They're Eating The Dogs Presidential Thread

[Memorex]

Wow. I've missed this place. Sort of.

I'd like some Trump supporters to explain, with some details, why (if true) Trump's alleged Russian electioneering and racketeering isn't (hypothetically) nearly "as bad" as the Clinton emails.

Clinton broke the law. That is factual as laid out by Comey and ya know, common sense.

I have seen nothing yet in the Russian thing that indicates Trump was involved at any level. In fact, a large chorus of both Democrats and Republicans have indicated they have seen no evidence of collusion. No one single thing has been presented yet and when you look at the basis of the arguments, they don't stand.

I imagine you hear talking points and then leave it at that. The Piss dossier - paid for by Dems with so far zero factual basis by all accounts. Telling Russians to release her emails - a funny little quip that was meant to be humor (and it was humorous to be honest). Russians hacking the DNC - Wikileaks has all but said it was not Russia. IP and data transfer speeds indicate it was local. The only single entity to identify that it was Russians was a third party company that are large donors to the Democrat party. Then the FBI, and two other agencies used that analysis to form theirs and then that somehow was stretched into 17, which is a total myth. Those agencies have yet to even look at the server. Russian meeting in Trump tower - by all accounts, from every side - was nothing out of the ordinary. There is evidence of it being an attempt at a setup, but to this date, not one single ounce of evidence of any wrongdoing.

And here is the biggest kicker of all - even if Trump did collude with the Russians, it is not a crime. There is no law on the books that outlaws working with foreigners to shape and election. Hillary's team did it with the Ukraine, Obama did it to interfere in the Israeli elections... It goes on. Russians have been trying to shape our elections for decades. Why didn't it seem to bother anyone then?

There are significant laws on the books that restrict how classified information is handled. Hillary and staff broke many of those laws - time and time again. That is not in question. That is not debated. So with one there is a clear crime and cover-up, and the other is a bunch of what ifs with no basis in fact. You cannot win on this argument.

Now, why would you ask "if true..." Are any Trump supporters saying "If this is true, it's nothing...?" Even though it really is nothing in that it is not illegal. The fact is, Trump supporters and centrists like me are simply saying it's not true. There is a difference. I'm tired of hearing about it. I can't even turn on my TV anymore. This is the Obama birth certificate times 1,000. And then some. It's old, boring, intellectually devoid of any value... It makes America look foolish. To spend that much time and money on things like this.

And who suffers? Americans who just want Washington to do their job for a change. You think Trump got elected because people were happy with the status quo? Nope - and more and more of this BS only makes it more so. Democrats have to stop calling names and get to work. And Republicans need to grow a spine. If they don't knock it off, 2018 is going to be a bloodbath for the establishment on both sides.

What's funny to me, by all accounts these investigations have only found wrong doing (i.e. unmasking, monitoring of a president-elect, etc) by the dems and have only so far cleared any original targets. Who are the folks that have had to resign? Who are the folks where we know there was wrong doing? I mean, watch what continues to happen with ol' Zuckerberg. That dude is getting it from both sides at this point.

Americans would like to know if Russia interfered. And that's it. They do not want the witch hunt and partisan BS. It's old.

[Memorex]

By the way - I saw a comment Andrew made about Trump importing child sex slaves. This is the level of debate we now have. It's really disgusting that a grown man allows himself to become so affected by a foreign election that he, as a business man, publicly spews this stuff. I read it and I was like what the fuck, this is a level of insanity that I didn't think Drew was capable of. It really causes someone to look and say wow, could he really be that manipulated?

It's being so angered that something didn't go your way, that you are willing to put aside all reason and just throw up whatever rumors are written about on shady sites. Drew needs to get a grip because it's no way to run a business. I lost a lot of respect for him, that's for sure.

I also feel the same about the weird stories about Obama. It's like come on, not everything you read is true. Chill out. I read a story this weekend that Hollywood wanted to close down for a month to get Trump to quit. I, as an educated grown man knew within 1.7 seconds that it was a bullshit story. And it was. But others ran with it. Commented about it. Probably told their friends about it. It's like, think people. You sound like a bunch of fucking idiots. As far as some of Drews latest ramblings, it comes off as unhinged. Really sad to see.

[Monker]

By the way - I saw a comment Andrew made about Trump importing child sex slaves. This is the level of debate we now have. It's really disgusting that a grown man allows himself to become so affected by a foreign election that he, as a business man, publicly spews this stuff. I read it and I was like what the fuck, this is a level of insanity that I didn't think Drew was capable of. It really causes someone to look and say wow, could he really be that manipulated?

It's being so angered that something didn't go your way, that you are willing to put aside all reason and just throw up whatever rumors are written about on shady sites. Drew needs to get a grip because it's no way to run a business. I lost a lot of respect for him, that's for sure.

