[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P5JFUF9DO0[/youtube]
imagine how cool it would have been if all those people hadn’t been brainwashed by the big lie, and then we wouldn’t be looking at a loss of overall liberty as a result of their actions on jan 6.
If Trump had’ve won, you wouldn’t be facing an overall loss of liberty.
Antifa and BLM insurrected for 7 months because of democrat lies, yet Trump didn’t use that as a pretext to burn the constitution.
K: in fact, had IQ45 won, we would all be facing an overall loss of liberty…
recall that IQ45 justice department tried to gain access to reporter’s
information such as e-mails and other electronic information…
they even tried to gain access to members of congress aids electronic information…
such as e-mails and the like…
that is a major loss of freedom… you are just too much of a cult member to
see this…
Kropotkin
That being said, I’m not a Trumpist, perhaps a 3rd party would’ve been better than both of them.
An individual act of spying is not equivalent to passing laws that erode the constitution.
You don’t think dems spy on reps or that the US gov illegally spies on everyone all the time?
TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is the real cult.
K: how cute… defending losing our liberties as "an individual act of spying’’ and then
the common defense of the right, what aboutism… what about Obama or what about
Dems or what about…what about, what about ,what about…
they never answer a question by saying, IQ45 justice department did in fact,
investigate political opponents by seeking their electronic information…
reporters and the aids of congressmen… just simply deny it and then say,
what about, what about, what about… the defense of the lazy…
whataboutism…never admit that your guy might be wrong or actually
committed an illegal act… because that is “weakness” and we can never show
“weakness” that is one of the cardinal sins of the right wing, showing “weakness”
what is the one thing that IQ45 is always babbling about, showing “weakness”
he would rather die then show any “Weakness”…the other guy, party is
‘‘weak’’… that is the ultimate crime for IQ45 and his followers…being ‘‘weak’’…
but the right fails to see that their dependence on ‘‘whataboutism’’
is weakness… for it fails to accept responsibility or accountability for one’s
actions… ‘‘whataboutism’’ is a denial of one’s responsibility…
what is a good working definition of a conservative?
one who refuses to take any kind of responsibility for
their actions or beliefs…
Kropotkin
Not defending anything, just sayin what your guy did, shredding the constitution, is worse.
O’Biden isn’t “making a law” he is just doing it - and as long as he focuses at the right (even worse than Mr Obama did) the MSM will protect him, help him, and ensure that Congress doesn’t stop him - and their Supreme Court is a maybe. He won’t do anything against the Left socialists.
Jailing your political opponents is far worse than spying.
[b]More willful blindness by the media on spying by Obama administration
The Washington press corps seems engaged in a collective demonstration of the legal concept of willful blindness, or deliberately ignoring the facts, following the release of yet another declassified document which directly refutes prior statements about the investigation into Russia collusion. The document shows that FBI officials used a national security briefing of then candidate Donald Trump and his top aides to gather possible evidence for Crossfire Hurricane, its code name for the Russia investigation.
It is astonishing that the media refuses to see what is one of the biggest stories in decades. The Obama administration targeted the campaign of the opposing party based on false evidence. The media covered Obama administration officials ridiculing the suggestions of spying on the Trump campaign and of improper conduct with the Russia investigation. When Attorney General William Barr told the Senate last year that he believed spying did occur, he was lambasted in the media, including by James Comey and others involved in that investigation. The mocking “wow” response of the fired FBI director received extensive coverage.
The new document shows that, in summer 2016, FBI agent Joe Pientka briefed Trump campaign advisers Michael Flynn and Chris Christie over national security issues, standard practice ahead of the election. It had a discussion of Russian interference. But this was different. The document detailing the questions asked by Trump and his aides and their reactions was filed several days after that meeting under Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor, the FBI investigation of Flynn. The two FBI officials listed who approved the report are Kevin Clinesmith and Peter Strzok.
Clinesmith is the former FBI lawyer responsible for the FISA surveillance conducted on members of the Trump campaign. He opposed Trump and sent an email after the election declaring “viva the resistance.” He is now under review for possible criminal charges for altering a FISA court filing. The FBI used Trump adviser Carter Page as the basis for the original FISA application, due to his contacts with Russians. After that surveillance was approved, however, federal officials discredited the collusion allegations and noted that Page was a CIA asset. Clinesmith had allegedly changed the information to state that Page was not working for the CIA.
Strzok is the FBI agent whose violation of FBI rules led Justice Department officials to refer him for possible criminal charges. Strzok did not hide his intense loathing of Trump and famously referenced an “insurance policy” if Trump were to win the election. After FBI officials concluded there was no evidence of any crime by Flynn at the end of 2016, Strzok prevented the closing of the investigation as FBI officials searched for any crime that might be used to charge the incoming national security adviser.
