So, let me get this straight: There are 1,281,900 active duty military personnel plus 811,000 in active reserve, yet the first link stated that they sent out 70,000 surveys and only got 10,000 back. Are we to believe that the responses of 10,000 people somehow represents the nearly 2,000,000 people in the armed forces?
In the second link, they make the following note: "The survey, conducted from Dec. 16 to 21, elicited responses from 1,664 active-duty troops, with results weighed to make them more representative of the total military population." " . . . results weighed to make them more representative of the total military population," so, we don't really have an accurate number, now do we? Especially when you decide to weigh 1,664 vs nearly 2,000,000.
Looking at these results, the following old saying comes to mind, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure."
3 ( +3 / -0 )
I saw the video and to be fair, both sides were carrying sticks and bats and yes, behind the car, there is a man wielding either a bat or stick
I've seen lots of video footage from many different angles. Yes, you are right, it looks like both sides were carrying sticks and other objects; however, the courts are probably going to be looking at what the people who got hit were carrying--and it looks like they were carrying either signs or nothing at all--it certainly doesn't justify what happened to them.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Got video of that too:
No, you don't. The people he hit were not carrying bats, pipes, or any weapons. The driver cannot claim self-defense in this situation since Heather Heyer or the people he injured were not carrying any weapons, hitting his car, or attacking him personally, so the Protect of Persons Property Act does not apply here.
3 ( +5 / -2 )
anyway this is already not what it was presented to be regardless. Just a matter now of what the law is for that state and if they can somehow prove intent or not.
I'm sure that James Alex Fields' legal team will be in touch with you soon.
I'm also sure that Heather Heyer's family would love to sit down with you and listen to your defense of this situation and how it resulted in the death of their daughter.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
You are seriously telling me you didn't see a guy jump out in the street behind that car and swing a baseball bat in that streamable.com video?
Yes, I did not see a bat. However, I did see a person hit the car under the left rear bumper with something (but it wasn't clear that it was a bat).
However, it still doesn't justify what the driver did--and good luck trying to get any court of law to accept that explanation as an excuse to plow into a group of unarmed people (yes, the people he hit were not armed--unless of course, you have video of that).
4 ( +5 / -1 )
yet somehow the guy taking the video immediately knew to say "that Nazi just drove into people" as the 3rd car that had just been attacked slammed into the car in front of it. He knew who was driving and that they were a Nazi how?
5 ( +5 / -0 )
if the road was blocked off why were there multiple cars traveling on it?
There were not "multiple cars" traveling on it. There were two cars stopped and waiting at the intersection (that probably came from the adjoining street) that was not blocked off by police. The road that the driver came flying down was cordoned off.
you can see a guy jump out in the street behind the car and hear it crash into the car before the car accelerates.
But, it still does not show anyone wielding a bat. Also, the car has no noticeable damage on it's rear--the lights, spoiler, and fenders all look quite pristine. If someone had hit it, there would have been some damage, no?
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Yep can't be justified until after the trial decides what happened to cause this. Will also need to determine the level of culpability of the person who hit the car with a bat.
I've watched six different videos of this incident, and I haven't seen any footage of anyone hitting the vehicle in question with a bat. What I have seen is a vehicle traveling at a high speed for that particular stretch of road and then slamming into a crowd of people.
Some states have already passed laws saying it is illegal to block roads and anyone hurt unintentionally by a driver, the driver is not responsible.
In this particular case, the road was cordoned off by police for this rally. Therefore, there shouldn't have been any traffic at all. The driver had no business being on that stretch of road at that time.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Oh yeah so you wouldn't be frightened by the sound of a baseball bat damaging the back of your car. You would just stop right in the middle of a group of people with weapons and allow them to attack you more, maybe breaking out your windows and then dragging you out of you car to beat you even some more?
Try using that defense at his murder trial. The fact is, this motorist killed someone, and that cannot be justified.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
But it doesn't matter, the college electorate is the ONLY system that matters in our US election.
There is no such thing as "the college electorate" system. That sounds like you have a bunch of university students electing the President. The correct (and only) term is "The Electoral College" (and it's not a place, either--it's a process).
