Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

I don't see you as someone to use to defend myself against. I was merely saying, it seems the hate here is directed at Trump supporters. Your posts I find the easiest to pick apart as far as pro-Hillary Anti-Trump go. Trump supporters are held to a different standard. Pretty much like out on on the streets where Trump supporters have had violence used against them, but not the opposite. Which is strange, since Hillary supporters are doing the things they accused Trump supporters of.

If you are on your Ipad, maybe wait if you can't make an adequate post. If you post something, try to be a bit more truthful and less fake. You are just posting hateful one sided things. I don't see the point in that, except to further divide.

Hillary lost, let it go.

First of all I am bias against Trump more so than pro Hillary ..And what have I posted that wasn't the absolute truth??..What was fake news??..I do post links..

A bit funny, I honestly was the same (at first), against Hillary more than pro-Trump. Eventually, when I looked at what he was saying (not all mind you), I started thinking there was hope, at least if he wasn't outright lying.

Regarding what you posted. I was pretty clear in my reply a few pages back but I don't mind touching on it again. You posted on Trump not doing the daily intelligence briefings, so I looked at a few articles and found the reason was that he was working on the transition team and Pence was doing the daily intelligence briefings. I'll admit, I prefer Trump to be involved there, but it isn't a big deal considering things just got going.

But anything you find that can squash, any glimmer of hope, regarding the new president, you basically post it. And it is easy to find because MSM is 95% against Trump (I guess FOX is a bit of that other 5% lol). Anyway, my point is, yeah, you may post some truth (and some lies), but you portray it in such a way (with extreme bias) as to miss the full story. We all do it to a point and MSM is king here, but with you really go the extra mile.

Peace
EMS

ps - Since you aren't so Pro-Hillary, maybe list some things you feel she is for that you are not. I did it with Trump. :-)

So given the volume of lies he has told throughout his campaign (and his life) and the volume of shady business dealings he's been involved in, you still hold out hope that he's not lying? Really?

This is way more than hope. We are running for our lives from war. Do you really not see where Hillary would have taken us? Just look at her past bad decisions regarding war, her language recently towards Russia, the picture is clear. Doesn't require thinking, contemplating, etc. You run from people like that.

I would have basically taken a tic-tac-toe playing chicken with each square being a major decision, over Hillary.
I have that much more trust in the Universe, they some one like Hillary who doesn't realize she is an intrinsic part of it.

Regarding Trump, I actually think he is trying to change things, drain the Swamp, so to speak. If I'm wrong, no love loss, but Hillary didn't get in and I think the world did good there.

Trump also supported the Iraq invasion. The difference is Hillary had to make a decisive vote that was going to be in the public record forever. Trump had the luxury of waffling, being vague and waiting to see the results before decisively criticizing the action and claiming his proof (after his first two attempts at proof were proven to be bogus) was to say he told Hannity.

He has also made some pretty hawk-ish statements and will have a hawk (Flynn) advising him. Not to mention Trump's very curious (suspicious) relationship with Russia. I understand your dislike of Hillary. What I can't understand for the life of me is how anything Trump has done or said gives anyone an ounce of comfort that he isn't going to be a complete disaster and far worse than Hillary. Just about every criticism you have a Hillary, Trump is like 2x worse.

My support of Trump comes down to a few simple things:
Cleaning up the corruption - As he put it "Draining the Swamp".
Spending money on America instead the rest of the world. The debt is just too high, we can't keep this up.
Having a responsible immigration policy, not relatively open borders. If we weren't bombing the world there would be less risk here, but having a war on terror, war on drugs, war on peoples, etc. just makes that open border awfully enticing.

Now, maybe he lies about those things, but I still don't want Hillary. My spider senses really are strong regarding her - "keep away" they say...

We are between a rock and a hard place, the economy is still likely to crash, Obama tripled our debt (due to the 2008 crisis I imagine). There is no easy in this. Hillary supporters might have solace in the economy crashing, but unless a miracle happens, I can't see it staying afloat, no matter the president. So, Trumps tax cuts (which better also have spending cuts) are a little chance to turn things around, perhaps the Universe adds some magic, I'll take that.

But here is what I don't get, how can someone who is corrupt be counted on to clean up corruption? How can someone who has obviously manipulated the tax codes to pay no federal income tax be counted on to change the system he has benefited from (and bragged about it)? That makes no sense.

Simply a calculated gamble. I know what Hillary has done and the Wikileaks point to a whole lot more. That is enough for me (and millions of others I guess) to not go the way of Hillary.
The country is divided, so, a lot of people feel what you feel and an equally lot feel what I feel.

Hillary wasn't going to change anything, nor take us anywhere new. We are between a rock and a hard place now. We really need to try something big to get us out of here.
I didn't vote, but I am looking forward to see IF Trump can turn things around. It will take a near miracle considering the banking system and Obama tripling the debt (I believe).

DrAlphaeus wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Apparently, they may only do a machine recount rather than hand recount in Wisconsin. That's so sketchy. The whole point was that we don't know if the machines are counting the votes correctly.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/28/elections-staff-layout-recount-timeline/94539210/

And if there's any rigging it is with the machines that can be hacked as well as undocumented immigrants being allowed to vote.

American citizens don't want to go to the polls..You think undocumented immigrants want to go vote when they aren't even on the rolls?..In republicans mind undocumented turnout is 1000%..

LOL - maybe the undocumented immigrants have a stronger sense of civic duty than American citizens do!

I really don't understand this suspicion that the undocumented are voting in our national elections. This obsession with George Soros. Trump's own claims of millions voting illegally. Maybe guns is right: conversation is useless. I've been fact-checking, questioning, asking for data, conceding points where I can figuring that the favor will be returned. But I feel like I'm using Emily Post etiquette in a bar fight. It's simply an approach to facts, truth, and logic I don't get. If this is the guy we get for America's lack of civic engagement, anti-intellectualism, money corrupted politics, and profit-driven news media, well... this is what we get.

At this point, I feel like working with kids on critical thinking, civics, and media literacy is the only hope. Because a lot of you adults are hopeless, including our President-elect.

