Donald Fires FBI Director who's investigating Russian Election Hacking

[babe]

Bulletproof acting reasonable and methodically has me worried for Trump. Previously his hatred was irrational and uncontrolled. He was the ultimate advocate of removing Trump by any means possible. Suddenly he is okay with making the decision based upon verifiable facts. Does he know something I don't? I'm thinking yes, or at the very least he believes he does. Nothing else could explain going from lunatic hatred to rule of law.

I'm for rule of law as well. I agree with those who consider Trump to be a despicable person, but that part of who he is is who the citizens elected. I did not vote for him is because I find him repulsive, despite agreeing with many of his policies. This negative opinion of him is not grounds for overthrowing an election. If it is proven that he colluded then he will deserve his fate. If it is not proven I hope we can somehow move forward. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that if he somehow beats the collusion charge that those who hate him so vehemently will simply move on to another tactic for removing him. Hopefully a couple of them will maintain the same sort of rule of law standard that Bulletproof has recently adopted.

Bullet has been consistent on agreeing that we need real facts to act on, and even on applying the same standard of evidence to the matters involving Hillary, for quite a while.

If ballot boxes were stuffed, or the count of votes were compiled fraudulently by some Russian computer hack who got into our election computer network.... I dunno.... do we still let that offshore Spanish corporation count our votes????.....we do need to fix our system so nobody can steal our votes. But if it were just some foreign campaign funds running ads in social media, I'd still say the votes counted.

My point is that we have had foreign inputs into election/campaigns for over a century. We have to do something to minimize that. I dunno.... actually enforce campaign laws that prohibit such donations......I know of one eccentric Aussie lady who donated to Mitt when he was running, and she was in social media pushing Mitt as well. Actually illegal, but I didn't make so much a fuss. Ordinary people, not some deep pockets corporate or government.

I think we should prosecute Obama for what he spent trying to help Netanyahu's opponents. Get our money back, tripled, as a punishment.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Bullet has been consistent on agreeing that we need real facts to act on, and even on applying the same standard of evidence to the matters involving Hillary, for quite a while.

With regard to Trump I can recall numerous BP posts that got way out in front of the facts.

 

[Gameface]

Don't misinterpret my personal feelings or my assumptions when presented as such as facts.

I have been exceedingly clear that I hate Trump based on his disgusting personality and hope than any bad thing than can happen does happen to him. That certainly leads me to be hopeful that rumors and suggestions that he's about to be found out to be the douchebag K that I suspect him to be is true.

I generally speak in very clear terms as to what I consider to be facts and what I suspect to be true. I use qualifiers probably more often than is needed, but I do so for a reason.

Some people have an aversion to nuance, but it seems that bleeds over to things that are not nuance at all, like when I say "I think" or "I believe" or "It may be" or "Possibly" or whatever else that is not nuanced at all and is a bright red flag I'm waiving that indicates to the intelligent people reading what I write the actual value of the information that follows. My feelings, my beliefs, my hopes are just that and I advise people to take them for what they are worth (possibly very little). When I state facts I make that clear. When I don't I usually qualify my statements to indicate such. Words matter. Context matters. Nuance is not just an annoying way to confuse simpletons.

 

[Red]

If you missed the Comey interview, it's an hour of your life you didn't waste. Overly dramatic TV event. If Trump transformed the institution of the Presidency into a daily reality tv series, then some in the broadcast media are weaving their own narrative that is just as much a show. We deserve better all around.

It was partly a biography of Comey at times, and you could easily interpret it as being, in part, a promo for his future candidacy for higher office. His characterization of Trump was likely spot on in describing him as unfit for the presidency, but it could have been titled "Comey: the Interview", and that would convey the showtime tone of the whole thing. It ain't a show. It's not reality TV. It ain't a race for TV ratings. It's our political life. Its serious business, not a reality TV series. People have said Comey's book promotion tour could backfire on him, and if last night is how his insights are going to be presented, it just might backfire. The guy is not a knight in shining armor. I guess it's like any other important news story. Dramatize the news and present it as an entertainment event. Too bad, we deserve to be treated as more then an audience buying popcorn during the intermissions.

 

[Harambe]

If you missed the Comey interview, it's an hour of your life you didn't waste. Overly dramatic TV event. If Trump transformed the institution of the Presidency into a daily reality tv series, then some in the broadcast media are weaving their own narrative that is just as much a show. We deserve better all around.

It was partly a biography of Comey at times, and you could easily interpret it as being, in part, a promo for his future candidacy for higher office. His characterization of Trump was likely spot on in describing him as unfit for the presidency, but it could have been titled "Comey: the Interview", and that would convey the showtime tone of the whole thing. It ain't a show. It's not reality TV. It ain't a race for TV ratings. It's our political life. Its serious business, not a reality TV series. People have said Comey's book promotion tour could backfire on him, and if last night is how his insights are going to be presented, it just might backfire. The guy is not a knight in shining armor. I guess it's like any other important news story. Dramatize the news and present it as an entertainment event. Too bad, we deserve to be treated as more then an audience buying popcorn during the intermissions.

