• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 21:52
CEST 03:52
KST 10:52
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Ro4 Preview: Storied Rivals7Code S RO12 Preview: Maru, Trigger, Rogue, NightMare12Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, sOs, Reynor, Solar15[ASL19] Ro8 Preview: Unyielding3Official Ladder Map Pool Update (April 28, 2025)17
Community News
Dark to begin military service on May 13th (2025)13Weekly Cups (May 5-11): New 2v2 Champs1Maru & Rogue GSL RO12 interviews: "I think the pressure really got to [trigger]"5Code S Season 1 - Maru & Rogue advance to RO80Code S Season 1 - Cure & Reynor advance to RO84
StarCraft 2
General
Map Pool Suggestion: Throwback ERA Dark to begin military service on May 13th (2025) How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports? I hope balance council is prepping final balance 2024/25 Off-Season Roster Moves
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S:Season 1 - RO12 - Group B Monday Nights Weeklies Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament [GSL 2025] Code S:Season 1 - RO12 - Group A $1,250 WardiTV May [May 6th-May 18th]
Strategy
[G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 473 Cold is the Void Mutation # 472 Dead Heat Mutation # 471 Delivery Guaranteed Mutation # 470 Certain Demise
Brood War
General
[ASL19] Ro4 Preview: Storied Rivals BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Battlenet Game Lobby Simulator Twitch StarCraft Holiday Bash (UMS) Artosis vs Ogre Zerg [The Legend Continues]
Tourneys
[ASL19] Semifinal A BSL Nation Wars 2 - Grand Finals - Saturday 21:00 [ASL19] Ro8 Day 4 [USBL Spring 2025] Groups cast
Strategy
[G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player Creating a full chart of Zerg builds [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread What do you want from future RTS games? Nintendo Switch Thread Grand Theft Auto VI Battle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread TL Mafia Plays: Diplomacy TL Mafia: Generative Agents Showdown Survivor II: The Amazon
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine
Fan Clubs
Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [Books] Wool by Hugh Howey Surprisingly good films/Hidden Gems
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread NHL Playoffs 2024 NBA General Discussion Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread Cleaning My Mechanical Keyboard How to clean a TTe Thermaltake keyboard?
TL Community
The Automated Ban List TL.net Ten Commandments
Blogs
Why 5v5 Games Keep Us Hooked…
TrAiDoS
Info SLEgma_12
SLEgma_12
SECOND COMMING
XenOsky
WombaT’s Old BW Terran Theme …
WombaT
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
BW PvZ Balance hypothetic…
Vasoline73
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 12426 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1511

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 4963 Next
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!

NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.

Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.


If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread
iamthedave
Profile Joined February 2011
England2814 Posts
May 30 2019 11:47 GMT
#30201
On May 30 2019 12:38 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 12:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

Bill wasn't just impeached for lying. He committed perjury while under oath and also committed real obstruction of justice by destroying evidence and tampering with witnesses. What he did is in a different league than anything Trump is alleged to have done.


Lol... Are you really going to tell me he wasn't impeached for lying, but then go on and state he committed perjury?...

Yep. Lying is not the same as perjury. If you don't understand the difference between the two, then you're probably in over your head with this conversation.


If only you maintained this standard when talking about people other than Republicans.
I'm not bad at Starcraft; I just think winning's rude.
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 13:24:38
May 30 2019 12:51 GMT
#30202
On May 30 2019 20:47 iamthedave wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 12:38 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

Bill wasn't just impeached for lying. He committed perjury while under oath and also committed real obstruction of justice by destroying evidence and tampering with witnesses. What he did is in a different league than anything Trump is alleged to have done.


Lol... Are you really going to tell me he wasn't impeached for lying, but then go on and state he committed perjury?...

Yep. Lying is not the same as perjury. If you don't understand the difference between the two, then you're probably in over your head with this conversation.


If only you maintained this standard when talking about people other than Republicans.


He knows what I meant, perjury is lying under oath, which what got Bill in the hot seat. He just wants to play semantics now, and try to seem like he knows better than me, because apparently he thinks the conversation is over my head?... He got impeachment proceedings for LYING about it "under oath" to Congress, and the American people. Just because I don't use the word "perjure" doesn't mean I'm wrong...

Like literally, it was a Witch Hunt against Bill Clinton for getting his dick sucked, at least on the second attempt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Senate_votes

If you filter by "perjury charge" you'll see the some of the same names we have in Senate today who won't even lift a finger against Trump for the same "perjury" charges such as Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, Jeff Sessions, etc... It's quite disgusting partisan that they choose to ignore.
Life?
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 13:05:13
May 30 2019 13:02 GMT
#30203
On May 30 2019 12:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

I'm including James Comey opinion piece from Washington Post to provide a source on Trump lying.

James Comey: No ‘treason.’ No coup. Just lies — and dumb lies at that.

+ Show Spoiler +
It is tempting for normal people to ignore our president when he starts ranting about treason and corruption at the FBI. I understand the temptation. I’m the object of many of his rants, and even I try to ignore him.

But we shouldn’t, because millions of good people believe what a president of the United States says. In normal times, that’s healthy. But not now, when the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions. We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the Trump campaign and tried to defeat Donald Trump. We must constantly return to the stubborn facts.

Russia engaged in a massive effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Near as I can tell, there is only one U.S. leader who still denies that fact. The FBI saw the attack starting in mid-June 2016, with the first dumping of stolen emails. In late July, when we were hard at work trying to understand the scope of the effort, we learned that one of Trump’s foreign policy advisers knew about the Russian effort seven weeks before we did.

In April 2016, that adviser talked to a Russian agent in London, learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails and that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Clinton. Of course, nobody from the Trump campaign told us this (or about later Russian approaches); we had to learn it, months after the fact, from an allied ambassador.

But when we finally learned of it in late July, what should the FBI have done? Let it go? Go tell the Trump campaign? Tell the press? No. Investigate, to see what the facts were. We didn’t know what was true. Maybe there was nothing to it, or maybe Americans were actively conspiring with the Russians. To find out, the FBI would live up to its name and investigate.

As director, I was determined that the work would be done carefully, professionally and discreetly. We were just starting. If there was nothing to it, we didn’t want to smear Americans. If there was something to it, we didn’t want to let corrupt Americans know we were onto them. So, we kept it secret. That’s how the FBI approaches all counterintelligence cases.


And there’s the first problem with Trump’s whole “treason” narrative. If we were “deep state” Clinton loyalists bent on stopping him, why would we keep it secret? Why wouldn’t the much-maligned FBI supervisor Peter Strzok — the alleged kingpin of the “treasonous” plot to stop Trump — tell anyone? He was one of the very few people who knew what we were investigating.

We investigated. We didn’t gather information about the campaign’s strategy. We didn’t “spy” on anyone’s campaign. We investigated to see whether it was true that Americans associated with the campaign had taken the Russians up on any offer of help. By late October, the investigators thought they had probable cause to get a federal court order to conduct electronic surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser named Carter Page. Page was no longer with the campaign, but there was reason to believe he was acting as an agent of the Russian government. We asked a federal judge for permission to surveil him and then we did it, all without revealing our work, despite the fact that it was late October and a leak would have been very harmful to candidate Trump. Worst deep-state conspiracy ever.