Re George Soros, have you heard his short interview on 60 minutes? Just listen to him. He is an extremely powerful man with some very cold reasoning. He has had HUGE influence on our past elections, nations monies all over the world and quite a bit more. It is interesting to hear his perspective.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

I don't see you as someone to use to defend myself against. I was merely saying, it seems the hate here is directed at Trump supporters. Your posts I find the easiest to pick apart as far as pro-Hillary Anti-Trump go. Trump supporters are held to a different standard. Pretty much like out on on the streets where Trump supporters have had violence used against them, but not the opposite. Which is strange, since Hillary supporters are doing the things they accused Trump supporters of.

If you are on your Ipad, maybe wait if you can't make an adequate post. If you post something, try to be a bit more truthful and less fake. You are just posting hateful one sided things. I don't see the point in that, except to further divide.

Hillary lost, let it go.

First of all I am bias against Trump more so than pro Hillary ..And what have I posted that wasn't the absolute truth??..What was fake news??..I do post links..

A bit funny, I honestly was the same (at first), against Hillary more than pro-Trump. Eventually, when I looked at what he was saying (not all mind you), I started thinking there was hope, at least if he wasn't outright lying.

Regarding what you posted. I was pretty clear in my reply a few pages back but I don't mind touching on it again. You posted on Trump not doing the daily intelligence briefings, so I looked at a few articles and found the reason was that he was working on the transition team and Pence was doing the daily intelligence briefings. I'll admit, I prefer Trump to be involved there, but it isn't a big deal considering things just got going.

But anything you find that can squash, any glimmer of hope, regarding the new president, you basically post it. And it is easy to find because MSM is 95% against Trump (I guess FOX is a bit of that other 5% lol). Anyway, my point is, yeah, you may post some truth (and some lies), but you portray it in such a way (with extreme bias) as to miss the full story. We all do it to a point and MSM is king here, but with you really go the extra mile.

Peace
EMS

ps - Since you aren't so Pro-Hillary, maybe list some things you feel she is for that you are not. I did it with Trump. :-)

So given the volume of lies he has told throughout his campaign (and his life) and the volume of shady business dealings he's been involved in, you still hold out hope that he's not lying? Really?

This is way more than hope. We are running for our lives from war. Do you really not see where Hillary would have taken us? Just look at her past bad decisions regarding war, her language recently towards Russia, the picture is clear. Doesn't require thinking, contemplating, etc. You run from people like that.

I would have basically taken a tic-tac-toe playing chicken with each square being a major decision, over Hillary.
I have that much more trust in the Universe, they some one like Hillary who doesn't realize she is an intrinsic part of it.

Regarding Trump, I actually think he is trying to change things, drain the Swamp, so to speak. If I'm wrong, no love loss, but Hillary didn't get in and I think the world did good there.

Trump also supported the Iraq invasion. The difference is Hillary had to make a decisive vote that was going to be in the public record forever. Trump had the luxury of waffling, being vague and waiting to see the results before decisively criticizing the action and claiming his proof (after his first two attempts at proof were proven to be bogus) was to say he told Hannity.

He has also made some pretty hawk-ish statements and will have a hawk (Flynn) advising him. Not to mention Trump's very curious (suspicious) relationship with Russia. I understand your dislike of Hillary. What I can't understand for the life of me is how anything Trump has done or said gives anyone an ounce of comfort that he isn't going to be a complete disaster and far worse than Hillary. Just about every criticism you have a Hillary, Trump is like 2x worse.

My support of Trump comes down to a few simple things:
Cleaning up the corruption - As he put it "Draining the Swamp".
Spending money on America instead the rest of the world. The debt is just too high, we can't keep this up.
Having a responsible immigration policy, not relatively open borders. If we weren't bombing the world there would be less risk here, but having a war on terror, war on drugs, war on peoples, etc. just makes that open border awfully enticing.

Now, maybe he lies about those things, but I still don't want Hillary. My spider senses really are strong regarding her - "keep away" they say...

We are between a rock and a hard place, the economy is still likely to crash, Obama tripled our debt (due to the 2008 crisis I imagine). There is no easy in this. Hillary supporters might have solace in the economy crashing, but unless a miracle happens, I can't see it staying afloat, no matter the president. So, Trumps tax cuts (which better also have spending cuts) are a little chance to turn things around, perhaps the Universe adds some magic, I'll take that.

But here is what I don't get, how can someone who is corrupt be counted on to clean up corruption? How can someone who has obviously manipulated the tax codes to pay no federal income tax be counted on to change the system he has benefited from (and bragged about it)? That makes no sense.

Simply a calculated gamble. I know what Hillary has done and the Wikileaks point to a whole lot more. That is enough for me (and millions of others I guess) to not go the way of Hillary.
The country is divided, so, a lot of people feel what you feel and an equally lot feel what I feel.

Hillary wasn't going to change anything, nor take us anywhere new. We are between a rock and a hard place now. We really need to try something big to get us out of here.
I didn't vote, but I am looking forward to see IF Trump can turn things around. It will take a near miracle considering the banking system and Obama tripling the debt (I believe).

The real problems with this country are MOSTLY Republican made!!! Don't try and shift this to Obama! He tried to help FIX the MESS the Republicans left him and with them mashing the brakes the whole time he was pushing up hill. You seem to have a mental lapse from the Bush Era and all that Republicans did to SCREW the HELL out of this country. Now they're getting ready for round 2. They did NOTHING the last 8 years to try and help make things better but rather did EVERYTHING they could to wreck things and stymie any positive progress. Now all of a sudden they want to get things done? This is pure bullcrap.

Trump and the Republicans ARE BIG BUSINESS!!! They aren't trying to help the average American. They're the guys who have been SCREWING the average American all along. These are the guys backed by the Koch brothers and every other major player in doing what they can to take it all and leave the rest of us with NOTHING. Since when is Trump concerned with the average Joe or any of the people in the Republican Party for that matter??? How about we just list the Republican Policies and see how it's gonna help change Washington or improve people's lives.

meloshouldgo wrote:

nixluva wrote:[code]
SWAMP CREATURES:

White House Chief of Staff - Reince Priebus - Chairman of the RNC since 2011.

Ambassador to the U.N. - Governor Nikki Haley - Governor of S.C. since 2011.

Senator Jeff Sessions - Attorney General - Senator since 1996.

Representative Tom Price - Secretary of Health and Human Services - House member since 2005.

