Trump Consciousness

For Fox sake David. Fox News is a mouthpiece. All political systems have a mouthpiece. Trump tweets, this is very clever because, as Hitler found [edit] with television, a new and popular global communication network is very powerful.

Let's not pick just one outlet for news, there are many and diverse :)
I have thought a bit about your comment, and right now I watch Fox News and the BBC on the internet, but for things of importance I believe Fox News - Mea Culpa.

My explanation, is that I have repeatedly found Fox News analysis to be more accurate that the BBC or other news outlets. For example, reading/listening to Fox News, I knew for a long time that the Mueller report was likely to be a dead duck because it had no evidence of collusion. They also pointed out the technical point that legal processes never exonerate anyone! When it turned out that Trump could not be impeached for 'collusion', that came as absolutely no surprise to me because I had read FN.

Furthermore, FN reported the various messages between Strzok and his girlfriend Page. Wiki tells us that "Strzok rose to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, the second-highest position in that division. ", but his messages to his Girlfriend included statements that "Trump will be stopped" (I haven't checked the exact wording). Do you think this was the kind of behaviour to expect of someone in that exalted position, who was tasked with investigating the President of the US? If you don't watch FN, I doubt if you know any of that. Maybe you also do not realise that the Attorney General is conducting an investigation into the origins of a dossier of evidence against Trump that initiated the calls for impeachment. As I understand it, news of this will be out soon, and will probably also come as a bombshell to anyone who relies on CNN or other outlets.

I honestly do not know how many facts Left-leaning Americans are aware of. Are you aware of significance of the company, "Fusion GPS", or of the relevance of the British spy, Christopher Steele ? Are you aware that Hillary Clinton was accused of pressurising a woman not to report her rape, because the person she accused was Bill Clinton? The existence of that accusation is a fact, but obviously since it never got tested in court, I can't say if it was true.) I never heard the BBC mention any of those, lest they make people understand the game that is being played in Washington.

Further back in time, I knew from Fox News that candidate Trump was covering such issues as pulling troops out of Syria and other places, I knew why he and those who voted for him hated "ObamaCare", and I came to realised what his repeated references to 'the swamp' were all about.

By contrast, the BBC paints a vague, disturbing picture of what is going on in the US, incorporating as few actual facts as possible!

David
 
Last edited:
I have thought a bit about your comment, and right now I watch Fox News and the BBC on the internet, but for things of importance I believe Fox News - Mea Culpa.

My explanation, is that I have repeatedly found Fox News analysis to be more accurate that the BBC or other news outlets. For example, reading/listening to Fox News, I knew for a long time that the Mueller report was likely to be a dead duck because it had no evidence of collusion. They also pointed out the technical point that legal processes never exonerate anyone! When it turned out that Trump could not be impeached for 'collusion', that came as absolutely no surprise to me because I had read FN.

Furthermore, FN reported the various messages between Strzok and his girlfriend Page. Wiki tells us that "Strzok rose to become the Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, the second-highest position in that division. ", but his messages to his Girlfriend included statements that "Trump will be stopped" (I haven't checked the exact wording). Do you think this was the kind of behaviour to expect of someone in that exalted position, who was tasked with investigating the President of the US? If you don't watch FN, I doubt if you know any of that. Maybe you also do not realise that the Attorney General is conducting an investigation into the origins of a dossier of evidence against Trump that initiated the calls for impeachment. As I understand it, news of this will be out soon, and will probably also come as a bombshell to anyone who relies on CNN or other outlets.

I honestly do not know how many facts Left-leaning Americans are aware of. Are you aware of significance of the company, "Fusion GPS", or of the relevance of the British spy, Christopher Steele ? Are you aware that Hillary Clinton was accused of pressurising a woman not to report her rape, because the person she accused was Bill Clinton? The existence of that accusation is a fact, but obviously since it never got tested in court, I can't say if it was true.) I never heard the BBC mention any of those, lest they make people understand the game that is being played in Washington.