But wait, the conspiracy idea gets dumber. On Oct. 28, after agonizing deliberation over two terrible options, I concluded I had no choice but to inform Congress that we had reopened the Clinton email investigation. I judged that hiding that fact — after having told Congress repeatedly and under oath that the case was finished — would be worse than telling Congress the truth. It was a decision William Barr praised and Hillary Clinton blamed for her loss 11 days later. Strzok, alleged architect of the treasonous plot to stop Trump, drafted the letter I sent Congress.


And there’s still more to the dumbness of the conspiracy allegation. At the center of the alleged FBI “corruption” we hear so much about was the conclusion that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied to internal investigators about a disclosure to the press in late October 2016. McCabe was fired over it. And what was that disclosure? Some stop-Trump election-eve screed? No. McCabe authorized a disclosure that revealed the FBI was actively investigating the Clinton Foundation, a disclosure that was harmful to Clinton.

There is a reason the non-fringe media doesn’t spend much time on this “treason” and “corruption” business. The conspiracy theory makes no sense. The FBI wasn’t out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn’t out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield.

But go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must. When those investigations are over, you will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations. There was no corruption. There was no treason. There was no attempted coup. Those are lies, and dumb lies at that. There were just good people trying to figure out what was true, under unprecedented circumstances.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-no-treason-no-coup-just-lies--and-dumb-lies-at-that/2019/05/28/45f8d802-8175-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html


Wait, was this in response to my question on your threshold for Mueller to recommend congress pursue charges, did you recognize your error and move on, or something else?

Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 12:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

Bill wasn't just impeached for lying. He committed perjury while under oath and also committed real obstruction of justice by destroying evidence and tampering with witnesses. What he did is in a different league than anything Trump is alleged to have done.


Lol... Are you really going to tell me he wasn't impeached for lying, but then go on and state he committed perjury?...


He's a lawyer, of course he is?


What Error? If you read my original post, then you'd understand my threshold is where they left off with Bill Clinton, but instead you chose to answer for me instead of trying to understand what I meant.

Yea, so what he's a lawyer? Lawyers word things in ways to get what they want. If they can't get what they want by playing semantics, they'll lie to get what they want, and those that lie are the worst type of lawyers.
Life?
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 13:41:13
May 30 2019 13:40 GMT
#30204
We can continue this story here, it seems like Trump just let people know that Russia did in fact help him get elected.

"And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected", he had nothing to do with them helping him get elected, yet like I mentioned yesterday, the FBI literally would watch Trump appointees meet with Russians. The reason why we have had so many people arrested, the reason why Muellers indictments arrested others on the spot.



And then you have this piece of news of where a USAF veteran released documents providing details of the 2016 Russian Cyberattack on US voting machines, then was sentenced to prison for five years in 2018, and are barring her, and her prison facility from speaking to any journalist or reporters.

"The prosecution painted her to be a very evil person, who hates her country ... who needed to be feared by the American people," Winner-Davis said. "And I honestly believe they are afraid that if America gets to know who Reality Winner really is, they are going to see that wasn't the case at all."
...
Winner, 27, who worked in the US Air Force's drone program, is serving the longest sentence ever given to a journalistic source by a federal court, according to the Department of Justice.
...
The government secured Winner's conviction under the World War I-era Espionage Act, though prosecutors do not call her a spy, and in her plea agreement, government attorneys recognize that the document she leaked was sent to a news outlet rather than a foreign adversary.


https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/29/politics/reality-winner-media-blackout-prison/index.html
Life?
Ben...
Profile Joined January 2011
Canada3485 Posts
May 30 2019 15:33 GMT
#30205
Whether Trump conspired with Russia or not on the election is ultimately inconsequential in light of recent news, but the fact is that Russia interfered in the US election to the benefit of Trump (and by proxy, the Republicans), and since then all we've seen from the Republicans is attempts to deny or minimize Russia's actions while at the same time those Republicans in power are doing as little as possible to prevent the same Russian interference from happening in 2020. It took until today for Trump to finally acknowledge that Russia meddled in the election (even though he basically retracted his statement immediately when asked about it by reporters). As a person from the outside looking in on US politics, it appears that the Republicans' lack of willingness to do anything makes it seem like they actually want the help of the Russians, or at the very least, are accepting of the actions the Russians did in 2016.

On another rather interesting, somewhat related, note it seems like Pelosi is starting to put pressure on Facebook after the whole debacle where it took them over 32 hours to take down an obviously doctored video of her that was immediately debunked by other sources. I had wondered when something like this would happen. Facebook's name has been getting dragged through the mud a lot lately because of this kind of behaviour, but their seeming unwillingness to ever do anything about rogue actors exploiting their platform to manipulate elections is making things significantly worse for them.

I would think sometime in the very near future either the US, or more likely, the EU or Canada will start putting significantly more pressure on Facebook to clean up their act or threaten them with strict regulations. It's obvious that it is in Facebook's short term financial interest not to do anything (ad money is ad money, whether it's in dollars, rubles, or riyal), but if their efforts don't improve drastically to curb all of the misinformation and propaganda, I could see them getting into quite a bit of trouble. There's been talk of breaking up Facebook (forcing them to split off Instagram and Whatsapp), and a former advisor to Facebook even said governments should call Facebook's bluff and consider shutting the platform down in their respective countries until the company cleans up its' act.
"If your goals are to protect democracy and personal liberty, you have to be bold. You have to force a radical transformation of the business model of internet platforms," venture capitalist Roger McNamee told the House of Commons privacy and ethics committee Tuesday morning.

"At the end of the day, though, the most effective path to reform would be to shut down the platforms at least temporarily. …. Any country can go first. The platforms have left you no choice. The time has come to call their bluff."

...

"The people at Google and Facebook are not evil," said McNamee, an early investor in Facebook.

"They are the products of an American business culture with few rules, where misbehaviour seldom results in punishment. Smart people take what they can get and tell themselves they earned it. They feel entitled. Consequences are someone else's problem."
"Cliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide" -Tastosis
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States22990 Posts
May 30 2019 16:28 GMT
#30206
On May 30 2019 22:02 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 12:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

I'm including James Comey opinion piece from Washington Post to provide a source on Trump lying.

James Comey: No ‘treason.’ No coup. Just lies — and dumb lies at that.

+ Show Spoiler +
It is tempting for normal people to ignore our president when he starts ranting about treason and corruption at the FBI. I understand the temptation. I’m the object of many of his rants, and even I try to ignore him.

But we shouldn’t, because millions of good people believe what a president of the United States says. In normal times, that’s healthy. But not now, when the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions. We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the Trump campaign and tried to defeat Donald Trump. We must constantly return to the stubborn facts.

Russia engaged in a massive effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Near as I can tell, there is only one U.S. leader who still denies that fact. The FBI saw the attack starting in mid-June 2016, with the first dumping of stolen emails. In late July, when we were hard at work trying to understand the scope of the effort, we learned that one of Trump’s foreign policy advisers knew about the Russian effort seven weeks before we did.

In April 2016, that adviser talked to a Russian agent in London, learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails and that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Clinton. Of course, nobody from the Trump campaign told us this (or about later Russian approaches); we had to learn it, months after the fact, from an allied ambassador.

But when we finally learned of it in late July, what should the FBI have done? Let it go? Go tell the Trump campaign? Tell the press? No. Investigate, to see what the facts were. We didn’t know what was true. Maybe there was nothing to it, or maybe Americans were actively conspiring with the Russians. To find out, the FBI would live up to its name and investigate.

