The Many Faces of US Politics...

[J70]

I'm not furnishing you with anything. If you want to argue that endorsements across international lines started in 2017 with Obama, knock yourself out.

As for the why, I suspect that it was obviously because Obama, like many of us, didn't like the the views of LePen and the National Front, which she led until a couple of weeks ago. Do you think everyone who endorsed Donald Trump knew him well?? Do you think Ted Cruz, who endorsed him, even likes Trump?

I don't know why you're whining about free speech. More red herrings?

You can't provide examples, especially of this scale. Just be honest and say you can't.

The why bit is important, especially if you read macron's background. Couldn't take a chance that he could fail like Hillary did which is why obama was rolled out.

Scale?? What, it makes a huge difference that Obama recorded a video and, say, Bill Clinton endorsing Gordon Brown didn't?

Regardless, this is all beside the point anyway.

You're the one hanging your hat on the Obama endorsement and the hack/drip of the emails being the same thing, because they're both "interference".

Its like saying stealing a loaf of bread is equivalent to committing a murder because they are both criminal offenses.

It basically doesn't make one bit of difference whether or not Obama is the first foreign leader ever to endorse a political candidate. Its not the same thing as the hacking/selective publishing of private emails.

How is democrat protestors stopping free speech a red herring? Should be ashamed of themselves for promoting the idea.
Democrats are easy to program and bleat out the same mantra. I'm not sure they're able to think for themselves any more.
Should rename themselves The Kardashian party.

Let's use YOUR apparent standard here for a minute. You apparently have political causes in common with the US right wing, which currently includes Trump and the alt-right/white supremacists, whose sudden upsurge in US college campus activity is what is partly driving the overreaction to controversial right wing speakers. If you can lump all liberals into unthinking, uncritical automotons based on some immature college kids taking the bait when some lowlifes try to rile up students on a campus, then I can certainly lump you in with Trump and the David Dukes, Richard Spencers and Andrew Anglins of this world.

So, once again, if and when I raise objections to some right wing speaker even being allowed to speak, feel free to question my commitment to free speech. Otherwise, its irrelevant to any points I've made i.e. a red herring.

[seafoid]

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/11/15624544/fbi-trump-comey-war

[whitey]

I'm not furnishing you with anything. If you want to argue that endorsements across international lines started in 2017 with Obama, knock yourself out.

As for the why, I suspect that it was obviously because Obama, like many of us, didn't like the the views of LePen and the National Front, which she led until a couple of weeks ago. Do you think everyone who endorsed Donald Trump knew him well?? Do you think Ted Cruz, who endorsed him, even likes Trump?

I don't know why you're whining about free speech. More red herrings?

You can't provide examples, especially of this scale. Just be honest and say you can't.

The why bit is important, especially if you read macron's background. Couldn't take a chance that he could fail like Hillary did which is why obama was rolled out.

Scale?? What, it makes a huge difference that Obama recorded a video and, say, Bill Clinton endorsing Gordon Brown didn't?

Regardless, this is all beside the point anyway.

You're the one hanging your hat on the Obama endorsement and the hack/drip of the emails being the same thing, because they're both "interference".

Its like saying stealing a loaf of bread is equivalent to committing a murder because they are both criminal offenses.

It basically doesn't make one bit of difference whether or not Obama is the first foreign leader ever to endorse a political candidate. Its not the same thing as the hacking/selective publishing of private emails.

How is democrat protestors stopping free speech a red herring? Should be ashamed of themselves for promoting the idea.
Democrats are easy to program and bleat out the same mantra. I'm not sure they're able to think for themselves any more.
Should rename themselves The Kardashian party.

Let's use YOUR apparent standard here for a minute. You apparently have political causes in common with the US right wing, which currently includes Trump and the alt-right/white supremacists, whose sudden upsurge in US college campus activity is what is partly driving the overreaction to controversial right wing speakers. If you can lump all liberals into unthinking, uncritical automotons based on some immature college kids taking the bait when some lowlifes try to rile up students on a campus, then I can certainly lump you in with Trump and the David Dukes, Richard Spencers and Andrew Anglins of this world.