Under Obama . . . the stock market was on life support,
No, it was not. The stock market was on life support on the day of his first inauguration no thanks to the person he replaced, but it wasn't after that. Here are the facts:
Trump has a lot of work to do if he even wants to come close to what his predecessor achieved--and giving rallies and taking long golf outings aren't the ways to do it.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
The incredibly hot and humid summers which seem to be getting hotter and lasting longer.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
He reported it a month early when it wasn't true yet but now it is.
No, it is not. The facts say otherwise, but please, continue to ignore them.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Obama lost 3.4 million jobs in the same period . . .
Link for that fact, please.
I'm not sure you are arguing for you own cause here. Per your recent link:
"While one million is a nice number that looks great on headlines and cable news chyrons, the Trump administration has said in previous weeks it reached this number when it hadn’t. As reported in Politico, on June 1 Trump said he’s added 1 million jobs when at that point, the Labor Department only reported about 600,000. "
Also, since Trump is citing the Bureau of Labor Statistics, he's once again shown his hypocrisy:
Trump himself has denounced (data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) multiple times as “phony,” “fiction,” and “one of the biggest hoaxes in modern politics.”
2 ( +2 / -0 )
@Blacklabel - you obviously did not bother reading any of the articles that I cited. The politico link that you cited was discussed.
Here's what you chosen to ignore (from the Redstate link): "That recovery continues under Trump’s watch, but, like we said with Obama, Trump isn’t actually creating jobs. Yet, it is pretty much guaranteed that he and his rabid followers will tout this piece from the Politico:
With the Labor Department reporting Friday that the economy added 209,000 jobs in July, Trump can finally say, truthfully, that he’s created more than a million jobs since entering office. Trump tweeted shortly after the report’s release: “Excellent Jobs Numbers just released – and I have only just begun. Many job stifling regulations continue to fall. Movement back to USA!”
July’s jobs number was a decrease from June, when the economy added 231,000 jobs. But unemployment ticked down to 4.3 percent, compared to June’s 4.4 percent. Average hourly private-sector earnings were up 2.5 percent over the previous year, as they were in June.
No. Trump cannot truthfully say that he created a million jobs. It is not honest. Trump repealed some regulations that hampered job growth, but he, even as a businessman, did not create any jobs anywhere.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Creation of 1 million jobs in 6 months.
False and not according to Redstate:
Not according to this site either:
The only place you will find this to be true is on fact-free sites like Breitbart and other dishonest media outlets.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Bunch of speculative money laundering ideas now that even if true had no impact whatsoever on the actual election.
You don't know that. No one will know that until the investigation concludes.
You do realize that money laundering is a crime, right? You just said that "even if true . . ." Well, if it is true and it is tied to Trump, you understand that articles of impeachment could be drawn up based on the "high crimes and misdemeanors" statutes since money laundering would definitely qualify as a "high crime."
Russia helped Trump win the election at his personal request by influencing the vote through hacking and disinformation. What happened to that?
Nothing at all. It's still being investigated. Ask that question if it isn't answered after the investigation has finished.
You do realize that it has already been proven that Hillary, Bill, the Clinton Foundation, Podesta and Pedestal's brother took money from Russia right? Are you expecting Mueller to just ignore that and only go after Trump's people?
Hillary, Bill, the Clinton Foundation, Podesta, et al, are not part of the investigation. Read the original order for the investigation which was issued by Assistant AG Rosenthal to see why. Trump is being investigated here. Yes, I am expecting them to ignore "that" (whatever it is) and concentrate on the directive issued by the DOJ. If you'd like an investigation into something else, contact Assistant AG Rosenthal and let him know. Oh, BTW, "good luck there."
No treason, no obstruction of justice (except Dems Lynch and Wasserman) and no collusion (except DNC with Ukraine)
Pure partisan speculation on your part. The investigations haven't even concluded yet you've already reached your verdict despite the fact that this is far from being over.
You guy's story is just collapsing right in front of you.
There is no "story" except for the one you are trying to make up. We'll see just what is "collapsing" after this investigation is over.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
Bharara was not "gotten rid of" or "dismissed" by Trump . . .
Actually, yes he was. Initially, he was told he could stay by Trump, but when Bharara started his investigations into Russian money laundering, he was asked to leave. Bharara refused, so then Trump fired him.
. . . but that was about Flynn not Trump.
As I stated earlier, if Mueller believes that there is a financial connection between the two, then he has every right as a special counsel to investigate it.
. . . even if he knew is that a crime?
No, of course not; however, Rybolovlev is well-connected with Vladimir Putin, and if (and again, I'm saying "if") Mueller feels that the deal somehow illuminates any of Trump's ties to Russia, then it is within his power to see if this relationship has any bearing on his financial dealings with Russia. It may not, but we won't know that until the investigation runs its course.
Same for Manafort, none of that if proven would have anything to do with Trump, the election or Russia supposedly helping Trump to win.
No, and I have already explained why Manafort's situations could be connected to Trump's finances, the election, and the possible reasons for why Russia interfered with the election.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
And the left do it as well and are experts at it, another reason why they keep losing elections, they never take personal responsibility.
I couldn't care less (the proper form of the phrase) about what the mysterious "left" that you are talking about does. I was talking about what you do. However, since I got a verbal slap on the wrist from the mods yesterday about "bickering," I'll stick to talking about points in the article. Maybe you should do the same and stop bringing up non sequiturs like elections and other unrelated matters. Try talking about the article only--that would be a refreshing change and give the mods a break.
I don't need proofto know when someone is a jerk and I don't need anyone to convince me that Mueller is an honest man, save it. The man lost all credibility when he branched out of his main investigation to find anything to nail this president.
No, but you need to give proof when you make accusations about someone or make a claim about someone's character. I try to back up my statements with facts and logic. That kind of helps with the whole credibility thing and allows others to verify what I say or understand where I am coming from. I am really wondering if you honestly believe that Mueller "lost all credibility" or if you are just parroting talking points since they mysteriously show up here as shortly after they get posted on right-wing media sites. As far as convincing you about anything, that's simply not possible. Your mind is made up no matter what.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
As I said the special counsel was formed to look into the 2016 election and Russia's possible interference in that. How are Trumps finances or taxes related to that?
They are related in several ways.
First, the groundwork for at least part of this line of inquiry was reportedly laid by former US Attorney Preet Bharara, who was investigating Russian-linked money laundering before being dismissed by Trump earlier this year. The core case involved Prevezon, a Russian firm represented by Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian attorney who met with Trump Jr. in June 2016. Since Trump got rid of Bharara, Mueller has now folded that investigation into his Russia probe.
Second, they could be connected with another possible (and note here that I said, "possible") money laundering case involving Trump's then campaign manager, Paul Manafort. The Wall Street Journal reported that Mueller’s team was looking at evidence that Paul Manafort might have been involved in money laundering schemes. Manafort is being investigated for his shady dealings through the Bank of Cyprus. It wouldn’t be the first time for Manafort; he also received 17 million dollars from a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine which he conveniently forgot to tell everyone about until asked about it, and he was forced to disclose himself as a "foreign agent" in accordance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Therefore, Mueller may need to inquire into the finances and potential misdeeds of individuals in Trump's orbit if their finances and misdeeds relate to the Russia investigation.
Third, regarding your point about the real estate transaction in 2008. It doesn't have anything to do with political favors or prognostication of Trump becoming the President. It is suspected that Dmitri Rybolovlev (Russia's "Fertilizer King") had purchased the Florida mansion from Trump as a way of hiding his assets during a divorce from his ex-wife. The deal earned Trump millions of dollars which came in handy since he was fighting very hard to avoid paying off a big loan that he had with Deutsche Bank (which was under investigation for its role in the mortgage-backed security scandal where it masked its losses).
These are just some of the reasons (and I could list more) why the Trump camp’s finances are an issue right now. Perhaps Mueller believes that understanding Trump’s and his family’s finances is necessary to figure out whether they have any untoward links with Moscow or not. If the Russians dumped money into Trump’s businesses, it would certainly help explain how collusion might have taken place or how they were able to interfere in the 2016 election.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
HOWEVER, given that the attorney said right up front that she had NO information on Clinton, again, tell me what revelations about the election you expect from a meeting that didn't discuss it at all.
As I have clearly stated before, I have no expectations. As far as the contents of the meeting are concerned, no one can really say for sure what was discussed since the story keeps changing all of the time. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it changed some more after the people involved get to testify under oath in front of a Grand Jury or congressional committee. Therefore, I am going to wait until Mueller's investigations conclude before coming to any determinations about what or what did or did not happen during that meeting and the other related matters. I am certainly not going to go online and complain about the investigation or try to discredit it prior to all of the facts coming out.
Let me get this straight.....you're tired of people discrediting the investigations before they're completed?
That's been clearly stated several times.
You haven a leg to stand on regarding jumping the gun about investigation results, you're just doing it to the opposite conclusion.
No, I have not come to any conclusions, and I challenge you to point out where I have made clear statements about guilt or innocence on this matter. I simply want the investigations to proceed without all of the complaining and distractions by the Trump supporters and other contrarians.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Oh, yes it does.
No, it does not, but I'm done asking you for proof and explanations because sadly, you have none to give.
Because this investigation went from trying to find Russian collusion to go far back into Trump's finances going back to the 80's?!
The investigation is evolving with new evidence coming to light almost daily. As I have stated previously, relationships take a long time to cultivate, and if Trump's Russia ties go all the way back to the 1980s, then so be it. The way prosecutors build a case is by compiling all of the available information related to a course of conduct and then making an assessment about whether they can prove from that evidence all of the essential elements that they need to establish if a crime was committed or not. The problem for Trump is that every additional piece of evidence that comes to light is like adding more kindling to a fire that is becoming a huge forest fire. Investigators also need to establish that a corrupt motive was at play, therefore, all pieces of evidence need to be examined to determine whether there was any criminal conduct, which is not always time sensitive.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
It's obvious that you have no desire to back up yet another statement that you made and are now deflecting since you painted yourself into a corner. So be it. We can all see that you have nothing.
Don't need any to form an opinion.
Yes, but you do when you make an accusation.
Was she the sitting president? Apples and Grapefruit arguments.
Has nothing to do with anything, she's irrelevant and has nothing to do with Mueller losing credibility as an honest agent, quite the contrary.
Yet you constantly bring her up as well as the past Democratic administrations. You have given no proof that Mueller has lost any credibility except to regurgitate all of the same talking points that can be found at Breitbart, Fox, and other right-wing media sites. Again, you offer nothing but bluster and and empty rhetoric.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Yes, at that time Trump was not a sitting president and Hillary given her past as well as her husband the suspicion was always there going back to the days when Bill was governor.
How does this response even begin to address Trump's hypocrisy on this issue? It doesn't matter if he was the President or not. The fact is, candidate Trump loved leaks since they helped his cause. Now, President Trump doesn't like them because he sees them as being damaging. This is a perfect example of hypocrisy.
I don't think Trump supporters hate an investigation, even though it was debunked so many times that there was no collusion on Trump's part, but once that trap failed and Mueller was unleashed the witch hunt began, the sheep of the establishment lovers knows No bounds . . .
Really? What has been debunked? How can something be debunked when it isn't even finished?
Libs! Time to wake up and take that red pill.
Trump supporters: Time to get off the pills altogether, especially the opiates.
8 ( +9 / -1 )
I didn't fail at anything.
You most certainly did. You accused the lawyers who are working with Mueller on this investigation of being "out to get Trump," and "have an axe to grind." I then asked you for concrete proof, which you could not provide. I'd say that qualifies as having failed to show any evidence supporting your assertion--no links to articles, no quotations, no videos--nothing, zip, nada--just empty rhetoric.
I'm just not an idiot to believe that this investigation is just and fair
And so far, you've given no proof that it isn't.
I have never seen a witch hunt as twisted and partisan as this one.
Oh, yes you have. Especially over the last two years. All of the Benghazi hearings and the Clinton e-mail investigations came up empty and ended up being very expensive Republican witch hunts not to mention a complete waste of time.
Yes, he did, he fully discredited himself as being fair and impartial. Lol
Wrong again, but you can laugh at your screen all you like. It still does not prove your accusation.
Mueller overstepped his authority, we all can see this. laughable from possible collusion which got debunked even his enemies, so now let's go deeper and look for something to pin on this guy.
Another swing and a miss. How can something be debunked if the investigation hasn't even concluded yet?
. . . because that would mean elections would have to be won, so it looks like the Democrats should put up those tents. Watch out for them elephants. ROFL
Another non sequitur ending with the juvenile retort. You keep doing this when you have absolutely no logical defense to offer.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Here is actual video footage of Trump at a rally in Pennsylvania last October talking about how much he loved Wikileaks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUtT0b0EnSw
At the same rally, he said, “It’s amazing how nothing is secret today when you talk about the Internet.” Then he proceeded to read to the audience some of the contents of the emails which were stolen from the Clinton campaign and were forwarded to him by Wikileaks.
Contrast this with what he thinks about leaks today.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
I find it quite interesting that Trump and his supporters were all for the Wikileaks documents and other damaging information that got released during the campaign since they helped their side, but now, leaks are a bad thing, especially since they are exposing some of the worst behavior from this corrupt administration. Their hypocrisy is astounding.
We also have to wonder if Michael Flynn would still be around if it weren't for the leaks about his activities.
Watch for an F5 level of spin from the Trump supporters when they try explaining their double-standard regarding this matter.
8 ( +9 / -1 )
FNC with over 115 million viewers on a cold day?
Fox does not have 115 million viewers on any given day. Right now, they are averaging 2.4 million. That's a far cry from the 115 million that you just made up.
. . . from the looks of the Democratic Party, it would seem they are the party that's becoming extinct.
Keep telling yourself that. The results for the 2018 midterms might say otherwise.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
I don't need to know the lawyers, I'm from California the "I'll sue you over everything"State. Mueller and his gang of Democratic donors are working feverishly to find something on Trump.
So, once again, you make an accusation but then fail to prove it once challenged. Where you are from hardly qualifies as proof for your claim that the lawyers are "out to get Trump, have an axe to grind, etc." So, let's try this again, what actual evidence do you have?
Mueller already discredited himself when he decided and knew he can't find any collusion between Trump and the Russians, so he has to expand his investigation by going off the rails and tap into Trump's financial business matters.
Nope, we've been over many of these points before, but you keep repeating the same old worn out reasoning. Mueller is only "discredited" with the pro-Trump crowd who rely on right-wing talking points but no actual substance. Trump's financial records and business matters are relevant since it appears that there is a money trail which connects him to all of this Russia business. However, that won't matter to you since "you haven't seen any proof yet" despite the fact that the investigation is ongoing and the results haven't come in. How many times do we need to go over this with you?
Yup! You can believe it. I and millions of Americans see that this witch hunt is nothing but a farce.
Yup, and millions more Americans would like to see the truth come out by having the investigations run their courses despite all of the howling on the right. If there is nothing to find, then you have nothing to worry about.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
Sorry, but in television, the ONLY ratings that matters are the Nielson ratings.
My sources also claim the Nielson ratings. How do you square that?
. . . they've beaten the competition for over 13 years straight,
Nope, not according to my sources.
And when they die late 80's or 90's theoff the independents which are outgrowing both parties those kids in their 30's will be wiser and in their 50's and back to watching FNC realizing they wasted too much time partying and not paying attention to the jokester son CNN and msnbc. The cycle continues.
I honestly have no idea what that you just said since it makes no sense. You wrote a 51-word run-on sentence/fragment.
Good on FNC, they have the right formula, just wait for the next generation.
Yep, please keep thinking that. It's the right formula for extinction.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
From there it will be a bunch of white people claiming whites are victimized in America, and Trump will have some new hats made and will make a killing.
He's already doing it by making moves on legal (that's right, legal) immigration:
He needs a distraction from the Mueller investigation, so throwing his base the old "immigrants are the source of our problems" bone might just do the trick.
One other thing: his recent moves on affirmative action and the transgender bans in the military also signify attempts to distract from his problems and placate the base should things continue to go south for him as Mueller's investigation turns up the heat.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
August 24th (Thurs) in Kita Aoyama, Tokyo, Private Consultations AvailableReal Estate Japan Inc.