As director, I was determined that the work would be done carefully, professionally and discreetly. We were just starting. If there was nothing to it, we didn’t want to smear Americans. If there was something to it, we didn’t want to let corrupt Americans know we were onto them. So, we kept it secret. That’s how the FBI approaches all counterintelligence cases.


And there’s the first problem with Trump’s whole “treason” narrative. If we were “deep state” Clinton loyalists bent on stopping him, why would we keep it secret? Why wouldn’t the much-maligned FBI supervisor Peter Strzok — the alleged kingpin of the “treasonous” plot to stop Trump — tell anyone? He was one of the very few people who knew what we were investigating.

We investigated. We didn’t gather information about the campaign’s strategy. We didn’t “spy” on anyone’s campaign. We investigated to see whether it was true that Americans associated with the campaign had taken the Russians up on any offer of help. By late October, the investigators thought they had probable cause to get a federal court order to conduct electronic surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser named Carter Page. Page was no longer with the campaign, but there was reason to believe he was acting as an agent of the Russian government. We asked a federal judge for permission to surveil him and then we did it, all without revealing our work, despite the fact that it was late October and a leak would have been very harmful to candidate Trump. Worst deep-state conspiracy ever.

But wait, the conspiracy idea gets dumber. On Oct. 28, after agonizing deliberation over two terrible options, I concluded I had no choice but to inform Congress that we had reopened the Clinton email investigation. I judged that hiding that fact — after having told Congress repeatedly and under oath that the case was finished — would be worse than telling Congress the truth. It was a decision William Barr praised and Hillary Clinton blamed for her loss 11 days later. Strzok, alleged architect of the treasonous plot to stop Trump, drafted the letter I sent Congress.


And there’s still more to the dumbness of the conspiracy allegation. At the center of the alleged FBI “corruption” we hear so much about was the conclusion that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied to internal investigators about a disclosure to the press in late October 2016. McCabe was fired over it. And what was that disclosure? Some stop-Trump election-eve screed? No. McCabe authorized a disclosure that revealed the FBI was actively investigating the Clinton Foundation, a disclosure that was harmful to Clinton.

There is a reason the non-fringe media doesn’t spend much time on this “treason” and “corruption” business. The conspiracy theory makes no sense. The FBI wasn’t out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn’t out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield.

But go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must. When those investigations are over, you will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations. There was no corruption. There was no treason. There was no attempted coup. Those are lies, and dumb lies at that. There were just good people trying to figure out what was true, under unprecedented circumstances.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-no-treason-no-coup-just-lies--and-dumb-lies-at-that/2019/05/28/45f8d802-8175-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html


Wait, was this in response to my question on your threshold for Mueller to recommend congress pursue charges, did you recognize your error and move on, or something else?

On May 30 2019 12:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

Bill wasn't just impeached for lying. He committed perjury while under oath and also committed real obstruction of justice by destroying evidence and tampering with witnesses. What he did is in a different league than anything Trump is alleged to have done.


Lol... Are you really going to tell me he wasn't impeached for lying, but then go on and state he committed perjury?...


He's a lawyer, of course he is?


What Error? If you read my original post, then you'd understand my threshold is where they left off with Bill Clinton, but instead you chose to answer for me instead of trying to understand what I meant.

Yea, so what he's a lawyer? Lawyers word things in ways to get what they want. If they can't get what they want by playing semantics, they'll lie to get what they want, and those that lie are the worst type of lawyers.


The question was the threshold for which it would be unacceptable for Mueller to do what he did and you're saying lying.

The answer you've given is that Mueller's actions are already unacceptable to you but you have no resolution to address it.

I don't think that's what you mean to answer so there's a failure to communicate what it is I'm asking you, but I don't know how to reword it so you address the question I'm asking and not something else.

IgnE gave me a pointer (indirectly months ago) that if after half a dozen attempts the person still isn't addressing the question they are probably not going to no matter how many times/ways you try.

The difference between lying and perjury isn't semantics for a lawyer, in their professional life it's the difference between freedom and imprisonment and so forth (granted perjury usually isn't the reason for imprisonment but what they perjured themselves about).
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
ShambhalaWar
Profile Joined August 2013
United States930 Posts
May 30 2019 16:29 GMT
#30207
On May 30 2019 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 10:23 pmh wrote:
Democrats still on track for loosing in 2020? Looks like it.
When trump gets re-elected i will blame the democrats.

The person in the street he doesn't care about the report. He is tired with the report after hearing about it for 2,5 years and probably 1,5 more years to come. Why don't the democrats focus on other things,on things that matter for the man in the street?


Because they don't have functional solutions, just rhetoric on doing better than Republicans which is a bar so low that just disappearing and preventing someone from replacing them would put them comfortably above it imo.

Remember earlier today when people were dismissing Biden's creepy non-consensual touching of strange girls/women was just the new Russian Republican division campaign of 2020

Or their "Have you seen the other guys" campaign slogan?


That's a bullshit answer, 100%.

Reading posts like this has me losing trust in you as a poster. Warren has tons of plans. Yang has a plan even. Bernie has been pushing a legit medicare for all plan with many other people on the left. There is plenty of solid legislation proposals from Democrats.

Republicans couldn't come up with one actual plan for healthcare to replace the ACA.

Don't spew bullshit. Use google.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
May 30 2019 16:32 GMT
#30208
On May 31 2019 00:33 Ben... wrote:
Whether Trump conspired with Russia or not on the election is ultimately inconsequential in light of recent news, but the fact is that Russia interfered in the US election to the benefit of Trump (and by proxy, the Republicans), and since then all we've seen from the Republicans is attempts to deny or minimize Russia's actions while at the same time those Republicans in power are doing as little as possible to prevent the same Russian interference from happening in 2020. It took until today for Trump to finally acknowledge that Russia meddled in the election (even though he basically retracted his statement immediately when asked about it by reporters). As a person from the outside looking in on US politics, it appears that the Republicans' lack of willingness to do anything makes it seem like they actually want the help of the Russians, or at the very least, are accepting of the actions the Russians did in 2016.

You could argue that everything is inconsequential by this same standard. Put the President under a cloud for two years, with all the criminal leaks and false stories, affecting his administration's ability to govern, national security, and the midterm elections. The investigation ends finding no collusion, and many want to just wash their hands and consider it no longer. It's really hard to see why people criticize Trump anymore. They're just adopting his chaos as a standard to follow.

Also, you really should address the meaning of "accepting of the actions the Russians did." They've been trying to influence elections of democracies for decades. It doesn't really matter if you accept they're doing them, they're still doing them. The only real action on that front is tracking payments better, improving social media's interactions with foreign governments, and showing Americans that Russians encourage ideological divide and civic discord.

(And this Republican administration has arguably taken much more tough actions on Russia than the Obama administration. Multiple rounds of tough sanctions, closing of diplomatic properties, lethal weapons to Ukraine. Lack of false red lines and reset buttons and "more flexibility.")

On another rather interesting, somewhat related, note it seems like Pelosi is starting to put pressure on Facebook after the whole debacle where it took them over 32 hours to take down an obviously doctored video of her that was immediately debunked by other sources. I had wondered when something like this would happen. Facebook's name has been getting dragged through the mud a lot lately because of this kind of behaviour, but their seeming unwillingness to ever do anything about rogue actors exploiting their platform to manipulate elections is making things significantly worse for them.