I also feel the same about the weird stories about Obama. It's like come on, not everything you read is true. Chill out. I read a story this weekend that Hollywood wanted to close down for a month to get Trump to quit. I, as an educated grown man knew within 1.7 seconds that it was a bullshit story. And it was. But others ran with it. Commented about it. Probably told their friends about it. It's like, think people. You sound like a bunch of fucking idiots. As far as some of Drews latest ramblings, it comes off as unhinged. Really sad to see.

That is what REAL 'fake news" does. It is DESIGNED to inflame and be reposted and spread about. THAT is why I do not read so many of the links here, because so much of it is fake news.

[Monker]

What's funny to me, by all accounts these investigations have only found wrong doing (i.e. unmasking, monitoring of a president-elect, etc) by the dems and have only so far cleared any original targets. Who are the folks that have had to resign? Who are the folks where we know there was wrong doing? I mean, watch what continues to happen with ol' Zuckerberg. That dude is getting it from both sides at this point.

This is flat out NOT TRUE. You have Jr. essentially admitting to collusion with the memo about the Russian meeting. You have DJT obstructing justice in various ways...from firing Comey to writing the response from Jr. to the above memo. You have Flynn and Manafort both in deep shit because of their Russian, and Turkey, business ties which they failed to disclose. And, some reporting showed Manafort being involved in money laundering. So, to day there is no crime, that the President is not involved, and nobody has quit or been fired, is just NOT TRUE.

Yes, collusion in itself is not a crime. But, you do not need a crime to be impeached. Also, colluding with Russia to affect the election results COULD be seen as espionage, which IS a crime.

Zuckerberg is going to be put under a huge amount of heat...but I doubt anything will happen to him. Facebook will probably have to monitor things a bit closer but other than that, I don't see anything happening to him. Flynn and Manafort will be having issues...Trump Jr. possible too, and Flynn Jr., it seems. And, if some of them have stories to tell about Trump, he'll be in trouble, too.

[slucero]

What's funny to me, by all accounts these investigations have only found wrong doing (i.e. unmasking, monitoring of a president-elect, etc) by the dems and have only so far cleared any original targets. Who are the folks that have had to resign? Who are the folks where we know there was wrong doing? I mean, watch what continues to happen with ol' Zuckerberg. That dude is getting it from both sides at this point.

This is flat out NOT TRUE. You have Jr. essentially admitting to collusion with the memo about the Russian meeting. You have DJT obstructing justice in various ways...from firing Comey to writing the response from Jr. to the above memo. You have Flynn and Manafort both in deep shit because of their Russian, and Turkey, business ties which they failed to disclose. And, some reporting showed Manafort being involved in money laundering. So, to day there is no crime, that the President is not involved, and nobody has quit or been fired, is just NOT TRUE.

Yes, collusion in itself is not a crime. But, you do not need a crime to be impeached. Also, colluding with Russia to affect the election results COULD be seen as espionage, which IS a crime.

Zuckerberg is going to be put under a huge amount of heat...but I doubt anything will happen to him. Facebook will probably have to monitor things a bit closer but other than that, I don't see anything happening to him. Flynn and Manafort will be having issues...Trump Jr. possible too, and Flynn Jr., it seems. And, if some of them have stories to tell about Trump, he'll be in trouble, too.

So according to your own post... the best you have is "coulda".....

[Monker]

So Trumps tweet from many months ago was right. He was bugged.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/ ... index.html

Why do you people insist on exaggerating and lying?

No where in this article is it reported that Trump Tower had its "wires tapped". Manafort was wiretapped, not Trump. It's "unclear" if that included Trump Tower. However, both the Justice department and the FBI said their is no evidence that "Trump Tower had its wires tapped." Once again, Trump was lying.

Now we know Manafort is going to be indicted. So, that is one person who may want to make a deal.

[Monker]

What's funny to me, by all accounts these investigations have only found wrong doing (i.e. unmasking, monitoring of a president-elect, etc) by the dems and have only so far cleared any original targets. Who are the folks that have had to resign? Who are the folks where we know there was wrong doing? I mean, watch what continues to happen with ol' Zuckerberg. That dude is getting it from both sides at this point.

This is flat out NOT TRUE. You have Jr. essentially admitting to collusion with the memo about the Russian meeting. You have DJT obstructing justice in various ways...from firing Comey to writing the response from Jr. to the above memo. You have Flynn and Manafort both in deep shit because of their Russian, and Turkey, business ties which they failed to disclose. And, some reporting showed Manafort being involved in money laundering. So, to day there is no crime, that the President is not involved, and nobody has quit or been fired, is just NOT TRUE.

Yes, collusion in itself is not a crime. But, you do not need a crime to be impeached. Also, colluding with Russia to affect the election results COULD be seen as espionage, which IS a crime.

Zuckerberg is going to be put under a huge amount of heat...but I doubt anything will happen to him. Facebook will probably have to monitor things a bit closer but other than that, I don't see anything happening to him. Flynn and Manafort will be having issues...Trump Jr. possible too, and Flynn Jr., it seems. And, if some of them have stories to tell about Trump, he'll be in trouble, too.

So according to your own post... the best you have is "coulda".....