Documents show Comey briefed President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden on the investigation shortly before the inauguration of Trump. When Comey admitted the communications between Flynn and Russian officials appeared legitimate, Biden reportedly suggested using the Logan Act, a law widely seen as unconstitutional and never been used to successfully convict a single person, as an alternative charge against Flynn. The memo contradicts eventual claims by Biden that he did not know about the Flynn investigation. Let us detail some proven but mostly unseen facts.
First, the Russia collusion allegations were based in large part on the dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The Clinton campaign repeatedly denied paying for the dossier until after the election, when it was confronted with irrefutable evidence that the money had been buried among legal expenditures. As New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman wrote, “Folks involved in funding this lied about it and with sanctimony for a year.”
Second, FBI agents had warned that dossier author Christopher Steele may have been used by Russian intelligence to plant false information to disrupt the election. His source for the most serious allegations claims that Steele misrepresented what he had said and that it was little more than rumors that were recast by Steele as reliable intelligence.
Third, the Obama administration had been told that the basis for the FISA application was dubious and likely false. Yet it continued the investigation, and then someone leaked its existence to the media. Another declassified document shows that, after the New York Times ran a leaked story on the investigation, even Strzok had balked at the account as misleading and inaccurate. His early 2017 memo affirmed that there was no evidence of any individuals in contact with Russians. This information came as the collusion stories were turning into a frenzy that would last years.
Fourth, the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and inspectors general found no evidence of collusion or knowing contact between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. What inspectors general did find were false statements or possible criminal conduct by Comey and others. While unable to say it was the reason for their decisions, they also found statements of animus against Trump and his campaign by the FBI officials who were leading the investigation. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified he never would have approved renewal of the FISA surveillance and encouraged further investigation into such bias.
Finally, Obama and Biden were aware of the investigation, as were the administration officials who publicly ridiculed Trump when he said there was spying on his campaign. Others, like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, declared they had evidence of collusion but never produced it. Countless reporters, columnists, and analysts still continue to deride, as writer Max Boot said it, the spinning of “absurd conspiracy theories” about how the FBI “supposedly spied on the Trump campaign.”
Willful blindness has its advantages. The media covered the original leak and the collusion narrative, despite mounting evidence that it was false. They filled hours of cable news shows and pages of print with a collusion story discredited by the FBI. Virtually none of these journalists or experts have acknowledged that the collusion leaks were proven false, let alone pursue the troubling implications of national security powers being used to target the political opponents of an administration. But in Washington, success often depends not on what you see but what you can unsee.[/b]
[b]Macron And Merkel Condemn U.S. Spying After New Wiretapping Report
In a renewed wave of tension among Western allies, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged President Joe Biden on Monday to respond to a report from Danish state media alleging the U.S. received help from Denmark, a staunch U.S. and European ally, to spy on Merkel and other high-level European politicians for two years last decade.
In comments made Monday after a bilateral virtual summit between France and Germany, Macron said claims that Denmark’s secret service helped the U.S. National Security Agency spy on Merkel and other German politicians between 2012 and 2014 were “not acceptable amongst allies” if true.
Macron’s critique came after a Sunday report from Danish broadcaster Danmarks Radio alleging the NSA coordinated with the Danish Defence Intelligence Service from 2012 to 2014 to eavesdrop on telephone calls and text messages between European politicians by intercepting data running through Danish Internet cables.
“There is no room for suspicion between us,” Macron said Monday, adding that he requested Danish and U.S. officials “provide all the information on these revelations” and that he’s “waiting for complete clarity” on the matter.
“Apart from establishing the facts, this is a good starting point to arrive at relations that are truly based in mutual trust,” Merkel said Monday while doubling down on Macron’s demands for a response from the Biden administration, which has not yet commented on the matter.
The two were joined by a handful of officials from other countries the U.S. also allegedly spied on with Denmark’s help, including Sweden and Norway, with Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hulqvist telling Swedish media Sunday he “demanded full information” from the U.S and wants “the cards on the table.”
Spokespeople for the National Security Agency and Biden administration did not immediately respond to Forbes’ requests for comments.
“These potential facts, they are serious, they must be checked,” French Minister for European Affairs Clement Beaune told a radio station in France Monday, saying the claims may even prompt diplomatic protests if true.