Elaine Chao - Secretary of Transportation - American politician who served as the 24th U.S.
Secretary of Labor under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009, and Deputy Secretary of
Transportation under President George H. W. Bush. The wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Betsy DeVos - Secretary of Education - Billionaire, School Choice Activist![/code]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_Donald_Trump

So far this man is basically bringing in LONG TIME Swamp Creatures and not really new blood at all. Not to mention
that the entire Republican Political structure in State and Federal Government is remaining in place. Where is the
change or new blood??? Trump is the ONLY non Establishment person in this entire regime.

These voters who have done this have once again voted against their own best interests. They have given total and
complete control to the very Establishment that they said they hate!!! It's only going to get worse!

If he had picked complete NOOBS we would be on him for picking people without experience. Stupid promise to make during the campaign, but do you really want to see an Alt-Right cabinet anymore than we are already seeing?

nixluva wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

I don't see you as someone to use to defend myself against. I was merely saying, it seems the hate here is directed at Trump supporters. Your posts I find the easiest to pick apart as far as pro-Hillary Anti-Trump go. Trump supporters are held to a different standard. Pretty much like out on on the streets where Trump supporters have had violence used against them, but not the opposite. Which is strange, since Hillary supporters are doing the things they accused Trump supporters of.

If you are on your Ipad, maybe wait if you can't make an adequate post. If you post something, try to be a bit more truthful and less fake. You are just posting hateful one sided things. I don't see the point in that, except to further divide.

Hillary lost, let it go.

First of all I am bias against Trump more so than pro Hillary ..And what have I posted that wasn't the absolute truth??..What was fake news??..I do post links..

A bit funny, I honestly was the same (at first), against Hillary more than pro-Trump. Eventually, when I looked at what he was saying (not all mind you), I started thinking there was hope, at least if he wasn't outright lying.

Regarding what you posted. I was pretty clear in my reply a few pages back but I don't mind touching on it again. You posted on Trump not doing the daily intelligence briefings, so I looked at a few articles and found the reason was that he was working on the transition team and Pence was doing the daily intelligence briefings. I'll admit, I prefer Trump to be involved there, but it isn't a big deal considering things just got going.

But anything you find that can squash, any glimmer of hope, regarding the new president, you basically post it. And it is easy to find because MSM is 95% against Trump (I guess FOX is a bit of that other 5% lol). Anyway, my point is, yeah, you may post some truth (and some lies), but you portray it in such a way (with extreme bias) as to miss the full story. We all do it to a point and MSM is king here, but with you really go the extra mile.

Peace
EMS

ps - Since you aren't so Pro-Hillary, maybe list some things you feel she is for that you are not. I did it with Trump. :-)

So given the volume of lies he has told throughout his campaign (and his life) and the volume of shady business dealings he's been involved in, you still hold out hope that he's not lying? Really?

This is way more than hope. We are running for our lives from war. Do you really not see where Hillary would have taken us? Just look at her past bad decisions regarding war, her language recently towards Russia, the picture is clear. Doesn't require thinking, contemplating, etc. You run from people like that.

I would have basically taken a tic-tac-toe playing chicken with each square being a major decision, over Hillary.
I have that much more trust in the Universe, they some one like Hillary who doesn't realize she is an intrinsic part of it.

Regarding Trump, I actually think he is trying to change things, drain the Swamp, so to speak. If I'm wrong, no love loss, but Hillary didn't get in and I think the world did good there.

Trump also supported the Iraq invasion. The difference is Hillary had to make a decisive vote that was going to be in the public record forever. Trump had the luxury of waffling, being vague and waiting to see the results before decisively criticizing the action and claiming his proof (after his first two attempts at proof were proven to be bogus) was to say he told Hannity.

He has also made some pretty hawk-ish statements and will have a hawk (Flynn) advising him. Not to mention Trump's very curious (suspicious) relationship with Russia. I understand your dislike of Hillary. What I can't understand for the life of me is how anything Trump has done or said gives anyone an ounce of comfort that he isn't going to be a complete disaster and far worse than Hillary. Just about every criticism you have a Hillary, Trump is like 2x worse.

My support of Trump comes down to a few simple things:
Cleaning up the corruption - As he put it "Draining the Swamp".
Spending money on America instead the rest of the world. The debt is just too high, we can't keep this up.
Having a responsible immigration policy, not relatively open borders. If we weren't bombing the world there would be less risk here, but having a war on terror, war on drugs, war on peoples, etc. just makes that open border awfully enticing.

Now, maybe he lies about those things, but I still don't want Hillary. My spider senses really are strong regarding her - "keep away" they say...

We are between a rock and a hard place, the economy is still likely to crash, Obama tripled our debt (due to the 2008 crisis I imagine). There is no easy in this. Hillary supporters might have solace in the economy crashing, but unless a miracle happens, I can't see it staying afloat, no matter the president. So, Trumps tax cuts (which better also have spending cuts) are a little chance to turn things around, perhaps the Universe adds some magic, I'll take that.

But here is what I don't get, how can someone who is corrupt be counted on to clean up corruption? How can someone who has obviously manipulated the tax codes to pay no federal income tax be counted on to change the system he has benefited from (and bragged about it)? That makes no sense.

Simply a calculated gamble. I know what Hillary has done and the Wikileaks point to a whole lot more. That is enough for me (and millions of others I guess) to not go the way of Hillary.
The country is divided, so, a lot of people feel what you feel and an equally lot feel what I feel.

Hillary wasn't going to change anything, nor take us anywhere new. We are between a rock and a hard place now. We really need to try something big to get us out of here.
I didn't vote, but I am looking forward to see IF Trump can turn things around. It will take a near miracle considering the banking system and Obama tripling the debt (I believe).

The real problems with this country are MOSTLY Republican made!!! Don't try and shift this to Obama! He tried to help FIX the MESS the Republicans left him and with them mashing the brakes the whole time he was pushing up hill. You seem to have a mental lapse from the Bush Era and all that Republicans did to SCREW the HELL out of this country. Now they're getting ready for round 2. They did NOTHING the last 8 years to try and help make things better but rather did EVERYTHING they could to wreck things and stymie any positive progress. Now all of a sudden they want to get things done? This is pure bullcrap.

Trump and the Republicans ARE BIG BUSINESS!!! They aren't trying to help the average American. They're the guys who have been SCREWING the average American all along. These are the guys backed by the Koch brothers and every other major player in doing what they can to take it all and leave the rest of us with NOTHING. Since when is Trump concerned with the average Joe or any of the people in the Republican Party for that matter??? How about we just list the Republican Policies and see how it's gonna help change Washington or improve people's lives.