As I have said, and you should know, you do not need to be accused of a crime to be impeached.

[steveo777]

Just because some people don't like him does not equate to impeachment. Lets just impeach a president because he does not serve our agenda, is never going to work for the left. Not enough power in that party to get even close to that. Trump will serve two terms and in the end, will have a legacy that will blow Obama's all to hell. All economic indicators say so. If you disagree, please show me on the doll where Trump has hurt you. Cuck-a-doodle-doo!

[The_Noble_Cause]

Just because some people don't like him does not equate to impeachment. Lets just impeach a president because he does not serve our agenda, is never going to work for the left. Not enough power in that party to get even close to that. Trump will serve two terms and in the end, will have a legacy that will blow Obama's all to hell. All economic indicators say so. If you disagree, please show me on the doll where Trump has hurt you. Cuck-a-doodle-doo!

Agreed. Great post.

[The_Noble_Cause]

When are you all going to admit that you were repeatedly lied to.

Clinton special prosecutor - not happening.

Mexico paying for wall - not happening

A wall on the Mexican border - is now reduced to mending the current fence, which Obama had already started doing.

Repeal NAFTA - Last we heard it was going to be modernized, not repealed...but lately we have not heard anything about even doing that.

repeal DACA - repealed and congress given six months to replace it. Now Trump is working with DEMOCRATS to pass a replacement...and his words sound like he is FOR DACA.

Easily repeal/replace Obamacare - Not as easy as he promised. Instead of owning up to it, he blamed his own party.

KC posted that he may even get back into the Paris climate accord.

Lie, after lie, after lie...that you were told on the campaign trail to get your support, to get cheers in his rallies, and appease radicals.

You all STILL can't see through it.

You can do this about EVERY administration. Obama ran on closing GITMO, ending Middle East wars, passing card check, ending Patriot Act etc. So what happened? Obama once said the following: “Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” Nobody remembers if Reagan accomplished more legislatively than those guys. Similarly, Trump has already reshaped politics in a way that Obama and Clinton did not.

[Boomchild]

[Seven Wishes]

Wow. What moral nihilism.

You preach about individualism and "limited government" until something comes along you think needs to be banned/outlawed/regulated and you do a 180. How exactly are "state's rights" synonymous with self-determination? Wanting only regulation at the state level is still supporting centralized government. Also, your support of ipseity doesn't seem to apply to women, minorities, moderates, or liberals. Staggeringly hypocritical.

Missed you fuckers. Let's get this debate rolling.

[Boomchild]

Boomchild, you made a post to me last week about Trump doing nothing about Clinton,Abaden, Comey, Lynch, Lerner, Rice, ect when facts are plainly there proving beyond a doubt criminal actions. I was listening to Rush today and he had a caller going off about it, even though he wanted to talk about what a out standing job Trump was doing for Texas and Florida and you don't hear boo about it in the Main Stream Media, and won't. Rush said there is a growing movment to have Sessions booted out for simply not doing his job and it's growing by leaps and bounds. Sessions should be looking into it and bringing charges, and isn't. Maybe Trump could be more vocal about it.

You won't see me complaining about replacing Sessions as AG. I wasn't that keen on his appointment to begin with. I consider him part of the "old guard" of establishment politicians. I suspected that he would be looking to protect people. Based on his decision not look into the IRS situation further I think suggest just that. I would have preferred someone like Trey Gowdy. I think he would actually look into the things we have been discussing. Having said that, I think it would be better NOT to appoint anyone that is or has been a politician for AG. I think it would be better to look outside the "beltway". Maybe a current or previous state AG. The main issue is the culture that has developed in our federal government. Especially in the Judicial Branch. A culture of the law doesn't apply to the politically powerful. I also think it's a tall order to expect one administration or one AG to clean it up.

By the way, you were also talking about taking sides and Rush addressed that also. He said Global Socialists have had power in Washington far longer then people know. They hide it by making a show of Republicans and Democrats waging war with each other when they hold power on both sides of the isle. They are out to destroy Trump. Not just impeach him, but destroy him to teach a lesson to anyone who would dare to take them on ever again. I agree with him 100%. You can not be on both sides without being on the side of globalist socialists. You are a Federalist or not. A Federalist is a believer in States Rights, not Federal Control over all.

I think you may have missed my point on this subject. When I was talking about the "us and them" mentality, I was referring to we the citizens. It is the goal of those mentioned above to divide the citizens. To drive a wedge between us. So that we are distracted and making it impossible for us to fight the real enemy. We need to work on coming to together on the things we as citizens can agree on and agree to disagree on the things we don't. If the division between the citizens continues like it has been, we have already lost this country.

[Monker]

Wow. What moral nihilism.

You preach about individualism and "limited government" until something comes along you think needs to be banned/outlawed/regulated and you do a 180. How exactly are "state's rights" synonymous with self-determination? Wanting only regulation at the state level is still supporting centralized government. Also, your support of ipseity doesn't seem to apply to women, minorities, moderates, or liberals. Staggeringly hypocritical.