So, once again, if and when I raise objections to some right wing speaker even being allowed to speak, feel free to question my commitment to free speech. Otherwise, its irrelevant to any points I've made i.e. a red herring.

Obama went over bang smack in the middle of the Brexit campaign and publicly stated that should the UK vote for Brexit, "they would go to the back of the line" in terms of a trade deal with the United States


Please explain how that is NOT an interference in the democratic process of a sovereign nation?

[stew]

I'm not furnishing you with anything. If you want to argue that endorsements across international lines started in 2017 with Obama, knock yourself out.

As for the why, I suspect that it was obviously because Obama, like many of us, didn't like the the views of LePen and the National Front, which she led until a couple of weeks ago. Do you think everyone who endorsed Donald Trump knew him well?? Do you think Ted Cruz, who endorsed him, even likes Trump?

I don't know why you're whining about free speech. More red herrings?

You can't provide examples, especially of this scale. Just be honest and say you can't.

The why bit is important, especially if you read macron's background. Couldn't take a chance that he could fail like Hillary did which is why obama was rolled out.

Scale?? What, it makes a huge difference that Obama recorded a video and, say, Bill Clinton endorsing Gordon Brown didn't?

Regardless, this is all beside the point anyway.

You're the one hanging your hat on the Obama endorsement and the hack/drip of the emails being the same thing, because they're both "interference".

Its like saying stealing a loaf of bread is equivalent to committing a murder because they are both criminal offenses.

It basically doesn't make one bit of difference whether or not Obama is the first foreign leader ever to endorse a political candidate. Its not the same thing as the hacking/selective publishing of private emails.

How is democrat protestors stopping free speech a red herring? Should be ashamed of themselves for promoting the idea.
Democrats are easy to program and bleat out the same mantra. I'm not sure they're able to think for themselves any more.
Should rename themselves The Kardashian party.

Let's use YOUR apparent standard here for a minute. You apparently have political causes in common with the US right wing, which currently includes Trump and the alt-right/white supremacists, whose sudden upsurge in US college campus activity is what is partly driving the overreaction to controversial right wing speakers. If you can lump all liberals into unthinking, uncritical automotons based on some immature college kids taking the bait when some lowlifes try to rile up students on a campus, then I can certainly lump you in with Trump and the David Dukes, Richard Spencers and Andrew Anglins of this world.

So, once again, if and when I raise objections to some right wing speaker even being allowed to speak, feel free to question my commitment to free speech. Otherwise, its irrelevant to any points I've made i.e. a red herring.

Obama went over bang smack in the middle of the Brexit campaign and publicly stated that should the UK vote for Brexit, "they would go to the back of the line" in terms of a trade deal with the United States


Please explain how that is NOT an interference in the democratic process of a sovereign nation?

The Prez did what he liked when he liked, for the most part he was complete and utter shite, with the odd moment of brilliance thrown in,

[seafoid]

Trump doesn't have the temperament to be Prez

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/us/politics/election-is-over-but-trump-still-cant-seem-to-get-past-it.html

[omochain]

I'm not furnishing you with anything. If you want to argue that endorsements across international lines started in 2017 with Obama, knock yourself out.

As for the why, I suspect that it was obviously because Obama, like many of us, didn't like the the views of LePen and the National Front, which she led until a couple of weeks ago. Do you think everyone who endorsed Donald Trump knew him well?? Do you think Ted Cruz, who endorsed him, even likes Trump?

I don't know why you're whining about free speech. More red herrings?

You can't provide examples, especially of this scale. Just be honest and say you can't.

The why bit is important, especially if you read macron's background. Couldn't take a chance that he could fail like Hillary did which is why obama was rolled out.