Well, I'm not a Republican, just an Earthman. I wasn't meaning to shift blame to Obama, I understand the banking Crisis happened as he came into office and he was in a difficult situation. Just a matter of time. And Trump will now be going into something MUCH worse than Obama went into.

I think the Bush's were Evil, no mental lapse here. I would be careful of grouping people based on their party affiliation. I believe Trump was a Democrat up until 10 or so years ago? The two party system is just a way of boxing us in. I don't play that game (in life).

Regarding Trump helping people, now, I'm not sure his tax plan will pass, but it really will help the common man, the rich man and the business. It is across the board. 7 tax groups become 3, simplification. The cuts should stimulate the economy, not from the top down, or bottom up, but across the board (so to speak). More money, more spending. (That is American, lol)

No tax on up to 25k for individuals.
10% tax between income of 25k and 50k
20% on 50k to 150k
25% on 150k on up.
Business taxes go from 35%-15%
If businesses don't use that money to come back home, hire more people etc. and just buy back stock, lay more off, then we need to get heavy. Only so much one can do.
So, I'm not sure how you can say "since when is Trump concerned with the average Joe..."?

This system needs a reset, a real big change, if it passes, that it will be. But he MUST cut government spending some (not the full amount of the tax cut imo.)

Your reply seems really heated. I'm just expressing something logical (to me) here. I don't really take all of this personal (when talking external politics).

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Apparently, they may only do a machine recount rather than hand recount in Wisconsin. That's so sketchy. The whole point was that we don't know if the machines are counting the votes correctly.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/28/elections-staff-layout-recount-timeline/94539210/

And if there's any rigging it is with the machines that can be hacked as well as undocumented immigrants being allowed to vote.

American citizens don't want to go to the polls..You think undocumented immigrants want to go vote when they aren't even on the rolls?..In republicans mind undocumented turnout is 1000%..

LOL - maybe the undocumented immigrants have a stronger sense of civic duty than American citizens do!

I really don't understand this suspicion that the undocumented are voting in our national elections. This obsession with George Soros. Trump's own claims of millions voting illegally. Maybe guns is right: conversation is useless. I've been fact-checking, questioning, asking for data, conceding points where I can figuring that the favor will be returned. But I feel like I'm using Emily Post etiquette in a bar fight. It's simply an approach to facts, truth, and logic I don't get. If this is the guy we get for America's lack of civic engagement, anti-intellectualism, money corrupted politics, and profit-driven news media, well... this is what we get.

At this point, I feel like working with kids on critical thinking, civics, and media literacy is the only hope. Because a lot of you adults are hopeless, including our President-elect.

Re George Soros, have you heard his short interview on 60 minutes? Just listen to him. He is an extremely powerful man with some very cold reasoning. He has had HUGE influence on our past elections, nations monies all over the world and quite a bit more. It is interesting to hear his perspective.

OK... "Donald Trump without the humility"... good joke. Well look, let's put Soros in the "get money out of politics" bucket then.

"How he destroys nations" — nice editorializing on the YouTube title... but the title and description lack basic information like the date this aired.

Rigging the elections by what: funding legal battles against the post-Voting Rights Act restrictions around the country? Or funding policies to deal with hate crimes http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/george-soros-hate-crimes.html Or is this just good ol' Elders of Sion boogeyman business?

If you can put forward your case in your own words with some citations to credible articles about why he's been such a huge influence, I'm game. But send me something that would pass muster for a librarian. Otherwise just seems like yet another distraction.

earthmansurfer wrote:

nixluva wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Welpee wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria? (During a lame duck session of course). Of course MSM is not talking about this.
This could start all out war, remember, Hillary was for this and now they got it through.
Very dangerous.

I haven't heard about this. Please provide a citation.

I tried searching https://www.congress.gov/ for "Syria no-fly" and got nothing.

and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously. Zero depth and detail or understanding to what he actually posts.

EMS, instead of just posting something you barely understand or barely even read on, why don't you take a minute to do so. Yet again, you didn't provide a link or real context of what you are saying. You just tried to find a thought that fit your agenda and it was totally off the mark. Again.

If you had bothered, here is the relavent headline to the section that you should have previously read:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5732/text#toc-HE0C2D7DC816A4E36A4F9E862440BEEAA

SEC. 303. Assessment of potential effectiveness of and requirements for the establishment of safe zones or a no-fly zone in Syria.

(a) In general.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report that—

(1) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements of the establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part or all of Syria, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria;

(B) the impact a no-fly zone in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for force contributions from other countries to establish a no-fly zone in Syria; and

(2) assesses the potential effectiveness, risks, and operational requirements for the establishment of one or more safe zones in Syria for internally displaced persons or for the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, including—

(A) the operational and legal requirements for United States and coalition forces to establish one or more safe zones in Syria;

(B) the impact one or more safe zones in Syria would have on humanitarian and counterterrorism efforts in Syria and the surrounding region; and

(C) the potential for contributions from other countries and vetted non-state actor partners to establish and maintain one or more safe zones in Syria.

(b) Form.—The report required by subsection (a) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex if necessary.

(c) Definition.—In this section, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means—

(1) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives; and

(2) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.

Perhaps take a second to read and let us know what you now think. And please let us know why you think the MSM should have reported on this?

Hey Martin, I asked a question "Has anyone heard of..." and you come back with "and this is why we really can't take anything that EMS posts even remotely seriously"???
That is not fair, especially from a mod. I understand you don't agree with me and my (mostly) supporting of Trump, but no reason to make this personal and say things like that.
It is like I have been convicted by a jury of my non peers, based on my views. All the crap that Holfresh posts, usually with no links and you pick on me?

But yes, that was what I was talking about. I did further searching and someone mentioned the 90 day period. None of the first 5 articles I found made any mention of that.
Regardless, this is the first step to implementation of the no-fly zone it appears. This is what I feared most and all of use should be worried about this.

No this is not unfair. The House did not pass a no fly zone, and that's exactly as you have phrased it ("Has anyone heard that the House passed a no-fly zone in Syria" those are you exact words); this is the past tense about an action taken and not question about what is going on. And then you asked why the MSM has not reported on it.