Missed you fuckers. Let's get this debate rolling.

You are hitting the wrong notes. You can tell you haven't been here for a while.

What is left here is a bunch of Trump zombies. If you want to start a debate, it has to be about globalism or about his nationalistic "America First" attitude. The people here essentialy repeat what the alt-right stands for, not the traditional conservative. They have followed their furhor to the alt-right.

But, there is still hypocrisy. In Trump's UN speach he goes on about putting America first, just as the other countries should put their country first. But, in practice, he tries to demand China do this and that to North Korea. He demands Russia do this and that with ISIS and Syria. Both are examples of pressuring other countries to do what AMERICA wants to further OUR goals...demanding they ignore what they may believe is best for their own country. Both are also examples of TRUMP's globalist ideas of teaming with other countries to obtain goals.

Almost everything Trump says is full of hypocrisy and lies.

And, IMO, the entire "globalist" theory is built on conspiracy theory and is mostly untrue anyway. It's like believing in Dianetics or weird crap like that...where you have to give up thinking for yourself and believe and do what somebody else tells you. I am still shocked that the people here can't even define globalism in their own words. Crazy.

[Monker]

Right Monker, just like your Russia bullshit, only that's falling apart faster then your reputation on here. Looks like you got caught up in pure Comey bullshit.

I don't care about my reputation here. I have never, ever, cared about my reputation on an online forum Well, except for when local BBS services were popular - because we all knew each other. But, you don't know me, and I don't care what you think of me.

The very fact that you actually believe that what Comey testified is "bullshit" goes to prove that you are nothing but a brain dead zombie. There is a very good case being made for obstruction of justice by Trump. He has NOT cooperated but instead has constantly lied and misdirected, even involving his own son. There was a quote that said that it seemed Trump had a list of how to prove obstruction of justice and he is going down the list one by one to ensure he hit every point so he could be accused, impeached, and convicted.

Saying he fired Comey due to his reputation - a lie and obstruction.
Saying he fired Comey due to Rosenfield's recommendation - a lie and obstruction.
Saying he decided to fire Comey due to the Russia investigation - the truth and obstruction
Threatening Muelher to stay away from investigating his business dealings - obstruction
The note and meeting with Russians - Trump writing the note LYING about it - obstruction.
Now Trump trying to influence the investigation by lying about Comey - obstruction.

WHEN are you going to get it? Trump is a lying piece of shit who does not deserve the HONOR of representing this country in any way. He has lied to his own supporters, repeatedly, to get where he is...as I already posted. He is not a 'deal maker', he is a corrupt salesman trying to make a buck at the cost of his own customers.

[Monker]

Time for Trump to dump Sessions and get a pitbull in there. Here you go F.F.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Andrew- ... id/778627/

Funny, I've been saying for YEARS that prior to the Patriot act, this is how the NSA spied on Americans.

It's LEGAL...nothing Napaltinano or anybody else could do about it - if it even happened.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Time for Trump to dump Sessions and get a pitbull in there. Here you go F.F.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Andrew- ... id/778627/

Funny, I've been saying for YEARS that prior to the Patriot act, this is how the NSA spied on Americans.

It's LEGAL...nothing Napaltinano or anybody else could do about it - if it even happened.

Actually, when this Napolitano story was discussed in this thread back in March, here is what you said....

Fox did a story that Obama asked Britain's version of the NSA to tap Trump's wires. All of this based on a story in BreitBart of invented BS of a connect the dots conspiracy theory.

Has BreitBart recanted that story? That is now a story that NOBODY believes. It is a story that has had INTERNATIONAL reponses from Britain. It is a story that ended up with the current President accusing the previous President of a felony. It is a story that ended up broadening federal investigations...spendint more taxpayer money and wasting the time of congress and the FBI.

[The_Noble_Cause]

and, IMO, the entire "globalist" theory is built on conspiracy theory and is mostly untrue anyway. It's like believing in Dianetics or weird crap like that...

LOL. So Clinton’s economist, Joseph Stiglitz, is a conspiracy theorist now? The idea of globalism has been around forever. It only seems like a conspiracy to you because you are an intellectual dumbass.

The people here essentialy repeat what the alt-right stands for, not the traditional conservative.

Thanks for essentially admitting that Trump is not your garden variety Bush-style neocon Republican. That is precisely why he won. On many issues, he ran to Hillary's left.

I am still shocked that the people here can't even define globalism in their own words. Crazy.

Actually, several of us gave you definitions. You just don't accept them. You are really in no position to be asking questions anyway. You have left all of these Russia-related inconsistencies completely unaddressed.


-ODNI report blamed Russia Today shows that were not even on the air.
-Cybertech firm, Crowdstrike, changing their findings on the hacked DNC server.
-Crowdstrike/DNC not permitting the servers to be examined.
-And now, most recently, the "17 agencies agree" lie has been blown up.

[tj]

The idea of globalism has been around forever.