I would think sometime in the very near future either the US, or more likely, the EU or Canada will start putting significantly more pressure on Facebook to clean up their act or threaten them with strict regulations. It's obvious that it is in Facebook's short term financial interest not to do anything (ad money is ad money, whether it's in dollars, rubles, or riyal), but if their efforts don't improve drastically to curb all of the misinformation and propaganda, I could see them getting into quite a bit of trouble. There's been talk of breaking up Facebook (forcing them to split off Instagram and Whatsapp), and a former advisor to Facebook even said governments should call Facebook's bluff and consider shutting the platform down in their respective countries until the company cleans up its' act.
Show nested quote +
"If your goals are to protect democracy and personal liberty, you have to be bold. You have to force a radical transformation of the business model of internet platforms," venture capitalist Roger McNamee told the House of Commons privacy and ethics committee Tuesday morning.

"At the end of the day, though, the most effective path to reform would be to shut down the platforms at least temporarily. …. Any country can go first. The platforms have left you no choice. The time has come to call their bluff."

...

"The people at Google and Facebook are not evil," said McNamee, an early investor in Facebook.

"They are the products of an American business culture with few rules, where misbehaviour seldom results in punishment. Smart people take what they can get and tell themselves they earned it. They feel entitled. Consequences are someone else's problem."

Facebook originally put the label of fake on it while leaving it up. They're going to run into trouble with lefty authors and late night shows that regularly doctor videos for comedic effect. They've got the news aspect of their platform, so labeling shit as fake is totally appropriate.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States22990 Posts
May 30 2019 16:35 GMT
#30209
On May 31 2019 01:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 10:23 pmh wrote:
Democrats still on track for loosing in 2020? Looks like it.
When trump gets re-elected i will blame the democrats.

The person in the street he doesn't care about the report. He is tired with the report after hearing about it for 2,5 years and probably 1,5 more years to come. Why don't the democrats focus on other things,on things that matter for the man in the street?


Because they don't have functional solutions, just rhetoric on doing better than Republicans which is a bar so low that just disappearing and preventing someone from replacing them would put them comfortably above it imo.

Remember earlier today when people were dismissing Biden's creepy non-consensual touching of strange girls/women was just the new Russian Republican division campaign of 2020

Or their "Have you seen the other guys" campaign slogan?


That's a bullshit answer, 100%.

Reading posts like this has me losing trust in you as a poster. Warren has tons of plans. Yang has a plan even. Bernie has been pushing a legit medicare for all plan with many other people on the left. There is plenty of solid legislation proposals from Democrats.

Republicans couldn't come up with one actual plan for healthcare to replace the ACA.

Don't spew bullshit. Use google.


No it's not.

I don't believe you had it to lose?

You seem to have missed the operant word "functional " in there. They have plans to preserve capitalism. The same capitalism which is indisputably leading to massive climate collapse, mass extinctions, and potentially the extinction of the human species.

So no it's not bullshit or rudimentary googling from which my position springs.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
May 30 2019 16:48 GMT
#30210
On May 31 2019 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 22:02 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

I'm including James Comey opinion piece from Washington Post to provide a source on Trump lying.

James Comey: No ‘treason.’ No coup. Just lies — and dumb lies at that.

+ Show Spoiler +
It is tempting for normal people to ignore our president when he starts ranting about treason and corruption at the FBI. I understand the temptation. I’m the object of many of his rants, and even I try to ignore him.

But we shouldn’t, because millions of good people believe what a president of the United States says. In normal times, that’s healthy. But not now, when the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions. We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the Trump campaign and tried to defeat Donald Trump. We must constantly return to the stubborn facts.

Russia engaged in a massive effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Near as I can tell, there is only one U.S. leader who still denies that fact. The FBI saw the attack starting in mid-June 2016, with the first dumping of stolen emails. In late July, when we were hard at work trying to understand the scope of the effort, we learned that one of Trump’s foreign policy advisers knew about the Russian effort seven weeks before we did.

In April 2016, that adviser talked to a Russian agent in London, learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails and that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Clinton. Of course, nobody from the Trump campaign told us this (or about later Russian approaches); we had to learn it, months after the fact, from an allied ambassador.

But when we finally learned of it in late July, what should the FBI have done? Let it go? Go tell the Trump campaign? Tell the press? No. Investigate, to see what the facts were. We didn’t know what was true. Maybe there was nothing to it, or maybe Americans were actively conspiring with the Russians. To find out, the FBI would live up to its name and investigate.

As director, I was determined that the work would be done carefully, professionally and discreetly. We were just starting. If there was nothing to it, we didn’t want to smear Americans. If there was something to it, we didn’t want to let corrupt Americans know we were onto them. So, we kept it secret. That’s how the FBI approaches all counterintelligence cases.


And there’s the first problem with Trump’s whole “treason” narrative. If we were “deep state” Clinton loyalists bent on stopping him, why would we keep it secret? Why wouldn’t the much-maligned FBI supervisor Peter Strzok — the alleged kingpin of the “treasonous” plot to stop Trump — tell anyone? He was one of the very few people who knew what we were investigating.

We investigated. We didn’t gather information about the campaign’s strategy. We didn’t “spy” on anyone’s campaign. We investigated to see whether it was true that Americans associated with the campaign had taken the Russians up on any offer of help. By late October, the investigators thought they had probable cause to get a federal court order to conduct electronic surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser named Carter Page. Page was no longer with the campaign, but there was reason to believe he was acting as an agent of the Russian government. We asked a federal judge for permission to surveil him and then we did it, all without revealing our work, despite the fact that it was late October and a leak would have been very harmful to candidate Trump. Worst deep-state conspiracy ever.

But wait, the conspiracy idea gets dumber. On Oct. 28, after agonizing deliberation over two terrible options, I concluded I had no choice but to inform Congress that we had reopened the Clinton email investigation. I judged that hiding that fact — after having told Congress repeatedly and under oath that the case was finished — would be worse than telling Congress the truth. It was a decision William Barr praised and Hillary Clinton blamed for her loss 11 days later. Strzok, alleged architect of the treasonous plot to stop Trump, drafted the letter I sent Congress.


And there’s still more to the dumbness of the conspiracy allegation. At the center of the alleged FBI “corruption” we hear so much about was the conclusion that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied to internal investigators about a disclosure to the press in late October 2016. McCabe was fired over it. And what was that disclosure? Some stop-Trump election-eve screed? No. McCabe authorized a disclosure that revealed the FBI was actively investigating the Clinton Foundation, a disclosure that was harmful to Clinton.

There is a reason the non-fringe media doesn’t spend much time on this “treason” and “corruption” business. The conspiracy theory makes no sense. The FBI wasn’t out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn’t out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield.

But go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must. When those investigations are over, you will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations. There was no corruption. There was no treason. There was no attempted coup. Those are lies, and dumb lies at that. There were just good people trying to figure out what was true, under unprecedented circumstances.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-no-treason-no-coup-just-lies--and-dumb-lies-at-that/2019/05/28/45f8d802-8175-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html


Wait, was this in response to my question on your threshold for Mueller to recommend congress pursue charges, did you recognize your error and move on, or something else?