The MSM has not reported on it because they are asking for a STUDY regarding the suitability for a no-fly zone and NOT what you have posted about.

If you want to be taken seriously then do your homework, post clearly, understand what you are posting about.

What was passed was an ask for a study to be done within 90 days IF the larger bill got passed.

What did you not understand about this initially? If you had phrased "Does anyone know about" then maybe we could take you a bit more seriously. If you had done 2 minutes worth of follow-up on Google, that would get you past a high school understanding of why the MSM hasn't reported on it.

Why aren't you doing these things?

Martin - "Has anyone heard" is present perfect and by definition a present tense. But it does reflect on past actions from a present perspective (sometimes).

My intention was asking the question. I couldn't find anything on MSM and wondered if it was true. (It is quite often that alt news releases a story and then MSM picks it up later.)

Suitability for a no fly zone? Do you really believe that? Here is a Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff answering that question. I've brought it up before. It mean War with Russia.
I don'T see the forum as adversarial. I didn't think asking was wrong (after I had searched).

Your posting style and rhetorical questioning are not clear, you had best do a much much better job.

I posted the exact bill in this quote. What don't you understand about it? It's a request for information.

Dude, again, you can't be taken seriously, no two ways around it.

Are posts like these more "in line" and better researched?
I mean that is just the page before.

1- President-elect Trump who boast he doesn't like to read has turned down daily classified briefings.. Holfresh
2- Micheal Flynn had his own private internet/server at the pentagon.. Holfresh

No links, distorted information, etc. It goes on constantly.

Perhaps the standards should apply to everyone. It seems this thread as a whole, really takes a critical eye to anything anti-Clinton or pro-Trump.

I've asked holfresh for links before if I can't find them, but he usually posts fairly accurate information that I verify on my own in minutes:

re: #1
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html

re: #2:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-disruptive-career-of-trumps-national-security-adviser
He had technicians secretly install an Internet connection in his Pentagon office, even though it was forbidden.
See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-flynn-pentagon-internet-2016-11
https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/11/25/2310225/trump-national-security-adviser-michael-flynn-had-forbidden-internet-connection-at-the-pentagon-says-report

Took me less than a minute to vet. Admittedly they are "MSM" sources. But because I've done this a few times, holfresh has garnered some clout when he does this.

I've had some issues with your sources and ability to sniff out hoaxes in the past going many pages back. Hence my question, which martin jumped in on.

So sure, you can question martin's sense of fairness, but you don't garner much credibility trying to pass the buck to another poster's style when yours is the one we are questioning.

Come on Doc, you missed his bias and gave him a pass. The story about Trump skipping briefings is much larger than what he stated. He did just what MSM media did. He gave the part that sounded bad, left out that Pence has been receiving them and that Trump has been working more on the transition team. Pure one sided bias.

I missed this whole ordeal where you are trying to use me as defense for one of your "fake" news stories...I generally don't read your stuff unless you are responding to me because it's generally caca...There are a couple reason for no links..One is that I'm on my iPad and adding links is a pain..The other is that the news, like the last two post without links are circulating the news cycle...Everyone is talking about it...I assume that everyone know this stuff and it's easy to look up...And it's the truth, unlike the stuff you post...

I don't see you as someone to use to defend myself against. I was merely saying, it seems the hate here is directed at Trump supporters. Your posts I find the easiest to pick apart as far as pro-Hillary Anti-Trump go. Trump supporters are held to a different standard. Pretty much like out on on the streets where Trump supporters have had violence used against them, but not the opposite. Which is strange, since Hillary supporters are doing the things they accused Trump supporters of.

If you are on your Ipad, maybe wait if you can't make an adequate post. If you post something, try to be a bit more truthful and less fake. You are just posting hateful one sided things. I don't see the point in that, except to further divide.

Hillary lost, let it go.

First of all I am bias against Trump more so than pro Hillary ..And what have I posted that wasn't the absolute truth??..What was fake news??..I do post links..

A bit funny, I honestly was the same (at first), against Hillary more than pro-Trump. Eventually, when I looked at what he was saying (not all mind you), I started thinking there was hope, at least if he wasn't outright lying.

Regarding what you posted. I was pretty clear in my reply a few pages back but I don't mind touching on it again. You posted on Trump not doing the daily intelligence briefings, so I looked at a few articles and found the reason was that he was working on the transition team and Pence was doing the daily intelligence briefings. I'll admit, I prefer Trump to be involved there, but it isn't a big deal considering things just got going.

But anything you find that can squash, any glimmer of hope, regarding the new president, you basically post it. And it is easy to find because MSM is 95% against Trump (I guess FOX is a bit of that other 5% lol). Anyway, my point is, yeah, you may post some truth (and some lies), but you portray it in such a way (with extreme bias) as to miss the full story. We all do it to a point and MSM is king here, but with you really go the extra mile.

Peace
EMS

ps - Since you aren't so Pro-Hillary, maybe list some things you feel she is for that you are not. I did it with Trump. :-)

So given the volume of lies he has told throughout his campaign (and his life) and the volume of shady business dealings he's been involved in, you still hold out hope that he's not lying? Really?

This is way more than hope. We are running for our lives from war. Do you really not see where Hillary would have taken us? Just look at her past bad decisions regarding war, her language recently towards Russia, the picture is clear. Doesn't require thinking, contemplating, etc. You run from people like that.

I would have basically taken a tic-tac-toe playing chicken with each square being a major decision, over Hillary.
I have that much more trust in the Universe, they some one like Hillary who doesn't realize she is an intrinsic part of it.

Regarding Trump, I actually think he is trying to change things, drain the Swamp, so to speak. If I'm wrong, no love loss, but Hillary didn't get in and I think the world did good there.

Trump also supported the Iraq invasion. The difference is Hillary had to make a decisive vote that was going to be in the public record forever. Trump had the luxury of waffling, being vague and waiting to see the results before decisively criticizing the action and claiming his proof (after his first two attempts at proof were proven to be bogus) was to say he told Hannity.

He has also made some pretty hawk-ish statements and will have a hawk (Flynn) advising him. Not to mention Trump's very curious (suspicious) relationship with Russia. I understand your dislike of Hillary. What I can't understand for the life of me is how anything Trump has done or said gives anyone an ounce of comfort that he isn't going to be a complete disaster and far worse than Hillary. Just about every criticism you have a Hillary, Trump is like 2x worse.