At least 100 years. This was Wilson's dream with the League of Nations after WWI - "The War to End All Wars".

[Monker]

This is all side story bullshit. It took five minutes to look these up.

-ODNI report blamed Russia Today shows that were not even on the air.

That is because the ODNI report writers were idiots and did not know that Russia dates are in DD/MM/YYYY format and reported them as MM/DD/YYYY format. So a date of 3/7/2016 is REALLY July 3, 2017...but was reported as March 7, 2017.

And, where ever you got your info that the shows were not on should have known the above too...but it obviously fits their agenda - and yours - to show the programs were not even on air.

-Cybertech firm, Crowdstrike, changing their findings on the hacked DNC server.

They didn't. If you go to their site today they still blame Russia.

If this is the report you are talking about, then you are still wrong. They changed their comments on a report of a Ukranian hacked howitzers...which they said was connected to the DNC hacked because both had malware used by Fancy Bear. They walked back a lot of the rhetoric of the Ukranian report but I do not see where they walked back ANYTHING regarding the DNC.

And, BTW, the hacked howitzers are exactly how I say voting machines can be hacked...the malware is part of the software being loaded....either the targeting software, or the voting software, or the vote counting software. It's the exact same thing.

https://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-re ... 81411.html

-Crowdstrike/DNC not permitting the servers to be examined.

Perhaps you should ask why the FBI has not requested access to the servers:
http://nypost.com/2017/07/06/republican ... nc-server/

I would guess Crowd Strike already put in the same work that the FBI would have done and since Crowd Strike has been open with the info, there is no need to see the servers....unless you are a conspiracy theorist.

-And now, most recently, the "17 agencies agree" lie has been blown up.[/b]

And, you answered that yourself months ago. Many of those agencies to do not have the jurisdiction to even give an assessment. Still, the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, and Homeland Security all agree. (I think those are the five, going from memory here). That should be enough.

*ALL* of these points are bullshit by you - and you should know that. But, you are a Trump zombie and ditto head who would rather distract the world by focusing on bullshit then the very real issues that are out there.

[Monker]

The idea of globalism has been around forever.

At least 100 years. This was Wilson's dream with the League of Nations after WWI - "The War to End All Wars".

But, in today's world it is taken further. It is not 'globalism' to be pro-immigration. It's not globalism to be against building walls with our neighboring countries, or against deporting DACA members. That's bullshit. If you read KC's posts, essentially anybody who disagrees with the Trump agenda is a globalist. That's bullshit, too. If you really look into Booms posts, he believes in this so-called deep state groups who "really" control the government and they are globalists. Which is conspiracy theory bullshit.

Debating the merits of globalist thinking is one thing. But, we are WAY past that and into the realm of conspiracy theory and radical thinking. And, it seems to me many people are against "globalists" without even knowing what it is...they are simply repeating terms they hear and/or read.

I will also point out that their are certain things that REQUIRE global thinking. Whether you like it or not, we are in a global economy. That is never going to change. Whether you like it or not, how the countries of the world are allied forces a global thinking in how to deal with military crisis. Isolation in this modern world is not possible....and I think Trump is finding that out the hard way.

[Boomchild]

But, in today's world it is taken further. It is not 'globalism' to be pro-immigration. It's not globalism to be against building walls with our neighboring countries, or against deporting DACA members. That's bullshit. If you read KC's posts, essentially anybody who disagrees with the Trump agenda is a globalist. That's bullshit, too. If you really look into Booms posts, he believes in this so-called deep state groups who "really" control the government and they are globalists. Which is conspiracy theory bullshit.

I can't speak for others but when I'm talking about about globalist\globalism it has nothing to do with being or not being "pro-immigration". In fact, it is the tactic of some to label those that are fed up with our government's lack of action on ILLEGAL immigration as being "anti-immigration". Which is a falsehood. I as well as others have no issues with LEGAL immigration. It is logical that a government controls who, how and where enter this country. It is their obligation by law to take into account the security and economic impact of it. It also ensures that everyone looking to immigrate gets their fair shot at doing so. When it comes to ILLEGAL immigration it doesn't matter whether you feel it does or does not have a negative impact on this country and it's people. Immigrating into this country illegally is a federal offense. Our legislature and law enforcement are bound to uphold our immigration laws. Furthermore, the government nor the American people are responsible for the "domino effect" problems it creates for families of ILLEGAL immigrants. They knew what they were doing was against the law and took the risk. They are to blame, not our government or the citizens.

Debating the merits of globalist thinking is one thing. But, we are WAY past that and into the realm of conspiracy theory and radical thinking. And, it seems to me many people are against "globalists" without even knowing what it is...they are simply repeating terms they hear and/or read.

The same can be said about ANY subject in the realm of politics. It is not limited to ANY party or political beliefs people subscribe to. It doesn't prove or dis-prove something exists.

I will also point out that their are certain things that REQUIRE global thinking. Whether you like it or not, we are in a global economy. That is never going to change. Whether you like it or not, how the countries of the world are allied forces a global thinking in how to deal with military crisis. Isolation in this modern world is not possible....and I think Trump is finding that out the hard way.