On May 30 2019 12:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

Bill wasn't just impeached for lying. He committed perjury while under oath and also committed real obstruction of justice by destroying evidence and tampering with witnesses. What he did is in a different league than anything Trump is alleged to have done.


Lol... Are you really going to tell me he wasn't impeached for lying, but then go on and state he committed perjury?...


He's a lawyer, of course he is?


What Error? If you read my original post, then you'd understand my threshold is where they left off with Bill Clinton, but instead you chose to answer for me instead of trying to understand what I meant.

Yea, so what he's a lawyer? Lawyers word things in ways to get what they want. If they can't get what they want by playing semantics, they'll lie to get what they want, and those that lie are the worst type of lawyers.


The question was the threshold for which it would be unacceptable for Mueller to do what he did and you're saying lying.

The answer you've given is that Mueller's actions are already unacceptable to you but you have no resolution to address it.

I don't think that's what you mean to answer so there's a failure to communicate what it is I'm asking you, but I don't know how to reword it so you address the question I'm asking and not something else.

IgnE gave me a pointer (indirectly months ago) that if after half a dozen attempts the person still isn't addressing the question they are probably not going to no matter how many times/ways you try.

The difference between lying and perjury isn't semantics for a lawyer, in their professional life it's the difference between freedom and imprisonment and so forth (granted perjury usually isn't the reason for imprisonment but what they perjured themselves about).


We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago.

When people propose ridiculous standards that would impeach nearly every president in history, you know they aren't being serious. Politicians lie. Trump's ridiculously bad at it. Life experience will teach him his heroes aren't so clean. It'll also show that lying to your mom about where you were is different than repeating the lie on the witness stand before a judge.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 16:55:24
May 30 2019 16:52 GMT
#30211
On May 31 2019 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 30 2019 22:02 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

I'm including James Comey opinion piece from Washington Post to provide a source on Trump lying.

James Comey: No ‘treason.’ No coup. Just lies — and dumb lies at that.

+ Show Spoiler +
It is tempting for normal people to ignore our president when he starts ranting about treason and corruption at the FBI. I understand the temptation. I’m the object of many of his rants, and even I try to ignore him.

But we shouldn’t, because millions of good people believe what a president of the United States says. In normal times, that’s healthy. But not now, when the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions. We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the Trump campaign and tried to defeat Donald Trump. We must constantly return to the stubborn facts.

Russia engaged in a massive effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Near as I can tell, there is only one U.S. leader who still denies that fact. The FBI saw the attack starting in mid-June 2016, with the first dumping of stolen emails. In late July, when we were hard at work trying to understand the scope of the effort, we learned that one of Trump’s foreign policy advisers knew about the Russian effort seven weeks before we did.

In April 2016, that adviser talked to a Russian agent in London, learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails and that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Clinton. Of course, nobody from the Trump campaign told us this (or about later Russian approaches); we had to learn it, months after the fact, from an allied ambassador.

But when we finally learned of it in late July, what should the FBI have done? Let it go? Go tell the Trump campaign? Tell the press? No. Investigate, to see what the facts were. We didn’t know what was true. Maybe there was nothing to it, or maybe Americans were actively conspiring with the Russians. To find out, the FBI would live up to its name and investigate.

As director, I was determined that the work would be done carefully, professionally and discreetly. We were just starting. If there was nothing to it, we didn’t want to smear Americans. If there was something to it, we didn’t want to let corrupt Americans know we were onto them. So, we kept it secret. That’s how the FBI approaches all counterintelligence cases.


And there’s the first problem with Trump’s whole “treason” narrative. If we were “deep state” Clinton loyalists bent on stopping him, why would we keep it secret? Why wouldn’t the much-maligned FBI supervisor Peter Strzok — the alleged kingpin of the “treasonous” plot to stop Trump — tell anyone? He was one of the very few people who knew what we were investigating.

We investigated. We didn’t gather information about the campaign’s strategy. We didn’t “spy” on anyone’s campaign. We investigated to see whether it was true that Americans associated with the campaign had taken the Russians up on any offer of help. By late October, the investigators thought they had probable cause to get a federal court order to conduct electronic surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser named Carter Page. Page was no longer with the campaign, but there was reason to believe he was acting as an agent of the Russian government. We asked a federal judge for permission to surveil him and then we did it, all without revealing our work, despite the fact that it was late October and a leak would have been very harmful to candidate Trump. Worst deep-state conspiracy ever.

But wait, the conspiracy idea gets dumber. On Oct. 28, after agonizing deliberation over two terrible options, I concluded I had no choice but to inform Congress that we had reopened the Clinton email investigation. I judged that hiding that fact — after having told Congress repeatedly and under oath that the case was finished — would be worse than telling Congress the truth. It was a decision William Barr praised and Hillary Clinton blamed for her loss 11 days later. Strzok, alleged architect of the treasonous plot to stop Trump, drafted the letter I sent Congress.


And there’s still more to the dumbness of the conspiracy allegation. At the center of the alleged FBI “corruption” we hear so much about was the conclusion that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied to internal investigators about a disclosure to the press in late October 2016. McCabe was fired over it. And what was that disclosure? Some stop-Trump election-eve screed? No. McCabe authorized a disclosure that revealed the FBI was actively investigating the Clinton Foundation, a disclosure that was harmful to Clinton.

There is a reason the non-fringe media doesn’t spend much time on this “treason” and “corruption” business. The conspiracy theory makes no sense. The FBI wasn’t out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn’t out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield.

But go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must. When those investigations are over, you will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations. There was no corruption. There was no treason. There was no attempted coup. Those are lies, and dumb lies at that. There were just good people trying to figure out what was true, under unprecedented circumstances.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-no-treason-no-coup-just-lies--and-dumb-lies-at-that/2019/05/28/45f8d802-8175-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html


Wait, was this in response to my question on your threshold for Mueller to recommend congress pursue charges, did you recognize your error and move on, or something else?

On May 30 2019 12:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

Bill wasn't just impeached for lying. He committed perjury while under oath and also committed real obstruction of justice by destroying evidence and tampering with witnesses. What he did is in a different league than anything Trump is alleged to have done.


Lol... Are you really going to tell me he wasn't impeached for lying, but then go on and state he committed perjury?...


He's a lawyer, of course he is?


What Error? If you read my original post, then you'd understand my threshold is where they left off with Bill Clinton, but instead you chose to answer for me instead of trying to understand what I meant.

Yea, so what he's a lawyer? Lawyers word things in ways to get what they want. If they can't get what they want by playing semantics, they'll lie to get what they want, and those that lie are the worst type of lawyers.


The question was the threshold for which it would be unacceptable for Mueller to do what he did and you're saying lying.

The answer you've given is that Mueller's actions are already unacceptable to you but you have no resolution to address it.

I don't think that's what you mean to answer so there's a failure to communicate what it is I'm asking you, but I don't know how to reword it so you address the question I'm asking and not something else.

IgnE gave me a pointer (indirectly months ago) that if after half a dozen attempts the person still isn't addressing the question they are probably not going to no matter how many times/ways you try.

The difference between lying and perjury isn't semantics for a lawyer, in their professional life it's the difference between freedom and imprisonment and so forth (granted perjury usually isn't the reason for imprisonment but what they perjured themselves about).


