn't what he thought it would be. There's no logical explanation to think that she'd try to sneak in a meeting under false pretenses, and get a warm audience.
-
8 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
If I hear one more ad for anything (from cars to mattresses) say "during these tough times" or "remember, we're all in this together" I gonna ***** shoot the TV/radio.
I was taking a walk yesterday and a woman "dove" into the bushes to avoid me. I'm not going to get used to this. And this is not going away anytime soon.
Brooo, every single one. I read an article about how ridiculous it was going to be, and it's living up to it.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:
Adoptions is what Trump Jr said Natalia discussed. That's why he left. He went there under the pretense of hearing about Clinton. This is clear in his testimony to Congress. There's a big difference between what you're stating and what actually happened.
Sorry I added this later:
Also, some may disagree with your assertion it's legal: A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
-
7 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
He didn't perjure himself. He spent 27 hours before congress testifying with everyone trying to get him to do precisely that -- but he didn't.
Because meeting with people claiming to have dirt on your opponent isn't a crime. Even if they're Russians.
He said it was about Russian adoptions. Was that the truth?
Also, some may disagree with your assertion it's legal: A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
-
6 minutes ago, B-Man said:
If anyone that wanted a test could get a test, we'd be able to tell who was sick and who was healthy. I'm not saying we'd have a test for everyone even if he did order it right away, but I think this was what he should have used war powers for. The sooner we get tests the better.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
Yes. I dislike how he has divided the country through inflammatory rhetoric. I dislike the tax giveaway to the rich. I dislike the fact that, dividends aside, I've had dead money in index funds for the past 3.5 years. I dislike the fact that, instead of attempting to improve healthcare, he pursued a strategy of repeal without a plan to replace. (Ultimately, of course, that strategy failed.) I dislike the fact that, instead of pursuing meaningful border security, he castigated people opposed to his foolish and static sea-to-sea barrier. I dislike the example he has set for our country. I dislike the tarnish he brings to his office. I dislike Depression-era unemployment. And I really dislike his cavalier approach to the pandemic, which made what would have been a difficult situation significantly worse.
But if he moves from those positions, he loses his base. So he's kind of his own Frankenstein at this point. Some politicians can get away with some things unpopular, but they'd be the dog who didn't get its treat if he did it to them. He wouldn't lose many, but he can't afford to lose any.
5 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:You forgot to mention that it's his constitutional "absolute authority." Let's hear from the rule of law crowd on that one -
He really blundered on that one. It gave him no out. Either he admits he doesn't have the power, or he takes the blame if it fails. Only his base will be dumb enough to blame the governors if this fails, because he had the authority, and he didn't use it.
-
19 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
It was an open secret to the point of being a running punchline on multiple shows. Because you had multiple actresses, assistants, and producers relaying their stories to their set-families day in and day out.
Not sure why you're going so far out of your way to defend a man who was convicted guilty of these crimes by a jury.
I'm not defending him per se. I'm making a point that besides what some women said about him, you really don't have any proof. Just trying to bring to light what a tricky situation this whole sexual assault thing really is. If he were Trump, he'd have said all these women are mad, because he didn't give them roles. It definitely deserves more attention than who's using which bathroom.
-
47 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
I believe Don Jr went into the meeting hoping to get dirt on his father's opponent. The meeting was designed to bait him with just that promise.
(But that also is not illegal)
So he perjured himself? Do we have to go to Ghouliani's tree of the poisonous fruit again?
Btw, thanks for your honesty
-
1 minute ago, Albwan said:
Why don't they just cut the crapcake.
"CLOSE EVERYTHING AND HIDE UNTIL TRUMP IS GONE"
Don't forget, Trump has absolute authority to open back up, but he decided to punt. Now he has to rely on the defense. If he thought they are keeping it shut down to keep him from re-election, then he can use his absolute authority. So if he thought punting put the onus on the governors, then his own big mouth/ego got the best of him once again.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:
He's been doing quite well during this, in my opinion. Today, he did not cover himself in glory. Today was pretty terrible.
I think he's doing good too, but it's showtime now. How he handles this transition will be key. As for the question in the tweet, I wish he could have said for those who been living beyond their means, that's on you. For those who really need a job, I'm sorry, but there are places hiring for essential workers. It's harsh, but it's true.
-
1
-
Trump and Russia
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I'm sorry, but the way the law is phrased I think Don Jr did break the law, but I'm not trying to pick on just him. Sure he should get a better deal than the officials who framed him, but he still did it. Maybe he can argue entrapment, but that's up to the courts. Now, the REAL issue is none of them are likely to face any music. They protect each other, and live under the guise that it makes the country look better if we just let it slide. I'm not about that.