How is democrat protestors stopping free speech a red herring? Should be ashamed of themselves for promoting the idea.
Democrats are easy to program and bleat out the same mantra. I'm not sure they're able to think for themselves any more.
Should rename themselves The Kardashian party.

J70, why do you dignify this troll with a response. He spouts nonsense ... just read the last paragraph and it makes no sense.. It's Charlie Brown Wha,Wha, Wha, Wha.....
He is always demanding answers and never answers a question. You are a kind man to devote time to trying to talk sense to a "Birther" who is so invested in belittling democracy, decency and facts.

[Hardy]

I'm not furnishing you with anything. If you want to argue that endorsements across international lines started in 2017 with Obama, knock yourself out.

As for the why, I suspect that it was obviously because Obama, like many of us, didn't like the the views of LePen and the National Front, which she led until a couple of weeks ago. Do you think everyone who endorsed Donald Trump knew him well?? Do you think Ted Cruz, who endorsed him, even likes Trump?

I don't know why you're whining about free speech. More red herrings?

You can't provide examples, especially of this scale. Just be honest and say you can't.

The why bit is important, especially if you read macron's background. Couldn't take a chance that he could fail like Hillary did which is why obama was rolled out.

How is democrat protestors stopping free speech a red herring? Should be ashamed of themselves for promoting the idea.
Democrats are easy to program and bleat out the same mantra. I'm not sure they're able to think for themselves any more.
Should rename themselves The Kardashian party.

J70, why do you dignify this troll with a response. He spouts nonsense ... just read the last paragraph and it makes no sense.. It's Charlie Brown Wha,Wha, Wha, Wha.....
He is always demanding answers and never answers a question. You are a kind man to devote time to trying to talk sense to a "Birther" who is so invested in belittling democracy, decency and facts.

+1. I've been surprised that J70 keeps engaging with that character. In my opinion, to respond to the moronic but vicious nonsense he spouts seems to lend it some kind of legitimacy. When you use the ignore button the temptation to respond is non-existent. There's nothing to respond to. If everyone had him and his ilk on ignore, their narrow-minded ranting would be just shouting at the mirror.

Then again, who am I to talk? I've been known to respond to Tony Fearon.

[seafoid]

SNL

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

[J70]

I'm not furnishing you with anything. If you want to argue that endorsements across international lines started in 2017 with Obama, knock yourself out.

As for the why, I suspect that it was obviously because Obama, like many of us, didn't like the the views of LePen and the National Front, which she led until a couple of weeks ago. Do you think everyone who endorsed Donald Trump knew him well?? Do you think Ted Cruz, who endorsed him, even likes Trump?

I don't know why you're whining about free speech. More red herrings?

You can't provide examples, especially of this scale. Just be honest and say you can't.

The why bit is important, especially if you read macron's background. Couldn't take a chance that he could fail like Hillary did which is why obama was rolled out.

Scale?? What, it makes a huge difference that Obama recorded a video and, say, Bill Clinton endorsing Gordon Brown didn't?

Regardless, this is all beside the point anyway.

You're the one hanging your hat on the Obama endorsement and the hack/drip of the emails being the same thing, because they're both "interference".

Its like saying stealing a loaf of bread is equivalent to committing a murder because they are both criminal offenses.

It basically doesn't make one bit of difference whether or not Obama is the first foreign leader ever to endorse a political candidate. Its not the same thing as the hacking/selective publishing of private emails.

How is democrat protestors stopping free speech a red herring? Should be ashamed of themselves for promoting the idea.
Democrats are easy to program and bleat out the same mantra. I'm not sure they're able to think for themselves any more.
Should rename themselves The Kardashian party.

Let's use YOUR apparent standard here for a minute. You apparently have political causes in common with the US right wing, which currently includes Trump and the alt-right/white supremacists, whose sudden upsurge in US college campus activity is what is partly driving the overreaction to controversial right wing speakers. If you can lump all liberals into unthinking, uncritical automotons based on some immature college kids taking the bait when some lowlifes try to rile up students on a campus, then I can certainly lump you in with Trump and the David Dukes, Richard Spencers and Andrew Anglins of this world.