I know many lawyers, and lawyers that lie under oath. I know a lawyer who straight up murdered a girl while drinking a driving, he ended up messing with the evidence and got away with it, you know why? He's a personal injury lawyer, he knew exactly what to do to get away with it. Especially if the people who are "judging" him let him get away with it too. How can you have a solution to a problem when most people in the system are corrupt?...

Even if you wanted to have a revolution, and clean out the house in all three branches? How do you vet a person to not be corrupt? or return the position to a corrupt one?

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article213850594.html - Here's my proof. I know this guy personally. I don't associate with him anymore because this guy literally killed a girl, and his secretary ratted him out. He spent the day of the murder essentially messing with evidence.
Life?
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States22990 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 17:33:26
May 30 2019 16:54 GMT
#30212
On May 31 2019 01:52 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 31 2019 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 22:02 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

I'm including James Comey opinion piece from Washington Post to provide a source on Trump lying.

James Comey: No ‘treason.’ No coup. Just lies — and dumb lies at that.

+ Show Spoiler +
It is tempting for normal people to ignore our president when he starts ranting about treason and corruption at the FBI. I understand the temptation. I’m the object of many of his rants, and even I try to ignore him.

But we shouldn’t, because millions of good people believe what a president of the United States says. In normal times, that’s healthy. But not now, when the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions. We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the Trump campaign and tried to defeat Donald Trump. We must constantly return to the stubborn facts.

Russia engaged in a massive effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Near as I can tell, there is only one U.S. leader who still denies that fact. The FBI saw the attack starting in mid-June 2016, with the first dumping of stolen emails. In late July, when we were hard at work trying to understand the scope of the effort, we learned that one of Trump’s foreign policy advisers knew about the Russian effort seven weeks before we did.

In April 2016, that adviser talked to a Russian agent in London, learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails and that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Clinton. Of course, nobody from the Trump campaign told us this (or about later Russian approaches); we had to learn it, months after the fact, from an allied ambassador.

But when we finally learned of it in late July, what should the FBI have done? Let it go? Go tell the Trump campaign? Tell the press? No. Investigate, to see what the facts were. We didn’t know what was true. Maybe there was nothing to it, or maybe Americans were actively conspiring with the Russians. To find out, the FBI would live up to its name and investigate.

As director, I was determined that the work would be done carefully, professionally and discreetly. We were just starting. If there was nothing to it, we didn’t want to smear Americans. If there was something to it, we didn’t want to let corrupt Americans know we were onto them. So, we kept it secret. That’s how the FBI approaches all counterintelligence cases.


And there’s the first problem with Trump’s whole “treason” narrative. If we were “deep state” Clinton loyalists bent on stopping him, why would we keep it secret? Why wouldn’t the much-maligned FBI supervisor Peter Strzok — the alleged kingpin of the “treasonous” plot to stop Trump — tell anyone? He was one of the very few people who knew what we were investigating.

We investigated. We didn’t gather information about the campaign’s strategy. We didn’t “spy” on anyone’s campaign. We investigated to see whether it was true that Americans associated with the campaign had taken the Russians up on any offer of help. By late October, the investigators thought they had probable cause to get a federal court order to conduct electronic surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser named Carter Page. Page was no longer with the campaign, but there was reason to believe he was acting as an agent of the Russian government. We asked a federal judge for permission to surveil him and then we did it, all without revealing our work, despite the fact that it was late October and a leak would have been very harmful to candidate Trump. Worst deep-state conspiracy ever.

But wait, the conspiracy idea gets dumber. On Oct. 28, after agonizing deliberation over two terrible options, I concluded I had no choice but to inform Congress that we had reopened the Clinton email investigation. I judged that hiding that fact — after having told Congress repeatedly and under oath that the case was finished — would be worse than telling Congress the truth. It was a decision William Barr praised and Hillary Clinton blamed for her loss 11 days later. Strzok, alleged architect of the treasonous plot to stop Trump, drafted the letter I sent Congress.


And there’s still more to the dumbness of the conspiracy allegation. At the center of the alleged FBI “corruption” we hear so much about was the conclusion that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied to internal investigators about a disclosure to the press in late October 2016. McCabe was fired over it. And what was that disclosure? Some stop-Trump election-eve screed? No. McCabe authorized a disclosure that revealed the FBI was actively investigating the Clinton Foundation, a disclosure that was harmful to Clinton.

There is a reason the non-fringe media doesn’t spend much time on this “treason” and “corruption” business. The conspiracy theory makes no sense. The FBI wasn’t out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn’t out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield.

But go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must. When those investigations are over, you will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations. There was no corruption. There was no treason. There was no attempted coup. Those are lies, and dumb lies at that. There were just good people trying to figure out what was true, under unprecedented circumstances.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-no-treason-no-coup-just-lies--and-dumb-lies-at-that/2019/05/28/45f8d802-8175-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html


Wait, was this in response to my question on your threshold for Mueller to recommend congress pursue charges, did you recognize your error and move on, or something else?

On May 30 2019 12:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

Bill wasn't just impeached for lying. He committed perjury while under oath and also committed real obstruction of justice by destroying evidence and tampering with witnesses. What he did is in a different league than anything Trump is alleged to have done.


Lol... Are you really going to tell me he wasn't impeached for lying, but then go on and state he committed perjury?...


He's a lawyer, of course he is?


What Error? If you read my original post, then you'd understand my threshold is where they left off with Bill Clinton, but instead you chose to answer for me instead of trying to understand what I meant.

Yea, so what he's a lawyer? Lawyers word things in ways to get what they want. If they can't get what they want by playing semantics, they'll lie to get what they want, and those that lie are the worst type of lawyers.


The question was the threshold for which it would be unacceptable for Mueller to do what he did and you're saying lying.

The answer you've given is that Mueller's actions are already unacceptable to you but you have no resolution to address it.

I don't think that's what you mean to answer so there's a failure to communicate what it is I'm asking you, but I don't know how to reword it so you address the question I'm asking and not something else.

IgnE gave me a pointer (indirectly months ago) that if after half a dozen attempts the person still isn't addressing the question they are probably not going to no matter how many times/ways you try.

The difference between lying and perjury isn't semantics for a lawyer, in their professional life it's the difference between freedom and imprisonment and so forth (granted perjury usually isn't the reason for imprisonment but what they perjured themselves about).


I know many lawyers, and lawyers that lie under oath. I know a lawyer who straight up murdered a girl while drinking a driving, he ended up messing with the evidence and got away with it, you know why? He's a personal injury lawyer, he knew exactly what to do to get away with it. Especially if the people who are "judging" him get away with it too. How can you have a solution to a problem when most people in the system are corrupt?...


You're rambling now?

I think it's time for me to disengage until or unless you can return back to the subject at hand or demonstrate you want to engage in dialogue.

I'm not rambling, I'm proving your point wrong about lawyers not using semantics to get what they want. I gave you my threshold as you asked, but you don't have a good answer for me, so now "I'm rambling".


Perhaps there's someone you trust who could explain to you my question but this isn't a case of my not liking your answer, your answer isn't to the right question about the threshold for which you deem Mueller's actions unacceptable.