Further back in time, I knew from Fox News that candidate Trump was covering such issues as pulling troops out of Syria and other places, I knew why he and those who voted for him hated "ObamaCare", and I came to realised what his repeated references to 'the swamp' were all about.

By contrast, the BBC paints a vague, disturbing picture of what is going on in the US, incorporating as few actual facts as possible!

David
Yes I 'know' this stuff is going on (perhaps intuitively by keeping an open mind) and no doubt there is plenty more that Fox doesn't relate, drip-feeding keeps a population thinking it's 'in the know'. But you seem to assume that if I make a critical remark about Trump, that I must be in favour of Clinton. This is 'them vs us' thinking created by the false-opposition of two-party political systems. It keeps us busy arguing on this or that contention as if they are isolated events, so we neglect to notice that Trump hasn't pulled out of Syria i.e. stopped funding dissident terrorising groups in the area. Nor yet "drained the swamp"

In fact I think I have said some 'fond' things of Trump (whilst fully aware that he is a sleazy, money-making liar) on this forum, but that doesn't make me deaf to hearing his tax-cuts for the very rich:-
From The Guardian 'Trump under fire over 'huge tax cuts for the rich' from 2017(?)
"The Trump administration unveiled what it called the biggest tax cuts “in history” on Wednesday, in a move that will simplify the US tax system, slash taxes for businesses large and small – including Trump’s own – eliminate inheritance taxes and set the president on a collision course with Congress over the likely $2tn-plus cost of the proposal.
Critics immediately called it “basically a huge tax cut for the rich”.
he plan would cut the US’s individual income tax brackets from seven to three (10%, 25% and 35%) and slash US corporate tax rates from 35% to 15%. “We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do something really big,” said Gary Cohn, chief economic adviser to Donald Trump. “This is about growing the economy, creating jobs.”
Cohn and Steven Mnuchin, the treasury secretary, were short on details of the plan that, if passed, would be the largest overhaul of the US tax system since the Reagan era. “We are moving as quickly as we can,” said Mnuchin.
The announcement comes amid a continuing row over Trump’s own taxes, with members of his own party asking for him to release his returns before pressing ahead with tax reforms. Trump has long claimed he might release these documents at the end of what he says is a long-running audit, but Mnuchin said on Wednesday that the president “has no intention” of releasing his tax returns to the public.
As well as slashing costs for his own businesses, the new proposals will also cut the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a tax designed to stop the super-wealthy from taking so many tax deductions that they avoid paying anything. Leaked documents have shown that in 2005 Trump paid $31m in tax thanks to the AMT.
Mnuchin and Cohn were pressed on how Trump would benefit from the proposals, but they avoided the questions. “What this is about is creating job and economic growth,” Mnuchin said. He described the proposals as “the biggest tax cut and the largest tax reform in the history of our country”.
The president will not be the only Trump administration official to benefit from the tax cuts. His cabinet is the richest in history and includes several billionaires.
The proposal also gets rid of almost all tax deductions, including those for state and local taxes. This creates a significant increase in tax for residents of high-tax states such as California and New York. It does leave in place existing tax dedications for charitable donations and home mortgage payments.
Advertisement