So, once again, if and when I raise objections to some right wing speaker even being allowed to speak, feel free to question my commitment to free speech. Otherwise, its irrelevant to any points I've made i.e. a red herring.

Obama went over bang smack in the middle of the Brexit campaign and publicly stated that should the UK vote for Brexit, "they would go to the back of the line" in terms of a trade deal with the United States


Please explain how that is NOT an interference in the democratic process of a sovereign nation?

Why don't YOU explain how openly laying out a possible consequence of the vote is the same as secretly hacking and selectively leaking emails to sabotage one side?

Do I need to spell out the loaf of bread/murder analogy again?

[seafoid]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-must-be-impeached-heres-why/2017/05/13/82ce2ea4-374d-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html

[whitey]

I'm not furnishing you with anything. If you want to argue that endorsements across international lines started in 2017 with Obama, knock yourself out.

As for the why, I suspect that it was obviously because Obama, like many of us, didn't like the the views of LePen and the National Front, which she led until a couple of weeks ago. Do you think everyone who endorsed Donald Trump knew him well?? Do you think Ted Cruz, who endorsed him, even likes Trump?

I don't know why you're whining about free speech. More red herrings?

You can't provide examples, especially of this scale. Just be honest and say you can't.

The why bit is important, especially if you read macron's background. Couldn't take a chance that he could fail like Hillary did which is why obama was rolled out.

Scale?? What, it makes a huge difference that Obama recorded a video and, say, Bill Clinton endorsing Gordon Brown didn't?

Regardless, this is all beside the point anyway.

You're the one hanging your hat on the Obama endorsement and the hack/drip of the emails being the same thing, because they're both "interference".

Its like saying stealing a loaf of bread is equivalent to committing a murder because they are both criminal offenses.

It basically doesn't make one bit of difference whether or not Obama is the first foreign leader ever to endorse a political candidate. Its not the same thing as the hacking/selective publishing of private emails.

How is democrat protestors stopping free speech a red herring? Should be ashamed of themselves for promoting the idea.
Democrats are easy to program and bleat out the same mantra. I'm not sure they're able to think for themselves any more.
Should rename themselves The Kardashian party.

Let's use YOUR apparent standard here for a minute. You apparently have political causes in common with the US right wing, which currently includes Trump and the alt-right/white supremacists, whose sudden upsurge in US college campus activity is what is partly driving the overreaction to controversial right wing speakers. If you can lump all liberals into unthinking, uncritical automotons based on some immature college kids taking the bait when some lowlifes try to rile up students on a campus, then I can certainly lump you in with Trump and the David Dukes, Richard Spencers and Andrew Anglins of this world.

So, once again, if and when I raise objections to some right wing speaker even being allowed to speak, feel free to question my commitment to free speech. Otherwise, its irrelevant to any points I've made i.e. a red herring.

Obama went over bang smack in the middle of the Brexit campaign and publicly stated that should the UK vote for Brexit, "they would go to the back of the line" in terms of a trade deal with the United States


Please explain how that is NOT an interference in the democratic process of a sovereign nation?

Why don't YOU explain how openly laying out a possible consequence of the vote is the same as secretly hacking and selectively leaking emails to sabotage one side?

Do I need to spell out the loaf of bread/murder analogy again?

He issued a direct threat that they would be punished if they didn't vote in the way he wanted.

You are intentionally obscuring the issue......no one is denying "interference" by Russia, but you (and most Democrats) I know, conveniently ignore the fact that Mr Obama also took it upon himself to "interfere" in the affairs of another sovereign nation.

[J70]

I'm not furnishing you with anything. If you want to argue that endorsements across international lines started in 2017 with Obama, knock yourself out.