You are right that we have a global economy. That is not what I and others are talking about. It's about turning over the control of this nation to an outside authority or persons. It is about ensuring that we are a sovereign nation. Controlled by and for it's people. People such as globalist George Soros believe in a open and border-less society. He doesn't believe in sovereign nations such as the U.S.. The globalists have a collective mindset. A mindset where there is "one body" that makes all economic and judicial decisions for the world. Some of this type of thinking has already crept into this country. With things like the U.N.'s Agenda 21 and the purposed universal gun laws. Also, I believe our government has been focused more on things outside this country then the country itself. I believe we need to turn our focus back to THIS country. Which to means all decisions are made with the welfare and benefit of THIS country first and foremost.

[Boomchild]

[Monker]

You're a dumb fuck. If you "read KC's" posts, Trump is exposing the Globalists. The Globalists oppose him. Nice try at putting words in my mouth though. Well, not really.

Trump has done no such thing. That's ridiculous.

You have accused me of being a globalist when I have no tposted my belief of even ONE globalist thought. I believe you said that I am a globalist whether I know it or not. YOU simply believe that if a person opposes Trump's agenda, that person is a globalist. That is what your actions have shown.

[Monker]

I can't speak for others but when I'm talking about about globalist\globalism it has nothing to do with being or not being "pro-immigration". In fact, it is the tactic of some to label those that are fed up with our government's lack of action on ILLEGAL immigration as being "anti-immigration". Which is a falsehood.

And, you are confusing the topic. For example, if a person is in favor of accepting Syrian refugees, that does not mean that person is a globalist. If a person is in favor of DACA, that does not make that person a globalist. If a person is in favor of giving illegals a path to citizenship, that does not make that person a globalist.

When it comes to ILLEGAL immigration it doesn't matter whether you feel it does or does not have a negative impact on this country and it's people. Immigrating into this country illegally is a federal offense. Our legislature and law enforcement are bound to uphold our immigration laws. Furthermore, the government nor the American people are responsible for the "domino effect" problems it creates for families of ILLEGAL immigrants. They knew what they were doing was against the law and took the risk. They are to blame, not our government or the citizens.

These are distractions and not what I am arguing above.

Debating the merits of globalist thinking is one thing. But, we are WAY past that and into the realm of conspiracy theory and radical thinking. And, it seems to me many people are against "globalists" without even knowing what it is...they are simply repeating terms they hear and/or read.

The same can be said about ANY subject in the realm of politics. It is not limited to ANY party or political beliefs people subscribe to. It doesn't prove or dis-prove something exists.

I don't think so. Even the term globalist has only become prominent on this forum over the past year. Prior to that, hating liberals was enough. Along with using words like "cuck" and "snowflake". Both have only come about over the past year. You are being blinded by group thinking and gangster type attitude. Most of you are a bunch of followers and ditto-heads who listen to things like Hannity (an opinionator, by admission) and take it as all factual, and allow their opinions to lead your actions. Trump the Tyrant knows this....why do you think he dines with Hannity like they are best friends? They need each other so they can both keep doing what they are doing. There is a reason why Bannon is better off at Briet Bart then in the White House....he can keep feeding the media beast and all the bullshit that goes with it.

You are right that we have a global economy. That is not what I and others are talking about. It's about turning over the control of this nation to an outside authority or persons. It is about ensuring that we are a sovereign nation. Controlled by and for it's people. People such as globalist George Soros

People like Soros are nothing but a scapegoat for your radical bullshit. As far as I can tell, Soros is the liberal version of the Koch brothers. To demonize him, conservatives make up all these conspiracy theories. IMO, he is just a rich guy who donates to causes he believes in, just like any other person. He doesn't have any power over anybody and he is not in control of anything....it's just all exaggerated bullshit.

The globalists have a collective mindset. A mindset where there is "one body" that makes all economic and judicial decisions for the world.

This is bullshit. It is all conspiracy theory. The same things have been said about the Free Masons, for decades.

Some of this type of thinking has already crept into this country. With things like the U.N.'s Agenda 21
and the purposed universal gun laws.

The UN has no authority to supersede US law. This is no different than the Paris accords, a non-binding agreement.

Also, I believe our government has been focused more on things outside this country then the country itself. I believe we need to turn our focus back to THIS country. Which to means all decisions are made with the welfare and benefit of THIS country first and foremost.

Which has NOTHING to do with 'globalism'. This is simply put, "America first" nationalistic Trumpism.

[Boomchild]

And, you are confusing the topic. For example, if a person is in favor of accepting Syrian refugees, that does not mean that person is a globalist. If a person is in favor of DACA, that does not make that person a globalist. If a person is in favor of giving illegals a path to citizenship, that does not make that person a globalist.

I said at the beginning of my reply that I don't consider people that are "pro-immigration" globalists.

These are distractions and not what I am arguing above.