Though it was revealed during Obama’s presidency that his administration spied on Merkel and other European officials, the Sunday report adds a new layer of controversy by claiming the NSA coordinated with a Western ally to do the spying. After the initial spying reports in 2013, Obama acknowledged that the actions “damaged [German] impressions” of its U.S. government allies and their joint cooperation on foreign intelligence. He reportedly apologized to Merkel and promised not to spy on the chancellor again.[/b]
In my view, most dems, like most reps, are corporatists, not socialists, nor capitalists.
They’re also globalists, hawks and technocrats.
They sow discord between men and women, races and political tribes.
There’s barely any socialism in North America since Reagan, Mulroney and their successors dismantled it in the 80s and 90s.
I’m not criticizing the establishment from the ‘right’ or ‘left’.
The establishment is far right, but it’s not your grandfather’s right, these people don’t care about blood, soil, color, creed, throne or altar.
I’m not so much defending Trump in and of himself, as I’m defending him from Trump Derangement Syndrome, which demonizes him and turns dems, any dem, even Biden, into saviors.
I encourage everyone, right, left and center to support 3rd parties.
Since none of the socialist dems are national socialists and international corporatists consolidate influence into a global monopoly of power - what is the difference between a socialist and a globalist?
Dems by and large are corporate globalists, not social nationalists, nor libertarians.
They’re not social globalists either.
Reps are largely cut from the same cloth.
They’re monetarists, banksters print money from nothing loan it to gov @interest.
Vast majority of welfare is corporate goes to big business.
Big business and overclass underregulated and undertaxed, small business and middleclass overregulated and overtaxed.
Poor and working class barely have enough to live off.
Things were better for poor, working and middle class pre-Reagan/Thatcher/Mulroney.
“poor and working class barely have enough to live off.”
What a bunch of bologna. They could easily take one or two more jobs to make more money. I think it’s been scientifically proven that a person only needs four hours of sleep a night, so that leaves 19 hours per day (one hour to eat and bathe) available for labor.
Holy shit I just thought of something. You think it’s bad here on erf? Imagine what would be considered a normal working day length on a planet run by capitalists that took 53 hours to rotate 360 degrees in its axis.
Bro they’d be working like 35 hours a day or some shit.
In what way are they not? What does the social globalist want that the corporate globalist doesn’t?
It seems to me they both want their little elite club to rule the world. Corporations merely provide the money for it that taxation can’t. Even if a member of the club hates corporations he knows that he can’t succeed without them. And the corporatist merely taxes the population in a different way - through price manipulation. They both appear to want exactly the same result but one says “tax” and the other says “price” - and they get together - set global policies together (Google helped fund the creation of COVID even more than Dr Fauci).
I don’t believe that those policies is what caused the degradation. You appear to believe the nonsense that “taxing corporations” does anything other than destroy countries.
The lie is dems are social globalists and reps are conservative nationalists.
The lie works essentially the same way in Canada and the UK with liberals and conservatives, Labour and Tories.
The truth is taxes and/or the deficit explode(s), dem or rep, but it’s being spent on corporations, gov and the military, not the people.
Left or right no one wants this, and so it’s time to ditch the two-party dictatorship and give outsiders a chance.
Rather than get into an argument with you over socialism, we’ve had thousands of arguments about that on iLP, I’m just pointing out while the mainstream left raise taxes, the mainstream right raise the deficit.
The money is largely being spent on the overclass, no one wants that, and so whatever your politics, it’s time to support a 3rd party.
[b]“(President Ronald) Reagan took the deficit from 70 billion to 175 billion.” This is more or less accurate. The federal deficit went from about $78.9 billion at the beginning of Reagan’s presidency to $152.6 billion at the end of it. At points between 1983 and 1986, the deficit was actually more than $175 billion.
“(George H.W.) Bush 41 took it to 300 billion.” Close, but not exactly. The number was around $255 billion at the end of Bush’s term. The deficit spiked at around $290.3 billion the year before he left office.
“(Bill) Clinton got it to zero.” This is true. During his presidency, Clinton managed to zero out the deficit and end his term with a $128.2 billion surplus.
“(George W.) Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion.” This is in the ballpark. Ignoring the fact that he actually started his presidency with a surplus, Bush left office in 2009 with a federal deficit of roughly $1.41 trillion.
“(Barack) Obama halved it to 600 billion.” This is essentially accurate. Obama left the presidency with a deficit of approximately $584.6 billion, which is more than halving $1.41 trillion. The deficit was even lower in 2015 at around $441.9 billion.
We had to look for more recent data to back up Cole’s allegation that “Trump’s got it back to a trillion.”
A Treasury Department statement from June put the federal deficit at about $747.1 billion so far this fiscal year. But the agency also reported that Washington is on track to post a $1.1 trillion deficit by the end of September, which backs up Cole’s claim.[/b]