Mnuchin refused to commit as to whether the tax cuts would end up being revenue neutral, saying the administration was “working on a lot of details”. However, he said he felt confident that the tax cuts would “pay for [themselves] through growth, reduction of deductions, and closing loopholes”. The treasury secretary did insist, though, that “the deficit is a problem and the president is concerned about that”.
Trump has long heralded tax cuts, particularly on corporations, as a major component of his economic plan. In his joint address to Congress in February, the president previewed his proposals, saying: “My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone.” He added: “It will be a big, big cut.”
But on the campaign trail, he also consistently pledged to cut the US’s $19tn deficit “big-league” and “very quickly”. A 20-percentage-point cut to corporate tax rates alone would add $2.4tn to the national debt, according to the nonpartisan pressure group Americans for Tax Fairness. Frank Clemente, executive director, called the proposal a “reckless” plan “for massive tax giveaways to corporations, the wealthy, and his own family” in return for adding trillions of dollars to the national debt.
“So, how would Trump’s White House make up the shortfall? By drastic cuts to essential services and lowering the standard of living for regular American families. Unacceptable,” said Clemente. “The White House line that ‘tax cuts will pay for themselves’ is a lie that has been debunked repeatedly, including by the conservative Tax Foundation. We will fight this tax plan tooth and nail, and we’ll be joined by Americans of all political stripes in doing so.”
The plan faces significant obstacles because of the need for Democratic support, and “reconciliation” rules that place strict limits on any tax cuts that result in increases to the deficit.
The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, indicated on Tuesday that Republicans would have to use the reconciliation process, which requires tax cuts to be balanced out with spending cuts. “I think it’s pretty clear we’re going to have to use a reconciliation vehicle because today’s Democratic party is very different from the Democratic party in the 80s,” McConnell said.
In a joint statement with McConnell, fellow Republicans including the House speaker, Paul Ryan, the House ways and means chair, Kevin Brady and the Senate finance chair, Orrin Hatch, gave cautious praise to the administration’s proposals. “The principles outlined by the Trump administration today will serve as critical guideposts for Congress and the administration as we work together to overhaul the American tax system and ensure middle-class families and job creators are better positioned for the 21st-century economy.”
The Republican congressman Tom Cole, from Oklahoma, said he envisioned a “very complex” path forward on tax reform.
One notable tax missing from Wednesday’s briefing was the “border adjustability tax”, a proposal to tax goods imported into and sold in the United States championed by Ryan.
The tax, backed by House Republicans, was supposed to serve as a means to offset any loss in revenue from corporate tax cuts but ran into opposition from major corporate interests, including retailers and automobile manufacturers.

Trump reportedly abandoned his support for the border adjustment tax, although Mnuchin did not definitely rule it out.

“I don’t think it’s dead,” Cole said of the border adjustment tax. “I’m very worried about blowing a huge hole in the deficit.”
The tax policy was panned by deficit hawks. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimated it would cost between $3-$7tn, using a baseline estimate of roughly $5.5tn because of its vagueness.
In its analysis, the Trump proposals would “increase debt to 111 percent of Gross Domestic Product (compared to 89 percent of GDP in CBO’s baseline) by 2027. That would be higher than any time in US history, and no achievable amount of economic growth could finance it.”
In a scathing statement, the group’s president, Maya McGuineas, said: “It seems the administration is using economic growth like magic beans – the cheap solution to all our problems. But there is no golden goose at the top of the tax cut beanstalk, just mountains of debt.”
However, David McIntosh, the president of the influential conservative group Club for Growth, praised the plan as “massively pro-growth”. He added: “This is the tax plan that the American people supported when they elected President Trump, so House Republicans would do well to give it their full support.”
Democrats condemned the proposals. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who is facing re-election in 2018 in a state that Trump won, said in a statement: “This scheme is a massive tax giveaway to millionaires, billionaires and big corporations at the expense of middle-class families in Pennsylvania.
Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No 2 Democrat in the Senate, said in a statement: “President Trump should release his own tax returns if he wants to have any credibility in a debate about America’s tax code.”
The plans have split experts. Hunter Blair, budget analyst at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, said the proposals were “basically a huge tax cut for the rich”.
“According to the treasury, 43% of corporate tax is paid for by the top 1%. We have tried this supply-side economics before; trickle down just doesn’t work,” he said.
Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said cuts in corporate tax rates in the UK and Canada had not led to lost revenues. “There is a huge amount of [tax] avoidance right now and a huge effort to park overseas. That money would come back if rates fell,” he said."


or that his reason for 'colluding' with Putin was to negotiate some 'real' estate for 'Trump Tower' (a penile monument if ever)

But can we trust that we get the whole truth from the Guardian, the BBC, Fox or CNN for that matter? And it is hard to avoid those channels that enjoy mainstream status.

I choose to also get my news from say Democracy Now or Chis Hedges. The big difference is that they seem to be willing to speak about the negative aspects of political behaviour, which Trump supporters seem unwilling, or unable to do.
 