Like if Trump shot someone on 5th ave and Mueller, rather than recommending charges or persuing them himself, left it to Republicans in the senate (as he has for RussiaGate)
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
May 30 2019 16:56 GMT
#30213
I'm not rambling, I'm proving your point wrong about lawyers not using semantics to get what they want. I gave you my threshold as you asked, but you don't have a good answer for me, so now "I'm rambling".
Life?
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 17:19:04
May 30 2019 17:16 GMT
#30214
Why is my answer not right?... I would like to have an honest white house... How is that not a right answer? If Trump shot some one on 5th avenue, I would expect him to be impeached, and arrested...
Life?
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 17:27:03
May 30 2019 17:26 GMT
#30215
This goes back to what I said yesterday, it's apple to oranges. It's harder to find proof for conspiracy or obstruction of justice, than it is to find proof that some one murdered some one. If Trump murdered some one on 5th ave, this was done in the public. People all over 5th ave observed him murdering some one, there wouldn't be a need to "recommending charges".... Literally the proof is all the witnesses there were on 5th ave... I still don't see why you're trying to compare conspiracy vs murder.
Life?
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States22990 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 17:43:46
May 30 2019 17:27 GMT
#30216
On May 31 2019 02:16 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Why is my answer not right?... I would like to have an honest white house... How is that not a right answer? If Trump shot some one on 5th avenue, I would expect him to be impeached, and arrested...


Someone else will have to try to share with you where the miscommunication is happening because I've tried as many times as I'm going to and no one wants me to spend 20 posts repeatedly trying again today (I don't know why they don't speak up? My guess is they are having similar struggles to you).
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
JimmiC
Profile Blog Joined May 2011
Canada22817 Posts
May 30 2019 17:31 GMT
#30217
--- Nuked ---
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
Last Edited: 2019-05-30 17:42:19
May 30 2019 17:41 GMT
#30218
On May 31 2019 01:48 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 31 2019 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 22:02 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

I'm including James Comey opinion piece from Washington Post to provide a source on Trump lying.

James Comey: No ‘treason.’ No coup. Just lies — and dumb lies at that.

+ Show Spoiler +
It is tempting for normal people to ignore our president when he starts ranting about treason and corruption at the FBI. I understand the temptation. I’m the object of many of his rants, and even I try to ignore him.

But we shouldn’t, because millions of good people believe what a president of the United States says. In normal times, that’s healthy. But not now, when the president is a liar who doesn’t care what damage he does to vital institutions. We must call out his lies that the FBI was corrupt and committed treason, that we spied on the Trump campaign and tried to defeat Donald Trump. We must constantly return to the stubborn facts.

Russia engaged in a massive effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Near as I can tell, there is only one U.S. leader who still denies that fact. The FBI saw the attack starting in mid-June 2016, with the first dumping of stolen emails. In late July, when we were hard at work trying to understand the scope of the effort, we learned that one of Trump’s foreign policy advisers knew about the Russian effort seven weeks before we did.

In April 2016, that adviser talked to a Russian agent in London, learned that the Russians had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails and that the Russians could assist the Trump campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Clinton. Of course, nobody from the Trump campaign told us this (or about later Russian approaches); we had to learn it, months after the fact, from an allied ambassador.

But when we finally learned of it in late July, what should the FBI have done? Let it go? Go tell the Trump campaign? Tell the press? No. Investigate, to see what the facts were. We didn’t know what was true. Maybe there was nothing to it, or maybe Americans were actively conspiring with the Russians. To find out, the FBI would live up to its name and investigate.

As director, I was determined that the work would be done carefully, professionally and discreetly. We were just starting. If there was nothing to it, we didn’t want to smear Americans. If there was something to it, we didn’t want to let corrupt Americans know we were onto them. So, we kept it secret. That’s how the FBI approaches all counterintelligence cases.


And there’s the first problem with Trump’s whole “treason” narrative. If we were “deep state” Clinton loyalists bent on stopping him, why would we keep it secret? Why wouldn’t the much-maligned FBI supervisor Peter Strzok — the alleged kingpin of the “treasonous” plot to stop Trump — tell anyone? He was one of the very few people who knew what we were investigating.

We investigated. We didn’t gather information about the campaign’s strategy. We didn’t “spy” on anyone’s campaign. We investigated to see whether it was true that Americans associated with the campaign had taken the Russians up on any offer of help. By late October, the investigators thought they had probable cause to get a federal court order to conduct electronic surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser named Carter Page. Page was no longer with the campaign, but there was reason to believe he was acting as an agent of the Russian government. We asked a federal judge for permission to surveil him and then we did it, all without revealing our work, despite the fact that it was late October and a leak would have been very harmful to candidate Trump. Worst deep-state conspiracy ever.

But wait, the conspiracy idea gets dumber. On Oct. 28, after agonizing deliberation over two terrible options, I concluded I had no choice but to inform Congress that we had reopened the Clinton email investigation. I judged that hiding that fact — after having told Congress repeatedly and under oath that the case was finished — would be worse than telling Congress the truth. It was a decision William Barr praised and Hillary Clinton blamed for her loss 11 days later. Strzok, alleged architect of the treasonous plot to stop Trump, drafted the letter I sent Congress.


And there’s still more to the dumbness of the conspiracy allegation. At the center of the alleged FBI “corruption” we hear so much about was the conclusion that Deputy Director Andrew McCabe lied to internal investigators about a disclosure to the press in late October 2016. McCabe was fired over it. And what was that disclosure? Some stop-Trump election-eve screed? No. McCabe authorized a disclosure that revealed the FBI was actively investigating the Clinton Foundation, a disclosure that was harmful to Clinton.

There is a reason the non-fringe media doesn’t spend much time on this “treason” and “corruption” business. The conspiracy theory makes no sense. The FBI wasn’t out to get Donald Trump. It also wasn’t out to get Hillary Clinton. It was out to do its best to investigate serious matters while walking through a vicious political minefield.

But go ahead, investigate the investigators, if you must. When those investigations are over, you will find the work was done appropriately and focused only on discerning the truth of very serious allegations. There was no corruption. There was no treason. There was no attempted coup. Those are lies, and dumb lies at that. There were just good people trying to figure out what was true, under unprecedented circumstances.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/james-comey-no-treason-no-coup-just-lies--and-dumb-lies-at-that/2019/05/28/45f8d802-8175-11e9-bce7-40b4105f7ca0_story.html


Wait, was this in response to my question on your threshold for Mueller to recommend congress pursue charges, did you recognize your error and move on, or something else?

On May 30 2019 12:31 ShoCkeyy wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:29 xDaunt wrote:
On May 30 2019 12:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago. But since we have people in Congress who only care about their agenda, that isn't going to happen. If you bring up "Obama" should of been impeached, then yea he should of, if it helps keep the white house honest, but perhaps this time around, nothing was found they could impeach Obama of, like they did with Bill...

Bill wasn't just impeached for lying. He committed perjury while under oath and also committed real obstruction of justice by destroying evidence and tampering with witnesses. What he did is in a different league than anything Trump is alleged to have done.


Lol... Are you really going to tell me he wasn't impeached for lying, but then go on and state he committed perjury?...


He's a lawyer, of course he is?


What Error? If you read my original post, then you'd understand my threshold is where they left off with Bill Clinton, but instead you chose to answer for me instead of trying to understand what I meant.

Yea, so what he's a lawyer? Lawyers word things in ways to get what they want. If they can't get what they want by playing semantics, they'll lie to get what they want, and those that lie are the worst type of lawyers.


