US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6590

On January 19 2017 04:53 Nevuk wrote:

Sorry, that's roger stone, one of trumps advisors and he's claiming it was polonium.

On January 19 2017 04:48 LegalLord wrote:
Context? Who is this guy and why should we care what his rather conspiratorial statements here are?

On Tuesday, Roger Stone, best known as one of Donald Trump’s advisors, made quite the mammoth claim: That recently, he had been poisoned with polonium, the radioactive agent best known for being used to kill Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. Stone made the announcement on Alex Jones’ InfoWars and also tweeted about his alleged diagnosis

"I became extremely ill. This manifested itself in over 14 days of high fever, delirium, night sweats, I had lesions on my chest and my face,” Stone explained to Jones. “The general consensus is I was poisoned. I was poisoned with polonium or a substance that has the characteristics of polonium and this made me exceedingly ill.” Stone’s theory is that someone poisoned him because he has proof that Russia was not behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, “This is about stopping the Trump agenda,” he said. “I would blow the whistle on this whole bogus Russian narrative that they just won’t let go of.”

However, Stone is also pushing that said debunking is central to his new book, “The Making of the President 2016: How Donald Trump Orchestrated a Revolution,” which comes out on January 31st. It’s not clear how, in Stone’s theory, his death would stop the book from debunking Russian hacking allegations, especially since it would likely give the release more publicity.

It’s not clear how, in Stone’s theory, his death would stop the book from debunking Russian hacking allegations, especially since it would likely give the release more publicity.

On January 19 2017 04:46 Mohdoo wrote:
Are any republicans around here skeptical of Devos? She seems blatantly and hugely inexperienced. I am assuming there are plenty of republicans that support many of the same things while also being people who are at least involved in this type of thing.

On January 18 2017 22:45 xDaunt wrote:

LightSpectra provided a good example. Perhaps the best one is BLM, where the argument from the Left is basically "it's okay for black people to riot and break shit because they're not going to be able to get the attention of anyone through peaceful means." That's a pretty fucked message if you ask me.

On January 19 2017 05:12 Introvert wrote:
Howevet from what I've read and seen most of this is partisan or ideological gnashing of teeth. These hearings are useless anyways. Don't make waves and coast by. I've seen no evidence of any competency issue and I'm not going to trust NPR snippets to find out..

On January 19 2017 05:28 Logo wrote:


She flat out lied about being on the board of her parent's foundation during the confirmation hearing.

On January 19 2017 05:35 GreenHorizons wrote:

No it was just the mother of all clerical errors of course. DeVos is wholly unqualified by any measure to be in such a position.

On January 19 2017 05:34 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Her answers aren't partisan, and the questions aren't biased either. Here's the perfect example... that she has absolutely no idea that a huge issue in education (and assessment of learning) is related to the Proficiency vs. Growth argument.

Question is asked around 1:30.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF8wEH2ixak

What's partisan about that? She doesn't know the difference between educational proficiency and educational growth, and it's not like liberals prefer one while conservatives prefer the other o.O Al Franken is spot on about how important this is in education.



What's that mean

On January 19 2017 05:53 Introvert wrote:


I was talking about the questions from Senators are usually partisan and often irrelevent.

From the clip I saw her speaking for all of 20 seconds, which is why I give very little weight to these things.

And that last comment is a remark on the fact that often times when you come into this thread you talk as if the worst thing in the world has just happened

Now full disclosure, I don't have 3.5 hours to watch even one hearing, normally if there is a competency issue it will be pointed out by more than just a political or ideological contigent. Though that's obviously just a general rule.

On January 19 2017 05:53 Introvert wrote:


I was talking about the questions from Senators are usually partisan and often irrelevent.

From the clip I saw her speaking for all of 20 seconds, which is why I give very little weight to these things.

And that last comment is a remark on the fact that often times when you come into this thread you talk as if the worst thing in the world has just happened

Now full disclosure, I don't have 3.5 hours to watch even one hearing, normally if there is a competency issue it will be pointed out by more than just a political or ideological contigent. Though that's obviously just a general rule.

On January 19 2017 04:48 LegalLord wrote:
Context? Who is this guy and why should we care what his rather conspiratorial statements here are?

“They caught Roger red-handed lying,” Donald Trump said. “What he did was ridiculous and stupid. I lost respect for Eliot Spitzer when he didn’t sue Roger Stone for doing that to his father, who is a wonderful man.”

On January 19 2017 06:03 Ayaz2810 wrote:
i only caught a fragment of her hearing, but when i heard a female committee member say "will you commit to us right now that education wont be privatized and you wont take anything out of the current budget?". her answer was rambling horseshit and the lady asking the question goes "so i take it thats a no". i wasnt sure whether to weep or laugh. its like everything is being done to fuck up the environment, the economy, education, etc, but its being done discreetly through cabinet picks. its head scratching to say the least.