My support of Trump comes down to a few simple things:
Cleaning up the corruption - As he put it "Draining the Swamp".
Spending money on America instead the rest of the world. The debt is just too high, we can't keep this up.
Having a responsible immigration policy, not relatively open borders. If we weren't bombing the world there would be less risk here, but having a war on terror, war on drugs, war on peoples, etc. just makes that open border awfully enticing.

Now, maybe he lies about those things, but I still don't want Hillary. My spider senses really are strong regarding her - "keep away" they say...

We are between a rock and a hard place, the economy is still likely to crash, Obama tripled our debt (due to the 2008 crisis I imagine). There is no easy in this. Hillary supporters might have solace in the economy crashing, but unless a miracle happens, I can't see it staying afloat, no matter the president. So, Trumps tax cuts (which better also have spending cuts) are a little chance to turn things around, perhaps the Universe adds some magic, I'll take that.

But here is what I don't get, how can someone who is corrupt be counted on to clean up corruption? How can someone who has obviously manipulated the tax codes to pay no federal income tax be counted on to change the system he has benefited from (and bragged about it)? That makes no sense.

Simply a calculated gamble. I know what Hillary has done and the Wikileaks point to a whole lot more. That is enough for me (and millions of others I guess) to not go the way of Hillary.
The country is divided, so, a lot of people feel what you feel and an equally lot feel what I feel.

Hillary wasn't going to change anything, nor take us anywhere new. We are between a rock and a hard place now. We really need to try something big to get us out of here.
I didn't vote, but I am looking forward to see IF Trump can turn things around. It will take a near miracle considering the banking system and Obama tripling the debt (I believe).

The real problems with this country are MOSTLY Republican made!!! Don't try and shift this to Obama! He tried to help FIX the MESS the Republicans left him and with them mashing the brakes the whole time he was pushing up hill. You seem to have a mental lapse from the Bush Era and all that Republicans did to SCREW the HELL out of this country. Now they're getting ready for round 2. They did NOTHING the last 8 years to try and help make things better but rather did EVERYTHING they could to wreck things and stymie any positive progress. Now all of a sudden they want to get things done? This is pure bullcrap.

Trump and the Republicans ARE BIG BUSINESS!!! They aren't trying to help the average American. They're the guys who have been SCREWING the average American all along. These are the guys backed by the Koch brothers and every other major player in doing what they can to take it all and leave the rest of us with NOTHING. Since when is Trump concerned with the average Joe or any of the people in the Republican Party for that matter??? How about we just list the Republican Policies and see how it's gonna help change Washington or improve people's lives.

Well, I'm not a Republican, just an Earthman. I wasn't meaning to shift blame to Obama, I understand the banking Crisis happened as he came into office and he was in a difficult situation. Just a matter of time. And Trump will now be going into something MUCH worse than Obama went into.

I think the Bush's were Evil, no mental lapse here. I would be careful of grouping people based on their party affiliation. I believe Trump was a Democrat up until 10 or so years ago? The two party system is just a way of boxing us in. I don't play that game (in life).

Regarding Trump helping people, now, I'm not sure his tax plan will pass, but it really will help the common man, the rich man and the business. It is across the board. 7 tax groups become 3, simplification. The cuts should stimulate the economy, not from the top down, or bottom up, but across the board (so to speak). More money, more spending. (That is American, lol)

No tax on up to 25k for individuals.
10% tax between income of 25k and 50k
20% on 50k to 150k
25% on 150k on up.
Business taxes go from 35%-15%
If businesses don't use that money to come back home, hire more people etc. and just buy back stock, lay more off, then we need to get heavy. Only so much one can do.
So, I'm not sure how you can say "since when is Trump concerned with the average Joe..."?

This system needs a reset, a real big change, if it passes, that it will be. But he MUST cut government spending some (not the full amount of the tax cut imo.)

Your reply seems really heated. I'm just expressing something logical (to me) here. I don't really take all of this personal (when talking external politics).

Trump's Tax Plan is going to EXPLODE THE DEBT!!! Same as always happens under Republican Presidents!
They truly are in the pocket of Big Business and couldn't give a crap about the average joe. Everything they do helps send more and more money to the top.

Donald Trump was scheduled [1] to meet Monday with Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr., a Trump supporter and surrogate during the campaign who is now reportedly being considered [2] to head the Department of Homeland Security. Clarke is known for his extreme views on policing—including his conviction that there is a war on cops [3] but no police brutality [4]—and for his attacks on Black Lives Matter [3]. One of his most out-there positions: suspend the constitutional rights of up to a million people, and hold them indefinitely at the US prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Clarke's extremist approach to homeland security is no secret. In his upcoming memoir, Cop Under Fire: Moving Beyond Hashtags of Race, Crime and Politics for a Better America, he advocates treating American citizens suspected of terrorism as "enemy combatants," questioning them without an attorney, and holding them indefinitely, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [5] reported. Their cases would be handled by a military tribunal rather than a traditional court.

But a year ago, Clarke went further and called for rounding up Americans who sympathize with terrorists and shipping them to an offshore prison. During a December 2015 segment of his show, The People's Sheriff, on Glenn Beck's TheBlaze radio network, Clarke suggested that any person who posts pro-terrorist sentiments on social media be arrested, deprived of the constitutional protection against unlawful imprisonment (known as habeas corpus), and sent to Guantanamo Bay indefinitely. He estimated the number of people who could be imprisoned under his proposal could reach 1 million. Presumably, this would include American citizens. (The Democratic research group American Bridge caught Clarke proposing this idea.)

"I suggest that our commander in chief ought to utilize Article I, Section 9 and take all of these individuals that are suspected, these ones on the internet spewing jihadi rhetoric…to scoop them up, charge them with treason and, under habeas corpus, detain them indefinitely at Gitmo," Clarke said.

Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution allows the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus only "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Clarke added that locking up suspected terrorists in American prisons and jails would turn those facilities into "terrorist recruitment camps." That's why these people would have to be packed off to Guantanamo.