As for the why, I suspect that it was obviously because Obama, like many of us, didn't like the the views of LePen and the National Front, which she led until a couple of weeks ago. Do you think everyone who endorsed Donald Trump knew him well?? Do you think Ted Cruz, who endorsed him, even likes Trump?

I don't know why you're whining about free speech. More red herrings?

You can't provide examples, especially of this scale. Just be honest and say you can't.

The why bit is important, especially if you read macron's background. Couldn't take a chance that he could fail like Hillary did which is why obama was rolled out.

Scale?? What, it makes a huge difference that Obama recorded a video and, say, Bill Clinton endorsing Gordon Brown didn't?

Regardless, this is all beside the point anyway.

You're the one hanging your hat on the Obama endorsement and the hack/drip of the emails being the same thing, because they're both "interference".

Its like saying stealing a loaf of bread is equivalent to committing a murder because they are both criminal offenses.

It basically doesn't make one bit of difference whether or not Obama is the first foreign leader ever to endorse a political candidate. Its not the same thing as the hacking/selective publishing of private emails.

How is democrat protestors stopping free speech a red herring? Should be ashamed of themselves for promoting the idea.
Democrats are easy to program and bleat out the same mantra. I'm not sure they're able to think for themselves any more.
Should rename themselves The Kardashian party.

Let's use YOUR apparent standard here for a minute. You apparently have political causes in common with the US right wing, which currently includes Trump and the alt-right/white supremacists, whose sudden upsurge in US college campus activity is what is partly driving the overreaction to controversial right wing speakers. If you can lump all liberals into unthinking, uncritical automotons based on some immature college kids taking the bait when some lowlifes try to rile up students on a campus, then I can certainly lump you in with Trump and the David Dukes, Richard Spencers and Andrew Anglins of this world.

So, once again, if and when I raise objections to some right wing speaker even being allowed to speak, feel free to question my commitment to free speech. Otherwise, its irrelevant to any points I've made i.e. a red herring.

Obama went over bang smack in the middle of the Brexit campaign and publicly stated that should the UK vote for Brexit, "they would go to the back of the line" in terms of a trade deal with the United States


Please explain how that is NOT an interference in the democratic process of a sovereign nation?

Why don't YOU explain how openly laying out a possible consequence of the vote is the same as secretly hacking and selectively leaking emails to sabotage one side?

Do I need to spell out the loaf of bread/murder analogy again?

He issued a direct threat that they would be punished if they didn't vote in the way he wanted.

You are intentionally obscuring the issue......no one is denying "interference" by Russia, but you (and most Democrats) I know, conveniently ignore the fact that Mr Obama also took it upon himself to "interfere" in the affairs of another sovereign nation.

The US was in the middle of the controversy over TPP and trade deals were very much part of the political dialogue given Trump's positions. Given that trade deals that were absolutely an issue if the UK withdrew from the EU as well, why wouldn't Obama bring the issue up? Should the UK public NOT be aware of what might be at stake? At the same time, Trump was saying that British membership of the EU was a "disaster". Which is fine. He is entitled to weigh in with his opinion, which he owned. I'm sure the likes of Farage and his followers were delighted.

The only people obscuring the issue are those who are equating the secret targeting of emails to damage one side with open, public endorsements and engagement.

[seafoid]

Talk about Obama and Brexit for 2 weeks. Don't mention Comey
Rinse and repeat

[whitey]

I'm not furnishing you with anything. If you want to argue that endorsements across international lines started in 2017 with Obama, knock yourself out.

As for the why, I suspect that it was obviously because Obama, like many of us, didn't like the the views of LePen and the National Front, which she led until a couple of weeks ago. Do you think everyone who endorsed Donald Trump knew him well?? Do you think Ted Cruz, who endorsed him, even likes Trump?

I don't know why you're whining about free speech. More red herrings?

You can't provide examples, especially of this scale. Just be honest and say you can't.