Yes I 'know' this stuff is going on (perhaps intuitively by keeping an open mind) and no doubt there is plenty more that Fox doesn't relate, drip-feeding keeps a population thinking it's 'in the know'. But you seem to assume that if I make a critical remark about Trump, that I must be in favour of Clinton. This is 'them vs us' thinking created by the false-opposition of two-party political systems. It keeps us busy arguing on this or that contention as if they are isolated events, so we neglect to notice that Trump hasn't pulled out of Syria i.e. stopped funding dissident terrorising groups in the area. Nor yet "drained the swamp"

In fact I think I have said some 'fond' things of Trump (whilst fully aware that he is a sleazy, money-making liar) on this forum, but that doesn't make me deaf to hearing his tax-cuts for the very rich:-
From The Guardian 'Trump under fire over 'huge tax cuts for the rich' from 2017(?)
"The Trump administration unveiled what it called the biggest tax cuts “in history” on Wednesday, in a move that will simplify the US tax system, slash taxes for businesses large and small – including Trump’s own – eliminate inheritance taxes and set the president on a collision course with Congress over the likely $2tn-plus cost of the proposal.
Critics immediately called it “basically a huge tax cut for the rich”.
he plan would cut the US’s individual income tax brackets from seven to three (10%, 25% and 35%) and slash US corporate tax rates from 35% to 15%. “We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do something really big,” said Gary Cohn, chief economic adviser to Donald Trump. “This is about growing the economy, creating jobs.”
Cohn and Steven Mnuchin, the treasury secretary, were short on details of the plan that, if passed, would be the largest overhaul of the US tax system since the Reagan era. “We are moving as quickly as we can,” said Mnuchin.
The announcement comes amid a continuing row over Trump’s own taxes, with members of his own party asking for him to release his returns before pressing ahead with tax reforms. Trump has long claimed he might release these documents at the end of what he says is a long-running audit, but Mnuchin said on Wednesday that the president “has no intention” of releasing his tax returns to the public.
As well as slashing costs for his own businesses, the new proposals will also cut the alternative minimum tax (AMT), a tax designed to stop the super-wealthy from taking so many tax deductions that they avoid paying anything. Leaked documents have shown that in 2005 Trump paid $31m in tax thanks to the AMT.
Mnuchin and Cohn were pressed on how Trump would benefit from the proposals, but they avoided the questions. “What this is about is creating job and economic growth,” Mnuchin said. He described the proposals as “the biggest tax cut and the largest tax reform in the history of our country”.
The president will not be the only Trump administration official to benefit from the tax cuts. His cabinet is the richest in history and includes several billionaires.
The proposal also gets rid of almost all tax deductions, including those for state and local taxes. This creates a significant increase in tax for residents of high-tax states such as California and New York. It does leave in place existing tax dedications for charitable donations and home mortgage payments.
Advertisement