"We have no idea how many people out there have pledged allegiance or are supporting ISIS, giving aid and comfort, but I would suggest hundreds of thousands, I would suggest maybe a million," Clarke said. "It's just a guess. And then you take the known terrorists that are here, and you think we're going to arrest all these people and put them in jails and then sentence them to prison? It's idiotic. [Take them to] Gitmo and hold them indefinitely under a suspension of habeas corpus. We're at war. This is a time of war. Bold and aggressive action is needed."

Clarke is prone to exaggerations and extreme talk. Last year, for example, he predicted [6] on Twitter that "before long, Black Lies [sic] Matter will join forces with ISIS to being [sic] down our legal constituted republic. You heard it first here."

It's unclear what kind of comment or act would land an American citizen indefinitely in Guantanamo under Clarke's plan. In the radio segment, he said he was not suggesting indefinite detention for "some innocuous statement, I'm not going to go that far." He pointed to "the woman out in San Bernardino" as an example, referring to the female shooter in the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, who pledged allegiance to ISIS [7] on Facebook shortly before murdering 14 people. "That's beyond the pale," he said. But he also said anyone who has "pledged allegiance or are supporting ISIS, giving aid and comfort" would qualify. He did not say how tweets and Facebook posts would be policed or how 1 million people would be arrested and incarcerated in a prison that has up to now held fewer than 800 prisoners.

djsunyc wrote:http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/sheriff-clarke-trump-terrorists-guantanamo-bay

Donald Trump was scheduled [1] to meet Monday with Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke Jr., a Trump supporter and surrogate during the campaign who is now reportedly being considered [2] to head the Department of Homeland Security. Clarke is known for his extreme views on policing—including his conviction that there is a war on cops [3] but no police brutality [4]—and for his attacks on Black Lives Matter [3]. One of his most out-there positions: suspend the constitutional rights of up to a million people, and hold them indefinitely at the US prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Clarke's extremist approach to homeland security is no secret. In his upcoming memoir, Cop Under Fire: Moving Beyond Hashtags of Race, Crime and Politics for a Better America, he advocates treating American citizens suspected of terrorism as "enemy combatants," questioning them without an attorney, and holding them indefinitely, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [5] reported. Their cases would be handled by a military tribunal rather than a traditional court.

But a year ago, Clarke went further and called for rounding up Americans who sympathize with terrorists and shipping them to an offshore prison. During a December 2015 segment of his show, The People's Sheriff, on Glenn Beck's TheBlaze radio network, Clarke suggested that any person who posts pro-terrorist sentiments on social media be arrested, deprived of the constitutional protection against unlawful imprisonment (known as habeas corpus), and sent to Guantanamo Bay indefinitely. He estimated the number of people who could be imprisoned under his proposal could reach 1 million. Presumably, this would include American citizens. (The Democratic research group American Bridge caught Clarke proposing this idea.)

"I suggest that our commander in chief ought to utilize Article I, Section 9 and take all of these individuals that are suspected, these ones on the internet spewing jihadi rhetoric…to scoop them up, charge them with treason and, under habeas corpus, detain them indefinitely at Gitmo," Clarke said.

Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution allows the president to suspend the writ of habeas corpus only "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Clarke added that locking up suspected terrorists in American prisons and jails would turn those facilities into "terrorist recruitment camps." That's why these people would have to be packed off to Guantanamo.

"We have no idea how many people out there have pledged allegiance or are supporting ISIS, giving aid and comfort, but I would suggest hundreds of thousands, I would suggest maybe a million," Clarke said. "It's just a guess. And then you take the known terrorists that are here, and you think we're going to arrest all these people and put them in jails and then sentence them to prison? It's idiotic. [Take them to] Gitmo and hold them indefinitely under a suspension of habeas corpus. We're at war. This is a time of war. Bold and aggressive action is needed."

Clarke is prone to exaggerations and extreme talk. Last year, for example, he predicted [6] on Twitter that "before long, Black Lies [sic] Matter will join forces with ISIS to being [sic] down our legal constituted republic. You heard it first here."

It's unclear what kind of comment or act would land an American citizen indefinitely in Guantanamo under Clarke's plan. In the radio segment, he said he was not suggesting indefinite detention for "some innocuous statement, I'm not going to go that far." He pointed to "the woman out in San Bernardino" as an example, referring to the female shooter in the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, who pledged allegiance to ISIS [7] on Facebook shortly before murdering 14 people. "That's beyond the pale," he said. But he also said anyone who has "pledged allegiance or are supporting ISIS, giving aid and comfort" would qualify. He did not say how tweets and Facebook posts would be policed or how 1 million people would be arrested and incarcerated in a prison that has up to now held fewer than 800 prisoners.

http://fox59.com/2016/11/29/donald-trump-mike-pence-reach-deal-to-keep-majority-of-carrier-jobs-from-moving-to-mexico/

A well-meaning, best-selling memoir promotes dangerous myths about racial determinism and racial innocence that form the bedrock of Trumpism

J.D. VANCE has had a very good year. With the bewildering rise of Donald Trump–buoyed, supposedly, by a groundswell of support among the white working class–the author of the best-selling memoir Hillbilly Elegy has become a de facto spokesperson for the president-elect’s constituency on the cable news circuit. “I may be white, but I do not identify with the WASPs of the northeast,” Vance writes in the book’s opening pages. “Instead, I identify with the millions of working-class white Americans of Scots-Irish descent who have no college degree.” A Yale Law School graduate who now works for Peter Thiel’s investment firm in San Francisco, Vance has made a second career explaining his Appalachian Kentucky and Rust Belt Ohio roots to the liberal audiences of MSNBC and the New York Times. (The Times even included Hillbilly Elegy in its list of “Six Books to Help Understand Trump’s Win.”)

Some on the left have taken liberal readers to task for their earnest gullibility: Vance is a conservative–albeit of the #NeverTrump variety–and he prescribes conservative values to rectify the Rust Belt’s “culture in crisis.” He takes great pains to insist that the decline of industry is not responsible for “a culture that increasingly encourages social decay instead of counteracting it,” that reacts “to bad circumstances in the worst way possible”: with hedonism, materialism, poor work ethic, lack of thrift, disregard for family obligations, and a victim mentality. Those sound like the pathologies conservatives have long attributed to black Americans, as Sarah Jones points out in the New Republic, because that’s exactly what they are. (“I have known many welfare queens,” Vance writes, “some were my neighbors, and all were white.”) Like all bootstraps narratives, Vance’s focus on self-improvement distracts from the structural causes of the suffering that plagues his hometown.