The why bit is important, especially if you read macron's background. Couldn't take a chance that he could fail like Hillary did which is why obama was rolled out.

Scale?? What, it makes a huge difference that Obama recorded a video and, say, Bill Clinton endorsing Gordon Brown didn't?

Regardless, this is all beside the point anyway.

You're the one hanging your hat on the Obama endorsement and the hack/drip of the emails being the same thing, because they're both "interference".

Its like saying stealing a loaf of bread is equivalent to committing a murder because they are both criminal offenses.

It basically doesn't make one bit of difference whether or not Obama is the first foreign leader ever to endorse a political candidate. Its not the same thing as the hacking/selective publishing of private emails.

How is democrat protestors stopping free speech a red herring? Should be ashamed of themselves for promoting the idea.
Democrats are easy to program and bleat out the same mantra. I'm not sure they're able to think for themselves any more.
Should rename themselves The Kardashian party.

Let's use YOUR apparent standard here for a minute. You apparently have political causes in common with the US right wing, which currently includes Trump and the alt-right/white supremacists, whose sudden upsurge in US college campus activity is what is partly driving the overreaction to controversial right wing speakers. If you can lump all liberals into unthinking, uncritical automotons based on some immature college kids taking the bait when some lowlifes try to rile up students on a campus, then I can certainly lump you in with Trump and the David Dukes, Richard Spencers and Andrew Anglins of this world.

So, once again, if and when I raise objections to some right wing speaker even being allowed to speak, feel free to question my commitment to free speech. Otherwise, its irrelevant to any points I've made i.e. a red herring.

Obama went over bang smack in the middle of the Brexit campaign and publicly stated that should the UK vote for Brexit, "they would go to the back of the line" in terms of a trade deal with the United States


Please explain how that is NOT an interference in the democratic process of a sovereign nation?

Why don't YOU explain how openly laying out a possible consequence of the vote is the same as secretly hacking and selectively leaking emails to sabotage one side?

Do I need to spell out the loaf of bread/murder analogy again?

He issued a direct threat that they would be punished if they didn't vote in the way he wanted.

You are intentionally obscuring the issue......no one is denying "interference" by Russia, but you (and most Democrats) I know, conveniently ignore the fact that Mr Obama also took it upon himself to "interfere" in the affairs of another sovereign nation.

The US was in the middle of the controversy over TPP and trade deals were very much part of the political dialogue given Trump's positions. Given that trade deals that were absolutely an issue if the UK withdrew from the EU as well, why wouldn't Obama bring the issue up? Should the UK public NOT be aware of what might be at stake? At the same time, Trump was saying that British membership of the EU was a "disaster". Which is fine. He is entitled to weigh in with his opinion, which he owned. I'm sure the likes of Farage and his followers were delighted.

The only people obscuring the issue are those who are equating the secret targeting of emails to damage one side with open, public endorsements and engagement.

Horse manure....Obama was within 6 months of the end of his term and would have no input in deciding who was at the front and who was at the back of the line.  Some people think Obama's ill timed comments actually helped the Out campaign

[whitey]

Talk about Obama and Brexit for 2 weeks. Don't mention Comey
Rinse and repeat

Kinda like Bill Clinton's treatment of women, Democrats have very selective memories when it comes to which "outrages" to set their hair on fire over.

Bottom line is the Democrats lost a very winnable election by annointing a crap candidate who was foisted onto the ticket by the party elites.  They need someone to blame and invented this whole Russian collusion red herring to deflect blame from where it truly lies.....on themselves and their butt budies in the main stream media.

There was contact between the Trump campaign and the Russians during the election in the same way there was contact between the Clinton campaign and the Russians.  The idea that there was some "collusion" is just fabricated nonsense. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/02/18/no-one-mentions-that-the-russian-trail-leads-to-democratic-lobbyists/#3eb9f83b3991

Of course Trumps mishandling of everything from Flynn to Sessions to the Comey firing is just throwing fuel on the fire