You brought up the subject of immigration and this is part of it. You even mentioned this part of the topic in your reply: "If a person is in favor of giving illegals a path to citizenship, that does not make that person a globalist."

I don't think so. Even the term globalist has only become prominent on this forum over the past year. Prior to that, hating liberals was enough. Along with using words like "cuck" and "snowflake". Both have only come about over the past year. You are being blinded by group thinking and gangster type attitude. Most of you are a bunch of followers and ditto-heads who listen to things like Hannity (an opinionator, by admission) and take it as all factual, and allow their opinions to lead your actions. Trump the Tyrant knows this....why do you think he dines with Hannity like they are best friends? They need each other so they can both keep doing what they are doing. There is a reason why Bannon is better off at Briet Bart then in the White House....he can keep feeding the media beast and all the bullshit that goes with it.

You are wrong. I remember seeing posts about globalism and globalists in the Obama threads.

People like Soros are nothing but a scapegoat for your radical bullshit. As far as I can tell, Soros is the liberal version of the Koch brothers. To demonize him, conservatives make up all these conspiracy theories. IMO, he is just a rich guy who donates to causes he believes in, just like any other person. He doesn't have any power over anybody and he is not in control of anything....it's just all exaggerated bullshit.

It's clear you don't know much about Soros. He clearly pushes an "open society" agenda. Which is globalist thinking. Also money is power and politicians especially are influenced by it.

The UN has no authority to supersede US law. This is no different than the Paris accords, a non-binding agreement.

Do you know what Agenda 21 is and how it has effected Federal, state and local laws?

Which has NOTHING to do with 'globalism'. This is simply put, "America first" nationalistic Trumpism.

It certainly does because it directly relates to what the focus of our government is. Focusing on what is best for the nation and not the rest of the world.

[The_Noble_Cause]

That is because the ODNI report writers were idiots and did not know that Russia dates are in DD/MM/YYYY format and reported them as MM/DD/YYYY format. So a date of 3/7/2016 is REALLY July 3, 2017...but was reported as March 7, 2017.

WRONG. We are talking about shows from YEARS AGO. Not a matter of months. One show named in the ODNI report, Breaking the Set, ended in 2015. That somehow impacted the 2016 election? Give me a break. Occupy Wall Street TV coverage was also cited - back from 2011. As usual, you are either misinformed or lying.

And, where ever you got your info that the shows were not on should have known the above too...

"Wherever I got my info" - LMAO. I actually read the report, dumbass! Might want to try it sometime.

They didn't. If you go to their site today they still blame Russia.

You’re splitting hairs. Crowdstrike attributed hacks of a Ukrainian artillery app to the Russians. Crowdstrike’s flawed report was then used in support of the DNC hacking theory. They claimed it was the same (or similar) Russian malware used to hack the DNC. The Crowdstrike Ukraine report was found to be based on total BS.

If this is the report you are talking about, then you are still wrong. They changed their comments on a report of a Ukranian hacked howitzers...which they said was connected to the DNC hacked because both had malware used by Fancy Bear. They walked back a lot of the rhetoric of the Ukranian report but I do not see where they walked back ANYTHING regarding the DNC.

Ukraine Ministry of Defense denies the Russia hack. The makers of the artillery app disputed the report. Think tank, IISS, says Crowdstrike misused their data and disavowed the report. Crowdstike had to retract and revise. This intel is soo flawed that even George Tenet wouldn’t call it a “slam dunk.”

And, BTW, the hacked howitzers are exactly how I say voting machines can be hacked...the malware is part of the software being loaded....either the targeting software, or the voting software, or the vote counting software. It's the exact same thing.

Who cares? The developer of the allegedly Russian hacked Ukranian app says he was never contacted by Crowdstrike and the entire hack is a farce. If you think US voting booths were hacked, then man up and just say it already.

I would guess Crowd Strike already put in the same work that the FBI would have done and since Crowd Strike has been open with the info, there is no need to see the servers....unless you are a conspiracy theorist.

Crowdstrike is a private for-profit firm hired by the DNC. DNC is paying them millions. Conflict of interest much?

And, you answered that yourself months ago. Many of those agencies to do not have the jurisdiction to even give an assessment.

So then why did Hillary and everybody in the media repeat the 17 intel consensus lie ad nauseum?
Why did you say "If you want to argue against it, you are arguing against the: FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security...and on and on"?
Like a good brainless sheep you repeated Hillary's lie.

Still, the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, and Homeland Security all agree. (I think those are the five, going from memory here). That should be enough.

WRONG. Handpicked analysts from four departments made that conclusion. And they all got their marching orders from the Director of National Intelligence. Why are you afraid of transparency and independence?

*ALL* of these points are bullshit by you - and you should know that. But, you are a Trump zombie and ditto head who would rather distract the world by focusing on bullshit then the very real issues that are out there.

LOL. Been posting here as a socialist liberal/independent since 2002 and I'm a “ditto head.” Riiiight. At the end of the day, you are a DNC mouthpiece. You lied for Hillary (“she had permission to use a private server!”) and you are still lying today.