If this were the extent of Hillbilly Elegy’s ideological baggage, it would be harmless enough–Vance’s policy prescriptions are vague, and his bootstraps mantra is unlikely to convince any liberals. But embedded within Vance’s many first-person plural appeals to the white working class is a set of racial assumptions that readers would do well to interrogate. Hillbilly Elegy insists, almost simultaneously, that it is and is not about race. Vance writes that he hopes his readers will not see class through “a racial prism,” but quickly goes on to say: “There is undoubtedly an ethnic component lurking in the background of my story.” Hillbillies, Vance claims, are a race of their own.

After lamenting that all whites fall under a single racial banner in the American imagination, Vance works to distinguish “hillbillies” from WASPs and other whites. “Hillbillies” are an ethnically homogenous and geographically identifiable subgroup: whites of Scots-Irish descent who live in the Greater Appalachia region of the United States. As Bob Hutton notes in Jacobin, Vance’s ethnographic description echoes historians Forrest McDonald and Grady McWhiney’s “Celtic Thesis,” which argued that white southerners were ethnically and culturally distinct thanks to their common descent from pastoral Celtic tribes in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. McDonald and McWhiney were also founding members of the League of the South, a white nationalist organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center currently lists as a hate group.

Vance’s view of Appalachian culture feels more opportunistic than sincerely white nationalistic. It allows him to portray Appalachian and Rust Belt poverty as an exceptional phenomenon, rather than a symptom of broader trends that could not be so easily ascribed to culture. As such, it conveniently justifies the existence of his book. This opportunism makes the book’s racial determinism all the more insidious: it makes it more palatable to audiences that might normally be on guard against explicit white nationalism.

For one thing, Vance cites racist-thinking much more directly than even his critics have indicated. The very first endnote references Razib Khan, a writer who the New York Times dropped as a regular science contributor after Gawker revealed his “history with racist, far-right online publications.” Charles Murray–author of The Bell Curve, and perhaps the most famous racial determinist in contemporary American public life–is cited approvingly. These citations are not accidental, nor the product of lazy research. Last month, Vance sat down with Murray for an hour-long discussion at the American Enterprise Institute, a discussion in which the two emphasized the “strong ethnic distinctions” that characterize the white working class.

It’s clear that Murray not only relishes Vance’s emphasis on the ethnography of the Scots-Irish–Murray’s reference to his own “pretty clean Scots-Irish blood” is a bit chilling–but also has good use for the cultural crisis Vance diagnoses in his supposed ethnic group: when Murray asks him to comment on the decline of steady marriages and male breadwinning, Vance obliges in good faith. The accident of Vance’s success is that he published his memoir about “a culture in crisis” at precisely the moment that Trump’s election has forged a national consensus that such a crisis exists. And, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, the ideas that get picked up in a time of crisis are the ones that are lying around.

But Charles Murray’s ideas about racial determinism are not the only ones still lying around. Another racial ideology is “lurking” in the background of Hillbilly Elegy, one so central to contemporary conservative thought that it doesn’t register as ideology at all. Call it racial innocence: Even as Vance wags his finger at the vices of his fellow hillbillies, he cannot help but insist on the innocence of their whiteness.

For decades, the explicit invocation of white supremacy has been anathema to American public life. If this was a welcome development, it was foolish to assume it would be a permanent one. Racial determinism was the Trump campaign’s center of gravity, from the candidate’s rise to prominence as a champion of the “birther” movement to his insistence that a Mexican-American judge would necessarily be biased against him. People like Murray have been peddling racial determinism for a long time, but Trump’s victory has made it a central tenet of the American right, rather than a fringe view it entertains with the occasional National Review article or think tank fellowship.

With its “ethnic component lurking in the background,” and with well-meaning liberals tacitly accepting its dubious racial claims, Hillbilly Elegy helps to normalize this thinking across the political spectrum. But while reactionary racial determinism spent decades in exile before its recent, triumphant return, an insistence on racial innocence never left the conservative mainstream. This ideology, too, is implicit in the book’s opening pages. Hillbilly Elegy asks us to accept that the Scots-Irish are fiercely loyal, quick to anger, and suspicious of outsiders. It’s just their culture. If the white working class is reacting badly to deindustrialization, as Vance argues, it is because of these innate characteristics.

This strain of mythology was expressed in former Democratic Senator Jim Webb’s Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America (2004), a book that Vance and Murray both cite approvingly. For Webb, these cultural traits are the very stuff of American greatness. In Vance’s update, those same traits are hastening decline. But, though Vance calls for introspection instead of anger, and though he explicitly insists that his people are responsible for their own lot in life, he is still (implicitly) endorsing a story much like Donald Trump’s: The Scots-Irish made America great until outside forces cast them aside. Something intrinsic to them–what they were–once held great social value, but no longer.

As the historian Matthew Lassiter has argued, racial innocence was a foundational ideology of the “silent majority” that elected Richard Nixon for two consecutive terms. The movement’s core of suburban whites accepted equality before the law (and many core civil rights); what they vehemently objected to was the idea that their whiteness had benefitted them and that antiracist policies might be required to counteract this. (Housing and school desegregation were the flashpoints for this constituency.)

For the Trump coalition, the dynamic is different: instead of the innocence of its privilege, it’s the innocence of its dispossession that supporters rally behind. The danger lies not only in their denial of the continued, empirically demonstrable benefits incurred by whiteness, but also in the implicit (and sometimes explicit) claim that their whiteness is being leveraged against them. This is how the racial innocence that has long characterized conservative thinking in the post-Civil Rights era evolves into a more dangerous phenomenon: racial vengeance.

Of course, vengeance couldn’t be further from the mind of J.D. Vance. He seems nothing but thankful for his own ascent to the coastal cosmopolitan class, and Hillbilly Elegy is peppered with positive statements about pluralism and multiculturalism. But with its casual, almost imperceptible acceptance of conservative racial premises, the memoir draws the battle lines in favor of the white supremacists now storming the halls of American power. The problem is that Vance tells the exact same story that they tell, just with a different ending: To make America great again, they should pick themselves up–not push others down. Needless to say, this sermonizing is not going to convince them. If we’re going to halt their advance, we need to tell a different story

http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/hillbilly-ethnography/