• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

USA Politics Thunderdome

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I guess I am confused. It's only bad to pay for and disseminate false information on a political candidate if it is disclosed to the public? But if you leak it to the media or use it to bolster your FISA warrant application it's "A OK?" Is that how it works? If you want to argue that it's legal to do so, OK. If you are saying it's ethical or proper? I can't agree with you on that.
The Clinton campaign didn't hand off the info, from what I can see they didn't distribute it at all outside their campaign, the guy who was contracted did the investigating didit on his own. And the FBI used it among several other sources in a warrant application, just like they would use information from informants or all manner of sources, a search warrant mind you and not an arrest warrant.

I think you are connecting too many dots between all the folks involved, especially since none of it appears to have been used to the Clinton campaign's advantage, they appear not to have even tried since most of the information wasn't verified and bits are pretty fantastical at first blush.
 

robav8r

D-FENS
None
Contributor
The Clinton campaign didn't hand off the info, from what I can see they didn't distribute it at all outside their campaign, the guy who was contracted did the investigating didit on his own. And the FBI used it among several other sources in a warrant application, just like they would use information from informants or all manner of sources, a search warrant mind you and not an arrest warrant.

I think you are connecting too many dots between all the folks involved, especially since none of it appears to have been used to the Clinton campaign's advantage, they appear not to have even tried since most of the information wasn't verified and bits are pretty fantastical at first blush.
Flash - you might want to get your eyes checked . . . .
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
It’s odd how a group that accepted help from an adversary, won the presidency, stole a SCOTUS pick, and is currently trying its best to subvert a legitimate investigation is portraying itself as a victim.
 

fc2spyguy

loving my warm and comfy 214 blanket
pilot
Contributor
It’s odd how a group that accepted help from an adversary, won the presidency, stole a SCOTUS pick, and is currently trying its best to subvert a legitimate investigation is portraying itself as a victim.
Sounds like the liberal playbook, I know. If you’re referring to the nuclear option, just remember who decided that was okay back a few years ago.
 

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Off. Former Recruiter.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I was reminded recently our politics have become like a fan arguing balls and strikes, yelling at the ump, or lamenting an error turning a double play and not paying attention to the game. It is all about talking points, tweets, inarticulate statements, leaks, unsubstantiated charges, and people offering opinions like they are the only expert arbiter that matters. Everyone has lost the big picture. What is the score? Did your rival win that night? What's the magic number? How are the rehabs doing? Argue balls and strikes all you want. Your objection or the guy down the row with a loud opinion don't matter. Doesn't show up in any score book.

You guys are tedious, predictable, unpersuasive, and some of you outright rude, on this subject anyway. How about we all grab a beer and watch the game unfold, let the ump call the game as fairly as humanly possible, and support our team by being positive. I'd prefer not to sit next to the ignorant loud mouth who spills beer on my shoulder and keeps getting up to take a piss and buy nasty nachos and rub up my wife.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Sounds like the liberal playbook, I know. If you’re referring to the nuclear option, just remember who decided that was okay back a few years ago.
No, I’m referring to not even having hearings on a nominee for nearly a year.

We used to have norms that made the government actually work. A largely one-sided movement has decided to shred them. That, almost as much the president’s irresponsibility, is what is going to make this country nearly ungovernable for a long time.
 
No, I’m referring to not even having hearings on a nominee for nearly a year.

We used to have norms that made the government actually work. A largely one-sided movement has decided to shred them. That, almost as much the president’s irresponsibility, is what is going to make this country nearly ungovernable for a long time.
You don't think Democrats will make moves to restore these moves.
 

ChuckMK23

Former H-46 Driver
pilot
All this talk about Russia and collusion and other shit. The only proven tie with money and Russia is Hillary’s campaign via a former British spie and a dossier full of shit.
I disagree - we are talking full on foreign policy goal by Putin - the collusion with the Trump campaign was carefully and deliberately aligned - just as it was in Italy, and fostering colluding with the Brexit folks as well. Putin of all people gets the sentimental resentment of lower middle class in Europe and here.


I am especially grateful of our representative republic and the controls from the evils of Joe and Jane six pack, blue collar types propensity to be influenced by emotional tyrants like Trump, Putin, Theresa May , etc.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Every day, with every new revelation and every Tweet, the idea that the Trump campaign wasn’t knowingly in bed with Russia becomes more and more untenable. How many of you are falling back to the “it wasn’t a crime anyway?”
 

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Off. Former Recruiter.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor


I am especially grateful of our representative republic and the controls from the evils of Joe and Jane six pack, blue collar types propensity to be influenced by emotional tyrants like Trump, Putin, Theresa May , etc.
Really? Plenty of the folks on the left live their entire lives based on emotion, how something makes them feel or look to their friends. In my view it is far more likely your Joe and Jane six pack are more interested in quantifiable facts, like getting a raise, a tax break, a new job, more variety in health insurance, expansion of the business where they work, safe neighborhoods, quality schools, etc. They are less likely to be concerned with what people think of them because of who they voted for, feel righteous for voting for a minority, be concerned over what people SAY other countries think of America or it's president, feel obligated to take in and support every poor soul in the world that simply utters the word asylum.

America's blue collar types are closer to the solutions to many of the problems plaquing this country than the suits in DC or at some consultancy or university. That is because they know the problem intimately versus pin heads who are ultimately insulated from many of America's problems. Most of the people that are expected to solve out problems send their kids to great schools, maybe even private, they live in safe neighborhoods, they have plenty of disposable income, work in a job that is a near guarantee of employment as long as they like, and can still go to the doctor they had 8 years ago. The non Joe six pack (elites?) don't suffer the consequences of ill-fated solutions dreamed up without consulting people who are thought to be incapable of anything but the mundane drudgery of the economy and society that the elites consume without thought. Having been subjected to the ideas that come out of DC, Jane six pack and her family are less likely to be swayed by the elites' pronouncements that the problem is "complicated", "nuanced", "multilayered", "out of reach", "part of a bigger problem", "needs more funding, still", or anything else that reserves the right to solve a problem to politicians, bureaucrats, and academics, who are far more proficient at spending money than solving problems.
 
Top