Mnuchin refused to commit as to whether the tax cuts would end up being revenue neutral, saying the administration was “working on a lot of details”. However, he said he felt confident that the tax cuts would “pay for [themselves] through growth, reduction of deductions, and closing loopholes”. The treasury secretary did insist, though, that “the deficit is a problem and the president is concerned about that”.
Trump has long heralded tax cuts, particularly on corporations, as a major component of his economic plan. In his joint address to Congress in February, the president previewed his proposals, saying: “My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone.” He added: “It will be a big, big cut.”
But on the campaign trail, he also consistently pledged to cut the US’s $19tn deficit “big-league” and “very quickly”. A 20-percentage-point cut to corporate tax rates alone would add $2.4tn to the national debt, according to the nonpartisan pressure group Americans for Tax Fairness. Frank Clemente, executive director, called the proposal a “reckless” plan “for massive tax giveaways to corporations, the wealthy, and his own family” in return for adding trillions of dollars to the national debt.
“So, how would Trump’s White House make up the shortfall? By drastic cuts to essential services and lowering the standard of living for regular American families. Unacceptable,” said Clemente. “The White House line that ‘tax cuts will pay for themselves’ is a lie that has been debunked repeatedly, including by the conservative Tax Foundation. We will fight this tax plan tooth and nail, and we’ll be joined by Americans of all political stripes in doing so.”
The plan faces significant obstacles because of the need for Democratic support, and “reconciliation” rules that place strict limits on any tax cuts that result in increases to the deficit.
The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, indicated on Tuesday that Republicans would have to use the reconciliation process, which requires tax cuts to be balanced out with spending cuts. “I think it’s pretty clear we’re going to have to use a reconciliation vehicle because today’s Democratic party is very different from the Democratic party in the 80s,” McConnell said.
In a joint statement with McConnell, fellow Republicans including the House speaker, Paul Ryan, the House ways and means chair, Kevin Brady and the Senate finance chair, Orrin Hatch, gave cautious praise to the administration’s proposals. “The principles outlined by the Trump administration today will serve as critical guideposts for Congress and the administration as we work together to overhaul the American tax system and ensure middle-class families and job creators are better positioned for the 21st-century economy.”
The Republican congressman Tom Cole, from Oklahoma, said he envisioned a “very complex” path forward on tax reform.
One notable tax missing from Wednesday’s briefing was the “border adjustability tax”, a proposal to tax goods imported into and sold in the United States championed by Ryan.
The tax, backed by House Republicans, was supposed to serve as a means to offset any loss in revenue from corporate tax cuts but ran into opposition from major corporate interests, including retailers and automobile manufacturers.


Trump reportedly abandoned his support for the border adjustment tax, although Mnuchin did not definitely rule it out.

“I don’t think it’s dead,” Cole said of the border adjustment tax. “I’m very worried about blowing a huge hole in the deficit.”
The tax policy was panned by deficit hawks. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimated it would cost between $3-$7tn, using a baseline estimate of roughly $5.5tn because of its vagueness.
In its analysis, the Trump proposals would “increase debt to 111 percent of Gross Domestic Product (compared to 89 percent of GDP in CBO’s baseline) by 2027. That would be higher than any time in US history, and no achievable amount of economic growth could finance it.”
In a scathing statement, the group’s president, Maya McGuineas, said: “It seems the administration is using economic growth like magic beans – the cheap solution to all our problems. But there is no golden goose at the top of the tax cut beanstalk, just mountains of debt.”
However, David McIntosh, the president of the influential conservative group Club for Growth, praised the plan as “massively pro-growth”. He added: “This is the tax plan that the American people supported when they elected President Trump, so House Republicans would do well to give it their full support.”
Democrats condemned the proposals. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who is facing re-election in 2018 in a state that Trump won, said in a statement: “This scheme is a massive tax giveaway to millionaires, billionaires and big corporations at the expense of middle-class families in Pennsylvania.
Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No 2 Democrat in the Senate, said in a statement: “President Trump should release his own tax returns if he wants to have any credibility in a debate about America’s tax code.”
The plans have split experts. Hunter Blair, budget analyst at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, said the proposals were “basically a huge tax cut for the rich”.
“According to the treasury, 43% of corporate tax is paid for by the top 1%. We have tried this supply-side economics before; trickle down just doesn’t work,” he said.
Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said cuts in corporate tax rates in the UK and Canada had not led to lost revenues. “There is a huge amount of [tax] avoidance right now and a huge effort to park overseas. That money would come back if rates fell,” he said."


or that his reason for 'colluding' with Putin was to negotiate some 'real' estate for 'Trump Tower' (a penile monument if ever)

But can we trust that we get the whole truth from the Guardian, the BBC, Fox or CNN for that matter? And it is hard to avoid those channels that enjoy mainstream status.

I choose to also get my news from say Democracy Now or Chis Hedges. The big difference is that they seem to be willing to speak about the negative aspects of political behaviour, which Trump supporters seem unwilling, or unable to do.
Nice to know someone on this site listens to Democracy Now. It is actually possible to be critical of Trump and Clinton.
 