/r/latestagecapitalism

It's mostly a circle jerk of psuedo-socialists underscoring the worst of societies exploitation's. But the road we're headed down isn't that far off.

This is just a prime example. Substance doesn't sell as well as big, grandiose events that oversimplify a pointed controversy/argument in our society.

 

[Harambe]

So... Cohen is Hannity's lawyer too?

 

[babe]

So... Cohen is Hannity's lawyer too?

I heard on the radio that Hannity issued a statement that Cohen has not represented him in any legal matter. Conversational exchanges perhaps, maybe some paid "advice", but no representation.

No surprise. Trump, Mark Levin, and Hannity make up a sort of political "love triangle". They have pointed differences in views and speak to different segments of the political market with different manners. Trump has trashed the idea of any legal prosecution for his former mistress Hillary, but he appreciates loyalty like Hannity's. And Levin probably gives Hannity legal advice/consolation about everything in the news. Makes Hannity ten times smarter than he'd be by himself.

But just in case anyone is questioning my knowitall credentials, let me remind you. In politics truth means nothing, it's all in the story line. A knowitall is the person who can create a story line and pound in a few commonly-believed "facts" to make it reinforce peoples' prejudices.

 

[Gameface]

Cohen, who for his other two clients paid off porn industry workers who had sex with his clients also works for Hannity? Good times. Really good times.

I'm guessing Hannity's issue doesn't involve Cohen in ongoing criminal activity, so it will remain sealed under lawyer client privilege, so Hannity can say it was about whatever he wants, but Cohen is not a real estate lawyer, get serious babe. Cohen is a "fixer" who shuts up female sex workers with payoffs. That's what Cohen does. It's his thing.

 

[Harambe]

I heard on the radio that Hannity issued a statement that Cohen has not represented him in any legal matter. Conversational exchanges perhaps, maybe some paid "advice", but no representation.

No surprise. Trump, Mark Levin, and Hannity make up a sort of political "love triangle". They have pointed differences in views and speak to different segments of the political market with different manners. Trump has trashed the idea of any legal prosecution for his former mistress Hillary, but he appreciates loyalty like Hannity's. And Levin probably gives Hannity legal advice/consolation about everything in the news. Makes Hannity ten times smarter than he'd be by himself.

But just in case anyone is questioning my knowitall credentials, let me remind you. In politics truth means nothing, it's all in the story line. A knowitall is the person who can create a story line and pound in a few commonly-believed "facts" to make it reinforce peoples' prejudices.

As BP says, Cohen's a fixer, not a litigator. It's not unusual for fixers not to represent their clients in court. Or even represent them officially out of court.

 

[babe]

As BP says, Cohen's a fixer, not a litigator. It's not unusual for fixers not to represent their clients in court. Or even represent them officially out of court.

combined reply to whatever BP and Big H are saying:

I don't know anything about Hannity or Trump's private life, and I don't care to. I'm sure there are women who lie, and want to extort money from any public figure. I wouldn't giveadamn if they both had five wives or ten, or love life exploits like some former NBA stars people have talked about......, or if they are a loving couple. A "fixer" will never be unemployed as long as there are people who care about their reputations who have any contact with people (male or female) who can twist their undies.

I do care about watching out for my own money, and my own liberty..... when politicians like Trump or Hillary or Obama or Bush are out and about smoozzing Chinese or Russian, or Monacoan politicians making deals that affect our national security or economy. Or snickering in some cloakroom with any industrialist or lobbyist.

If anyone is trying to just muckrake Hannity off the air, as it seems sincere political hack interests are truly trying to do in order to dumpTrump or protect Hillary has anything made-up or real to say about Hannity, my question is still just why don't you apply the same standards to yourselves.

If your cause is so wonderful, don't mess it up with trying to shut down free speech or opposition voices. Just make your own wonderful music and let people see it for what it is.

 

[Harambe]

Although I'd like you shut down, that's not the actual goal.

The goal is to make sure the record is straight. If that takes form of nullifying your argument, or even making it look stupider than it already is, perhaps you should look at your argument, snowflake.

Back on target; McConnell stonewalling a bill to protect Mueller.

"I'm the one who decides what we take to the floor, that's my responsibility as the majority leader, and we will not be having this on the floor of the Senate"

But a republican, Chuck Grassley, is moving forward. He'll be joined by Tom Thillis, Lindsey Graham, and the democrats in pushing it anyway.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ith-mueller-bill-despite-mcconnell-opposition

 

[Harambe]

Speaking of Mueller's appointment...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ar-case-trump-fires-mueller-article-1.3941301

Pittsburgh police detectives will report for duty with riot gear Thursday, in anticipation of a potential large scale protest should President Trump decide to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller.