[jimjam]

Is it possible for someone to be this stupid? It it possible that these folks are so indoctrinated that they simply cannot imagine thinking for themselves?

I get the trolls here. Trolls I can deal with. This guy was not trolling. He was serious. I am near to concluding that there are some people who are really that stupid. Failing that who are so committed to an ideology that they simply do not even acknowledge the existence of truth.

Folks like that are dangerous. Ask any Jew.

Stupidity helps but is by no means the sole explanation. I know people who are by no means stupid who easily ascribe to the mentally ill shit defecated into the media by Donald. A short study of history will show this stuff reoccurring periodically. It appears to be a defect in the cumulative consciousness of the human race. Sheer hatred has a pleasurable appeal to the masses. It takes hold and explodes into a sort of mass hysteria until becoming obvious that the human race isn't doing itself any favors with this type of behavior. Unfortunately a few million people are dead before the policy of mass hatred is discredited. Time passes, wash, rinse and repeat. We are now in the rinse/repeat stage. Hopefully the human race will change course before mass hysteria, hatred, and dictator worship become the order of the day. Once this shit gathers enough steam it seems that the only thing that will stop it is the accumulation of piles of dead bodies.

It is not stupidity or deliberate ignorance per se ….. mass mental illness is more like it.

[blackjack21]

:lol:

Well, that was a very articulate, cogent and eloquent response from our self-described Mensa genius.

The OP is a projection, its laced with hypocrisy and bigotry. Flavor of the day POFO rhino/ liberal red meat ...uninspiring.

For a so-called genius, he's been fairly consistently wrong on Trump.

She didn't "knowingly remove documents with the intent to retain them". So no, doesn't qualify.

She deleted 30k emails, many of them official government business, and some of them containing classified information all of which was under Congressional subpoena.

This has been discussed ad absurdum in other threads, it depends on what they find, i.e. on how far collusion went wrt. the hacking.

That is why this investigation is a hoax. They can NEVER prove hacking, because they MUST investigate the server to prove it. If there is no hacked server in evidence, that vein of inquiry is moot.

The "deep state" would have stopped the FBI investigation into Clinton's emails at the very beginning.

It's not the field offices that are so corrupt. It was the DC headquarters that is corrupt. The investigation didn't begin in DC. It was taken over by Comey, et. al.

Instead the investigation continued right up to the election, damaging the Clinton campaign and helping Trump win.

The problem for the email cover-up is that Carlos Danger blew up again--the husband of Hillary Clinton's confidant. During the investigation into his activity, they found some of Hillary Clinton's classified information on his server and turned it over to the Hillary investigation. So they had to amend their report. It was too obvious by half at that point that they cooked the books on Clinton. That's why Jeff Sessions looks to be more or less of a criminal too--an accessory after the fact.

So apparently some of deleted emails were work-related. Which doesn't necessarily surprise me, given than they had to go through 10ks of emails and filter out the work-related. Still, is it a felony by itself or only when they were "intentionally deleted to conceal them"?

I'm not sure if it is a felony, but it is definitely a crime for failure to retain and turn over official records.

Nothing stops officials from using private email servers or in fact private phones for communicating things they don't want on the record.

Nothing stops murders from committing murder either.

In fact if Clinton wanted to conceal certain communication, using a private server for ALL communication was the dumbest things to do, since it made ALL communication a subject of investigation.

Right. Hillary did the dumbest thing imaginable--IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT TECHNOLOGY. I've done a lot of work for attorneys. They implicitly understand criminal psychology, but most of them do not understand technology. Couple that ignorance with the arrogance and conceit of power, and you have a very poisonous combination.

She could have used a government server for the "on the record stuff" and a private server or the phone for the "off the record stuff".

Her reason for conflating everything on one server was to have one server and one device for all her communications. Since she had 11 different black berries, we know this explanation was also a lie.

We are to believe that she got away with a felony and continues to do so with republicans filling every role in the decision. And they control the Presidency, Justice Department, FBI, Congress and the Senate.

It may seem that way to the few people left who think there is a difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

Gross negligence would definitely qualify, that's why the FBI rewrote the statement with the phrase "extremely careless". Gross negligence is a legal term that would have required criminal charges.

To be specific, that was Peter Strzok editing James Comey's memo. Both of them have been fired.

@Sivad

Really Sivad? You are posting from the Laura Ingram Show on Fox News?

Guaranteed I will not watch that.

Yeah, because an attorney who clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas has some sort of credibility problem with a self-styled conservative like you?

While they ARE being oppressed in a big way, they have thrown in with the biggest oppressor of all. A man who embodies all that the claim to dislike. Christians supporting a non-religious serial adulterer. Southern men supporting a man who makes fun of their accent as 'dumb sounding'. Free trade republicans shouting for a protectionist of the first order. Rabid anti-communists cheering a man who shamelessly sucks up to a former KGB officer and despot of the first order. So-called patriots groveling before a man who is openly giving comfort to those who would destroy our constitutional government and deprive them even of their right to both sides of the story.

Perhaps it is some form of mental illness. I am still leaning toward stupidity but not strongly.

You are forgetting those of us who want to destroy the establishment and are having some success.

[Drlee]

Yeah, because an attorney who clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas has some sort of credibility problem with a self-styled conservative like you?

Anyone associated with Clarence Thomas at all has a credibility problem with me.

You are still obsessed with that Mensa stuff. Surprising since it is obvious you know nothing about it. I understand insecurity around big numbers. We all do. You need not fear us. We are mostly quiet retiring types. We learn at an early age that openly laughing at stupid people is counterproductive.

[Sivad]

Anyone associated with Clarence Thomas at all has a credibility problem with me.

It was an interview of Glenn Greenwald. You'd think a world renowned epidemiologist MENSA genius could come up with a valid criticism but all you could come up with was an association fallacy.

[Drlee]

It was an interview of Glenn Greenwald. You'd think a world renowned epidemiologist MENSA genius could come up with a valid criticism but all you could come up with was an association fallacy.

And now class, what fallacy did Sivad just use?

By the way, as you can clearly see I intended not "valid criticism" of Clarence Thomas. I expressed an opinion. Do try to keep up. You are angry. Calm down son.

[Sivad]

what fallacy did Sivad just use?

What's the fallacy, Dr MENSA?

The Permanent Political Class


The new American Way of bribery, corruption, and self-aggrandizement

A permanent political class has emerged on a scale unprecedented in our nation’s history. Its self-dealing, nepotism, and corruption contribute to rising inequality. Its reach extends from the governing elite throughout nongovernmental institutions. Aside from constituting an oligarchy of prestige and power, it enables the creation of an aristocracy of massive inherited wealth that is accumulating immense political power.

In a muckraking tour de force reminiscent of Lincoln Steffens, Upton Sinclair, and C. Wright Mills, American Oligarchy demonstrates the way the corrupt culture of the permanent political class extends down to the state and local level. Ron Formisano breaks down the ways this class creates economic inequality and how its own endemic corruption infects our entire society. Formisano delves into the work of not just politicians but lobbyists, consultants, appointed bureaucrats, pollsters, celebrity journalists, behind-the-scenes billionaires, and others. Their shameless pursuit of wealth and self-aggrandizement, often at taxpayer expense, rewards channeling the flow of income and wealth to elites. That inequality in turn has choked off social mobility and made a joke of meritocracy. As Formisano shows, these forces respond to the oligarchy’s power and compete to bask in the presence of the .01 percent. They also exacerbate the dangerous instability of an American democracy divided between extreme wealth and extreme poverty.

Ron Formisano is the William T. Bryan Chair of American History and professor emeritus of history at the University of Kentucky.

[jimjam]

Here is a great example of Donald's propaganda machine promoting stupidity and deliberate ignorance... Hail to the Chief


A combination of photos shows the crowds attending the inauguration ceremonies of Donald Trump, left, and Barack Obama. These pictures were taken by Reuters, and were not the edited NPS images. Photograph: Staff/Reuters

A government photographer edited official pictures of Donald Trump’s inauguration to make the crowd appear bigger following a personal intervention from the president, according to newly released documents.

The photographer cropped out empty space “where the crowd ended” for a new set of pictures requested by Trump on the first morning of his presidency, after he was angered by images showing his audience was smaller than Barack Obama’s in 2009.

[jimjam]

We learn at an early age that openly laughing at stupid people is counterproductive

I have never been told nor have been interested in what my I.Q. is (was ). About as irrelevant as the color of my eyes. It is what it is. But I found your above comment interesting. I became aware at a (very) early age of the variations that people had in thinking methods/abilities. Upon identifying someone who was obviously struggling with basic thinking I unconsciously put them on an "avoid" list; mostly because they were boring. I also concluded at an early age what a waste of time and energy it was for me to buy into the program of getting the highest marks possible in school subjects. I quickly learned that "They" were pacified with a "c" average which I attained with a minimum effort. This gave me "time off" to do more interesting stuff. I am proud of my college GPA of 2.00000000000 .

[blackjack21]

It's a felony that everyone but insiders are prosecuted for. You might think it's not a serious crime but it does show that there is a two tier justice system.

Sometimes they are prosecuted. I'm sure Obama didn't like any sort of racism from his direct reports. He probably fired more generals than Lincoln. Yet, he did prosecute David Petraeus, who ironically joined the chorus against clipping people's security clearances in the wake of Brennan losing his for saying off the wall stuff ongoingly.

And let's not forget why she committed that crime, she did it so there would be no evidence of her illicit dealings on the official record. Conducting official government business off the record should be a serious crime, at the very least it warrants an investigation into why anyone would be doing that in the first place.

Yes, and I think that the help she's received from others suggests that they are co-conspirators. One of the retorts we get from Hillary's defenders vis-a-vis the Uranium One story was that she was only one of many people who signed off, and some of them were Republicans (Robert Mueller being another of them) as if that somehow made it okay.

The joke is thinking Hillary Clinton isn't corrupt to the core. Clinton is a career criminal.

Indeed. In fact, it makes me think that there is indeed something good about Barack Obama. He saved the United States from both a Clinton presidency and a McCain presidency; although, he turned out to be pretty much a scum bag too.

It wasn't off the record. And by the way, she had the right to delete personal emails, be it on a private or government server. The only issue was that she used a private server that wasn't sufficiently secure to communicate classified information.

Jeez.

She lied about the reasons for using a classified server too. She said she wanted to consolidate onto a single device, but she had more than 10 different devices. We know that, because the FBI supervised the destruction of evidence--a very odd thing for the counter-intelligence and criminal investigative arm of the government to do for someone under criminal investigation, wouldn't you say? Can you think of anyone else for whom the FBI supervised the destruction of evidence against them?

That's the point, POTUS is being targeted by the deep state because he's a loose cannon.

Because he is not controlled by them. That's why I continue to say that the biggest mistake people make with the deep state is thinking that they can be befriended. They cannot. That's why they should be fired and their security clearances terminated.

Those emails were under congressional subpoena, so no, she did not have the right to delete them. And the FBI recovered over 17,000 emails she had deleted which were work related(property of the US State Department).

Another crime for which the FBI has absolute proof, including express intent, and did not recommend charges against her.

and then proceeded to write exoneration papers months before they even interviewed her. ( without recording it) Apparently none of the leftist and rhinos on this thread got that news. Yet they argue without facts that the Trump investigation is not biased and is fair.

Right. They have failed miserably, and a big part of it is that they deluded themselves into thinking they were smarter than they really were. That's why all this stuff is coming out.

Yes. Here we go with the Hillary conspiracy theorists. Completely discredited.

Why do you always use worn out Jewish lingo?

We are to believe that she got away with a felony and continues to do so with republicans filling every role in the decision. And they control the Presidency, Justice Department, FBI, Congress and the Senate.

Why should we believe the Republicans are pure as the wind-driven snow? You claim to be a Republican after all. I'm all for prosecuting the Republicans too. Aren't you?

Did you miss the bit where this Republican said there was nothing prosecutable?

Nope. That's why we think that Republican should go to jail. Don't you?

Gross negligence would definitely qualify, that's why the FBI rewrote the statement with the phrase "extremely careless". Gross negligence is a legal term that would have required criminal charges.

Let's not be unfair to the entire FBI. That's why PETER STRZOK rewrote JAMES COMEY'S official sounding FBI exoneration.

The point is they have less evidence for Trump's involvement in a criminal conspiracy than they do for Clinton's involvement in racketeering, yet they launched an aggressive investigation into Trump's activities while giving Clinton preferential treatment in the "matter" of the private server.

It's even worse than that. They were involved in knowingly trafficking manufactured evidence to a FISA court among other things.

What it can do is put its own people in charge of that investigation and control the outcome. And that's exactly what it did.

Even that is failing them. Drlee is there playing Catcher in the Rye for them as they are running for the cliff. After all, who could possibly believe that the Republican party could be involved? They're so pure and innocent.

Guaranteed I will not watch that.

Why, because she is a lawyer who clerked for Clarence Thomas?

Part of the problem was that Obama knowingly communicated classified information with Hilary's insecure server. Obama was also guilty. The deep state felt that America's first Black President had to be protected at all cost.

Indeed. He knew it too, which is why he took leave of the law to go after the Tea Party while the so-called Republicans didn't lift a finger to stop him.

This is why Weinstein and Cosby were so reckless, they both thought that their race made them immune from prosecution.

It's also why the people who protected Weinstein and Cosby are far worse than Weinstein and Cosby, who apparently are troubled characters but were also treated pretty unfairly later in life when they no longer served any purpose for an establishment that could serve them up as sacrificial lambs.

It's pointless debating a low information babbitt mentality like that.

It's possible Rugoz understands this perfectly, and is just pettifogging the matter. Drlee does the same thing. It couldn't be a conspiracy, because the Republicans are involved.

Exactly. I think that most so-called conservatives using the term these days don't even know what it is supposed to be. But you point is excellent. If it exists at all (as they understand it) it is monumentally incompetent.

Yes. Which is why they all need to be fired, and many of them prosecuted. For example:

'Anonymous': Deep State's Threat Extends Even Into The White House
Boy, that Investors Business Daily sure does traffic in conspiracy theories.

Top Officials Deny Writing Anonymous Op-Ed Critical of Trump

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
The deep state says it exists Drlee. Do you believe they exist when they say they exist?

I say we defy anonymous and not heed John McCain's farewell letter. We clearly don't share "values." McCain trafficking in a phony dossier was not honorable. It was treachery.

Anyone associated with Clarence Thomas at all has a credibility problem with me.

Uh huh. A conservative in the Barry Goldwater vein, opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Could it be that you are having a problem with darker skinned peoples who deign to think for themselves?