The question was the threshold for which it would be unacceptable for Mueller to do what he did and you're saying lying.

The answer you've given is that Mueller's actions are already unacceptable to you but you have no resolution to address it.

I don't think that's what you mean to answer so there's a failure to communicate what it is I'm asking you, but I don't know how to reword it so you address the question I'm asking and not something else.

IgnE gave me a pointer (indirectly months ago) that if after half a dozen attempts the person still isn't addressing the question they are probably not going to no matter how many times/ways you try.

The difference between lying and perjury isn't semantics for a lawyer, in their professional life it's the difference between freedom and imprisonment and so forth (granted perjury usually isn't the reason for imprisonment but what they perjured themselves about).


Show nested quote +
We've already impeached Bill for lying, we should keep the same threshold. Trump should of been impeached for lying years ago.

When people propose ridiculous standards that would impeach nearly every president in history, you know they aren't being serious. Politicians lie. Trump's ridiculously bad at it. Life experience will teach him his heroes aren't so clean. It'll also show that lying to your mom about where you were is different than repeating the lie on the witness stand before a judge.


Why is it a ridiculous standard? Oh it's ridiculous because Trump is currently President, and he shouldn't have the same scrutiny as Bill Clinton? or Obama? or even George Bush? All of them investigated, Trump is no different, and shouldn't be held to high standard. It's a public office, in a public position, that represents the public. His personal life should be public, just like they made Bill's blowjob public.
Life?
ShambhalaWar
Profile Joined August 2013
United States930 Posts
May 30 2019 17:49 GMT
#30219
On May 31 2019 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 31 2019 01:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:
On May 30 2019 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 10:23 pmh wrote:
Democrats still on track for loosing in 2020? Looks like it.
When trump gets re-elected i will blame the democrats.

The person in the street he doesn't care about the report. He is tired with the report after hearing about it for 2,5 years and probably 1,5 more years to come. Why don't the democrats focus on other things,on things that matter for the man in the street?


Because they don't have functional solutions, just rhetoric on doing better than Republicans which is a bar so low that just disappearing and preventing someone from replacing them would put them comfortably above it imo.

Remember earlier today when people were dismissing Biden's creepy non-consensual touching of strange girls/women was just the new Russian Republican division campaign of 2020

Or their "Have you seen the other guys" campaign slogan?


That's a bullshit answer, 100%.

Reading posts like this has me losing trust in you as a poster. Warren has tons of plans. Yang has a plan even. Bernie has been pushing a legit medicare for all plan with many other people on the left. There is plenty of solid legislation proposals from Democrats.

Republicans couldn't come up with one actual plan for healthcare to replace the ACA.

Don't spew bullshit. Use google.


No it's not.

I don't believe you had it to lose?

You seem to have missed the operant word "functional " in there. They have plans to preserve capitalism. The same capitalism which is indisputably leading to massive climate collapse, mass extinctions, and potentially the extinction of the human species.

So no it's not bullshit or rudimentary googling from which my position springs.


It is bullshit. It's a lie.

If you want to say "I GH think it's bullshit." You're entitled to that opinion.

To say "they have no functional plans." is a lie. Period.

Don't spread lies.

All the plans I've listed are functional plans that democrats are pushing. There are many more that would better the US, that don't get any spotlight.

I'm not a fan of capitalism either.

You're entitled to your opinions, not your facts.
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States22990 Posts
May 30 2019 18:18 GMT
#30220
On May 31 2019 02:49 ShambhalaWar wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 31 2019 01:35 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 31 2019 01:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:
On May 30 2019 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
On May 30 2019 10:23 pmh wrote:
Democrats still on track for loosing in 2020? Looks like it.
When trump gets re-elected i will blame the democrats.

The person in the street he doesn't care about the report. He is tired with the report after hearing about it for 2,5 years and probably 1,5 more years to come. Why don't the democrats focus on other things,on things that matter for the man in the street?


Because they don't have functional solutions, just rhetoric on doing better than Republicans which is a bar so low that just disappearing and preventing someone from replacing them would put them comfortably above it imo.

Remember earlier today when people were dismissing Biden's creepy non-consensual touching of strange girls/women was just the new Russian Republican division campaign of 2020

Or their "Have you seen the other guys" campaign slogan?


That's a bullshit answer, 100%.

Reading posts like this has me losing trust in you as a poster. Warren has tons of plans. Yang has a plan even. Bernie has been pushing a legit medicare for all plan with many other people on the left. There is plenty of solid legislation proposals from Democrats.

Republicans couldn't come up with one actual plan for healthcare to replace the ACA.

Don't spew bullshit. Use google.


No it's not.

I don't believe you had it to lose?

You seem to have missed the operant word "functional " in there. They have plans to preserve capitalism. The same capitalism which is indisputably leading to massive climate collapse, mass extinctions, and potentially the extinction of the human species.

So no it's not bullshit or rudimentary googling from which my position springs.


It is bullshit. It's a lie.

If you want to say "I GH think it's bullshit." You're entitled to that opinion.

To say "they have no functional plans." is a lie. Period.

Don't spread lies.

All the plans I've listed are functional plans that democrats are pushing. There are many more that would better the US, that don't get any spotlight.

I'm not a fan of capitalism either.

You're entitled to your opinions, not your facts.


The most important part of that is

You're entitled to your opinions, not your facts.


You can call them functional, but then you have to account for massive climate collapse, mass extinction, and the existential threat to humanity and so on as part of that function.
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
Prev 1 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 4963 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
00:00
2025 GSL S1 - Ro12 Group A
CranKy Ducklings137
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft619
RuFF_SC2 137
NeuroSwarm 78
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 22319
Artosis 845
ajuk12(nOOB) 17
Icarus 6
Dota 2
monkeys_forever166
Counter-Strike
Fnx 523
Stewie2K388
Super Smash Bros
C9.Mang0661
hungrybox649
PPMD69
ChuDatz8
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor149
Other Games
summit1g9520
shahzam761
WinterStarcraft472
JimRising 435
Maynarde409
Day[9].tv329
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick984
BasetradeTV218
StarCraft 2
ESL.tv109
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Hupsaiya 67
• davetesta45
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• Eskiya23 13
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift4065
Other Games
• Day9tv329
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
8h 8m
Afreeca Starleague
8h 8m
Snow vs Soulkey
WardiTV Invitational
9h 8m
PiGosaur Monday
22h 8m
GSL Code S
1d 7h
ByuN vs Rogue
herO vs Cure
Replay Cast
1d 22h
GSL Code S
2 days
Classic vs Reynor
GuMiho vs Maru
The PondCast
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
GSL Code S
3 days
[ Show More ]
OSC
3 days
Korean StarCraft League
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
SOOP
4 days
Online Event
5 days
Clem vs ShoWTimE
herO vs MaxPax
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
WardiTV Invitational
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Wardi Open
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL Nation Wars Season 2
PiG Sty Festival 6.0
Calamity Stars S2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
ASL Season 19
YSL S1
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
China & Korea Top Challenge
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
2025 GSL S1
Heroes 10 EU
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
ECL Season 49: Europe
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025
ESL Pro League S21

Upcoming

NPSL S3
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLAN 2025
K-Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2025
2025 GSL S2
DreamHack Dallas 2025
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.