[Monker]

And, you are confusing the topic. For example, if a person is in favor of accepting Syrian refugees, that does not mean that person is a globalist. If a person is in favor of DACA, that does not make that person a globalist. If a person is in favor of giving illegals a path to citizenship, that does not make that person a globalist.

I said at the beginning of my reply that I don't consider people that are "pro-immigration" globalists.

These are distractions and not what I am arguing above.

You brought up the subject of immigration and this is part of it. You even mentioned this part of the topic in your reply: "If a person is in favor of giving illegals a path to citizenship, that does not make that person a globalist."

Yes, but you are arguing your "America first" opinion of they are illegal and broke the law, etc. All I am saying is believing what I said above does not make somebody a "globalist", which you agreed to above. So, I think we agree on these things.

I don't think so. Even the term globalist has only become prominent on this forum over the past year. Prior to that, hating liberals was enough. Along with using words like "cuck" and "snowflake". Both have only come about over the past year. You are being blinded by group thinking and gangster type attitude. Most of you are a bunch of followers and ditto-heads who listen to things like Hannity (an opinionator, by admission) and take it as all factual, and allow their opinions to lead your actions. Trump the Tyrant knows this....why do you think he dines with Hannity like they are best friends? They need each other so they can both keep doing what they are doing. There is a reason why Bannon is better off at Briet Bart then in the White House....he can keep feeding the media beast and all the bullshit that goes with it.

You are wrong. I remember seeing posts about globalism and globalists in the Obama threads.

Yes, it was 'mentioned'...but not to this extent. For example, KC's go to word was always "liberal", now it is 'globalist'. I am no longer pointed to as a 'liberal', but as a 'globalist'. "Liberal" is hardly ever mentioned now.

People like Soros are nothing but a scapegoat for your radical bullshit. As far as I can tell, Soros is the liberal version of the Koch brothers. To demonize him, conservatives make up all these conspiracy theories. IMO, he is just a rich guy who donates to causes he believes in, just like any other person. He doesn't have any power over anybody and he is not in control of anything....it's just all exaggerated bullshit.

It's clear you don't know much about Soros. He clearly pushes an "open society" agenda. Which is globalist thinking. Also money is power and politicians especially are influenced by it.

Gee, I said I didn't know Soros, a year ago and nobody believed me.

I said he promotes his own beliefs...but so does everybody. That doesn't make him some kind of evil person. The Koch brothers do THE EXACT SAME THING. Do you believe they need to be stopped, too?

According to the Supreme Court, donating money to political causes is also free speech. Are you anti-free speech or against using money to express your opinions?

The UN has no authority to supersede US law. This is no different than the Paris accords, a non-binding agreement.

Do you know what Agenda 21 is and how it has effected Federal, state and local laws?[/quote]

From the brief bit I read it is a UN set of guidelines to help government combat poverty and promote conservation and reduce pollution.

If federal, state, or local governments are enacting these suggestions and they are failing in some way or the people simply do not like using UN guidelines, then they can vote and force change. That is how democracy works. The UN does NOT and CAN NOT affect the sovereignty of the US, or any other country with SUGGESTIONS.

And, yes, I know there are books about it and Glen Beck has gone wacko over it.

Which has NOTHING to do with 'globalism'. This is simply put, "America first" nationalistic Trumpism.

It certainly does because it directly relates to what the focus of our government is. Focusing on what is best for the nation and not the rest of the world.

That is NOT globalism. First of all, the US picks and chooses what to get involved in depending on how it affects the US. The middle east has oil that we desperately need....so we get involved. Countries in Africa or South America hardly ever have our true national interests so we don't get involved. So, the idea that we focus on the world's problems and what is best for other countries, I don't think it completely true.

Let's take the middle east. I would agree...let's remove all of our troops and let them kill each other as that is what they want to do anyway, we are just in the way. BUT, that could cause the price of oil to skyrocket, so we CAN'T do that...at least until we end our oil addiction. This is not 'globalist' thinking, it is strategic thinking that not everybody agrees with.

[The_Noble_Cause]

That is NOT globalism.

You had no idea what globalism even was just a few posts up. Now you want to tell others what it is? Why don't you just fuck off. If something is not on Snopes or MSNBC, it's painfully obvious you have never heard of it.

[Monker]

That is NOT globalism.

You had no idea what globalism even was just a few posts up. Now you want to tell others what it is? Why don't you just fuck off. If something is not on Snopes or MSNBC, it's painfully obvious you have never heard of it.

Well, you lie so much that you really should not be commenting on this forum at all.

I never said I did not know what globalism is nor did I say I have never heard of it. You are just making shit up and lying again.

I asked for OTHERS here to define globalism. I read an article that said most Trump voters do not know what globalism is and apply it incorrectly to a variety of issues, mostly promoted by Trump. That article was completely correct...people here could not define it in their own words...having to use others to define it for them.