Thanks, but I didn't ask you what you want individuals to do. I asked an honest question (which I will not restate for a third time) to which I was quite interested in seeing a thoughtful response.
Sam,

I asked, "If you were in a position to dictate what we as a nation do from this point forward in regard to this whistleblower's allegations; what would that be?".
My original response was an attempt to be kind. I did not want to say that the way your question is framed is a technique I have seen used often by masters of manipulation. And note, I am not saying you are intentionally trying to be manipulative. Why I say that is because I have seen so many people manipulated by this technique that they adopt the technique unconsciously and apply it without understanding what the question implies by the way it is posed.

So I will pick a few things apart. One is the term you used "whistleblower." There is no "whistleblower" because the "whistleblower" cannot exist because the conversation was released and violated no laws. You can't be a whistleblower when there's nothing to blow the whistle on. Oh, and the new guy? This was the first "blowers" source and clearly was brought out because plan A was already crumbling. But still, the fact remains that the conversation in question was still the same conversation that was released and obviously, nothing about that conversation could be changed. Those conversations are typed up by a group of NSC folks and are considered almost verbatim and certainly accurately reflective of every nuance of the conversation, despite what Schiff might spin it to mean.

But what's "interesting" (IMO) about the way the question was phrased is, "what we as a nation [should] do" as if there is this collective "we" that is compelled "to do something" about "allegations" (proven false) from a CIA guy (likely aligned with the same folks and/or same ideologies as the previous soft coup attempt) playing her/his role in another (likely) OP from the group in the IC, the Democratic Party, aligned non-elected career state (and other) department officials, never Trumpers, globalist oriented types... and the thing that I don't like about the question is the implication "we" all need to collectively do things in lock step.

Still - I will bite.

Here's what "we" as a nation should do in my most humble opinion. Stop getting information from the obviously compromised, agenda driven media. Get information from independent sources OR, if they happen to be associated with the mainstream, have a proven track record of honest, accurate, properly sourced information like, for example, John Solomon. Don't let "opinion" drivers influence your ability to make up your mind. Make sure facts are core to the truth you form instead of buying into "truth" instead of facts (a Bidenism).

That's what "we" should do.

And just in case anyone is interested, one can get interesting, alternative "opinions" via this interesting newsletter as an example of alternative sources - https://www.lewrockwell.com/

I access several others but really like this one because of the health tips that appear from time to time.
 
Last edited:
Remember Kavanaugh? When the first accuser's story fell apart they brought out more and more accusers who were less and less credible. They did exactly the same thing with women who accused Trump of sexual misconduct. Now they are doing it over Ukraine. This is done to manipulate public opinion not to provide better more evidence.
 
Last edited:
I choose to also get my news from say Democracy Now or Chis Hedges. The big difference is that they seem to be willing to speak about the negative aspects of political behaviour, which Trump supporters seem unwilling, or unable to do.
Maybe I am blinded by the fact that Trump has steered the US - and indeed the world - away from a re-invigorated fight in Syria, that was likely to have caused a US-Russia confrontation that might, in the worst case, gone nuclear. Everything seems small beer next to that.

I suppose my feeling is that because you need a ton of money to run for president, every one that does has a murky past, but unless you change that system, it is unfair to focus on one individual because you don't like him for winning.

I want an effective, open democratic system, and my feeling is that people were finding no real choice when they went to the polls - in the US and here in Britain. Here there is real turmoil because we the people, didn't vote the 'right' way in the referendum about leaving the EU. I hope we are about to exit the EU - BREXIT by the end of the month, but there are plenty of MP's and others who think they have the right to prevent that, and just as in the US, the main media are backing remain.

David
 
So I will pick a few things apart. One is the term you used "whistleblower." There is no "whistleblower" because the "whistleblower" cannot exist because the conversation was released and violated no laws. You can't be a whistleblower when there's nothing to blow the whistle on. Oh, and the new guy? This was the first "blowers" source and clearly was brought out because plan A was already crumbling. But still, the fact remains that the conversation in question was still the same conversation that was released and obviously, nothing about that conversation could be changed. Those conversations are typed up by a group of NSC folks and are considered almost verbatim and certainly accurately reflective of every nuance of the conversation, despite what Schiff might spin it to mean.
The conversation was released in response to the complaint.

The compliant was deemed credible by officials inside our own government including Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson who said the complaint was "credible" and "of urgent concern" after working to validate some of the official’s allegations.

Joseph Maguire, Director of National Intelligence had this to say during his public testimony: “I want to stress I believe the whistle-blower and the inspector general have acted in good faith throughout, I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and followed the law.” Notably, Maguire was appointed by the administration on August 8th of this year following Daniel Coates resignation from the same post. This assignment was made as the President had a clear preference for Maguire over then acting deputy director, Sue Gordon.

These public statements by officials inside the administration's sphere of control/appointment seem at odds with your position which is as best as I can tell; dismissive of the complaint.

I'm interested in how you square all this.

But what's "interesting" (IMO) about the way the question was phrased is, "what we as a nation [should] do" as if there is this collective "we" that is compelled "to do something" about "allegations" (proven false) from a CIA guy (likely aligned with the same folks and/or same ideologies as the previous soft coup attempt) playing her/his role in another (likely) OP from the group in the IC, the Democratic Party, aligned non-elected career state (and other) department officials, never Trumpers, globalist oriented types... and the thing that I don't like about the question is the implication "we" all need to collectively do things in lock step.
I believe you misinterpreted my use of "we as a nation". My implication, which I felt was quite clear, was we as a democracy and not "we" as in some single minded viewpoint (the antithesis of my beliefs).

Are there political opportunists trying to capitalize on this? The question is rhetorical if we're being honest. There always are and I'm afraid there always will be. This is nothing unique to either side of the aisle. Its also a tried and true misdirection technique applied, again, by both sides.

Bottom line: We have allegations considered credible and highly concerning regarding the acting President's actions by high ranking members of our intelligence community. It has to be taken seriously and investigated. How is this controversial? What's the alternative? To circumvent the Constitution out of fear that the system is corrupt? Why not toss out the Constitution entirely and give Trump ultimate power? That's the only way to ensure anyone critical of Trump or his actions are rightfully silenced.

Here's what "we" as a nation should do in my most humble opinion. Stop getting information from the obviously compromised, agenda driven media. Get information from independent sources OR, if they happen to be associated with the mainstream, have a proven track record of honest, accurate, properly sourced information like, for example, John Solomon. Don't let "opinion" drivers influence your ability to make up your mind. Make sure facts are core to the truth you form instead of buying into "truth" instead of facts (a Bidenism).
Interesting as I did not reference any media here at all, and have referred exclusively to public statements from administrative officials in the intelligence community.

Bias is a funny thing too. So easy to see in others, so befuddlingly difficult to see in oneself.
 
Last edited:
Interesting as I did not reference any media here at all, and have referred exclusively to public statements from administrative officials in the intelligence community.
It seems to me you cherry pick your information. Perhaps you didn't do so intentionally, but you seem to only regurgitate what is coming from the "in the tank" media sources. You use the tactic of simplifying a complex matter by singling out a quote here or there. The entire thing is already dead and like road kill, still squirming a bit. You have to do a thorough
job of information gathering to understand this.

Bias is a funny thing too. So easy to see in others, so befuddlingly difficult to see in oneself.
You mention bias... bias manifests in various ways. One of them is to limit oneself to information sources that say what one wants to hear. The questions you raise are a tell tale sign this is what you do.
 
It seems to me you cherry pick your information. Perhaps you didn't do so intentionally, but you seem to only regurgitate what is coming from the "in the tank" media sources. You use the tactic of simplifying a complex matter by singling out a quote here or there.
To be fair, I don't feel like I cherry picked anything. The issue I am attempting to address is how we should proceed from here in regard to the allegations that have been made. I provided two quotes from ranking intelligence officials speaking to their statements on the credibility of the allegations. Again, this has nothing to do with the media as I've made no such reference. I'm not sure why you keep making accusations otherwise.

The entire thing is already dead and like road kill, still squirming a bit.
Perhaps you're right. I'm not quite satisfied this is the case just yet. I think further investigation is prudent.

You have to do a thorough job of information gathering to understand this.
Exactly, a thorough job of information gathering seems appropriate based on what we know. That's why we have procedures and rules of law. I support this notion.

Such an investigation would require access to the persons involved, communication records, a deep and nuanced understanding of constitutional law, etc. All of these seem beyond the capabilities of the average citizen; if for no other reason than our clear lack of access to information. (Some citizens are obviously well trained in constitutional law. I'm not one of them. ;) )

This would seem to indicate support for a proper "thorough job of information gathering" as you put it. We have officials in capacities to do exactly this type of work. Should they not proceed in doing it?

You mention bias... bias manifests in various ways. One of them is to limit oneself to information sources that say what one wants to hear. The questions you raise are a tell tale sign this is what you do.
Sam, I will fully admit I am a creature constantly wrestling with the intellectual/emotional dangers of bias. Aren't we all?
 
S. - The information that has come out since the two quotes your information sources "cherry picked" and made public several weeks ago is so overwhelming that the whole fiasco is a hollow political stunt. That's why it is being ignored.

Whether one is biased or not, the characteristics of this particular matter, that inform as to what it truly is, are obvious. And when anyone understands this, if they are honest and fair, they don't pretend otherwise.
 
Last edited:
For me, abandoning the Kurds demonstrates a complete lack of compassion and thus any sensible judgment. That's the wrong way to exit Syria. It scares me that the choice I have to "vote on" in less than 13 months is Trump and the current potential alternatives (including Hillary).

Trump Consciousness - an interesting thread title... I see no conscience involved in that decision.
 


The transcript below is from this video on youtube :


56:38​
I will tell you the hardest thing I have to do by far, much harder than the witch hunt, is signing letters to parents of soldiers that have been killed.​
...​
57:22​
The hardest thing I have to do is signing those letters that's the hardest thing I have to do. And each letter is different we make each letter different. And last week I signed five of them for Afghanistan one in Iraq one in Syria from two weeks ago. And sometimes I call the parents sometimes I see the parents I go to Dover when I can but it's it's it's so devastating for the parents that you know it's it's so devastating when they when they bring that boy or young woman out of the back of those big powerful planes in a coffin and the parents are there.​
58:12​
I said the parents seem to be okay. I'll get there early the parents seem to be okay. "Well actually sir they aren't." No no the way they're talking they're really okay aren't they? "Sir you never know until the back of that massive cargo plane opens up." And they walk down holding a coffin with four or five great soldiers on each side of it representing our various forces. "That you never know." And then I see it. And I see people that were smiling "Oh Mr. President thank you for being here thank you for being here". And I think they're doing great and then 20 minutes later we'll be outside that big plane pulls up and that door comes down. And they are walking the coffin with their boy inside this coffin with an American flag over the top. And they're walking that coffin down this ramp. And I've seen people that I thought were really incredible, the way they were, I didn't even understood how they could take it so well, scream like I've never seen anything before. Sometimes they'll run to the coffin. They'll break through military barriers they'll run to the coffin and jump on top of the coffin. Crying mothers and wives crying desperately. And this is on these endless wars that just never stop. And there's a time and there's a place but it's time to stop.

10/18/2017







I didn't post pictures of soldiers who had their faces blown off.
 
Last edited:
A photograph can show a physical disability of a veteran but it can't show mental disability caused by brain injury, or the psychological effects of not being able to take care of your own personal hygiene for the rest of your life. A photograph can't do justice to the effects of the disability or death of a soldier on their parents, spouses, and children. A photograph can't show what it is like for a child to have a mental age older than their brain damaged parent. President Trump visits with the families. He understands better than most.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ira...atic-brain-injury-face-long/story?id=11287674
Troops With Traumatic Brain Injury Face Long Road to Recovery​
Army Ranger Cory Remsburg was thrown like a rag doll into an Afghanistan canal Oct. 1 by the blast from a 500-pound roadside bomb, the right side of his head caved in by shrapnel.​
 
Last edited:
Top