When The Russian Hoax Is Exposed, Should The Democrats Be Held Accountable?

Duh!! I gave it to you in the post. Flynn, fired for lying to the VP about his Russia connections.

 

Oh MALARKY!

The WH was in contact with the forces on the ground and KNEW immediately that there was no demonstration that turned ugly. Demonstrators don't pre-target mortars on specific locations on the spur of the moment!

You are doing nothing but repeating FALSE NEWS! Talk about the Russians!

 

You think the WH was talking with the villa in Benghazi during the 30 minute attack?

 

You said: " And there is evidence of the Trump campaign and Russia doing something. AKA the Flynn story."
You made the allegation that the Trump campaign did *SOMETHING* with the Russians.
Now you deflecting. What was the *something* you accuse the Trump campaign of doing with the Russians?
Talking with the Russians is not illegal!

 

Yes, it's literally a sea port connecting to the Mediterranean, that's why the Russians want it in the first place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea I mean, seriously, this is one of the more unquestioned facts in the world -_-

No, I'm not blind, I happen to take the other side's opinion just as seriously. We, the oh so righteous US supported a coup-de-tat of the legitimately elected Ukrainian Government, ironically enough it was neo-nazi extremists that we put into power. This was because Ukraine is effectively split, it's not even a full nation. Western Ukraine wanted to join the European Union and Eastern Ukraine wanted to align with Russia. Even if Ukraine had signed the deal to go to the EU, the Civil War would have still happened anyway.

And there's a very easy way to tell it's not a result of Russian Aggression(though Trump didn't spell it out very well). Russia has not yet liquidated Ukraine. In fact, Russia hasn't even made the ATTEMPT. In Russia's mind, what it's doing is defending its interests along the Eastern border, but the West(pro-EU) side of Ukraine has been virtually untouched by the war.

So, the so-called INTL community can either pout like children and get nowhere(You know, like they're doing now.) Or they can come to an arrangement as I said above: Their irrational fears shouldn't reject common sense, but irrational fears seems to be what rules "contemporary democracy" these days.

 

Is that what I said?
Or is that what you *wish* I said?

 

upside222 said: ↑
Oh MALARKY!

The WH was in contact with the forces on the ground and KNEW immediately that there was no demonstration that turned ugly. Demonstrators don't pre-target mortars on specific locations on the spur of the moment!


There were NO mortars in the first attack.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...2be35962a52_story.html?utm_term=.de1ec7b75e85

 

I think they need to get Comey to testify, but to what happened while Lynch and Obama were calling the shots, and stop wasting time on liberal fantasies...

 

OK, here's specific for you.

"
Andrews, Leigh, and Jencks looked at one parameter in particular —“income inequality,” expressed in terms of the share of total income held by the population’s richest 10 percent (“Top10Share”). One reason for framing the problem that way “is because the political debate has been focused on shares,” says Jencks. “The complaint is that the rich are getting more than their fair share of the pie, not that they’re eating too much pie in general.”

The researchers looked at income data derived from tax reports for 12 countries (including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany) from 1905 to 2000, trying to find any discernible link between top income shares and economic growth. They found no signs of such a relationship prior to 1960, perhaps because the upheavals caused by the Great Depression, two world wars, and the postwar reconstruction periods were of sufficient magnitude to conceal any pattern that might otherwise have been apparent.

After 1960, however, Jencks and colleagues did detect a subtle pattern: A 1 percent rise in the Top10Share, if sustained, led to a 0.12 percent rise in gross domestic product in the next year. The effect was quite small, because it would take 13 years for people in the lower 90 percent to be fully compensated by the proceeds from economic growth for the loss in income shares. At that rate it would take 40 years to see a 5 percent rise in their income.

Thirteen years is a long time to wait to reach the break-even point, Jencks says. “And if that 13-year period ran through a major depression or recession, all bets would be off.” He’s doubtful that many folks in the lower 90 percent bracket would consider that a good deal. “If you told a 20-year-old that he could let the rich get a lot richer and he’d have 5 percent more when he was 60, most people would ask: ‘What else can you offer?’”

As a result, Jencks regards the “rising tide” approach as rather dubious. “It’s like giving people aspirin when they have cancer,” he says. “It might make them feel a little better, but it’s not going to cure them.” Which brings us to that question once again: “What else can you offer?”- by Steve Nadis

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-ev.../autumn-2009/trickle-down-economics-revisited

Or the easy video version, for those who only communicate in labels, name calling and code words!

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/15/news/economy/trickle-down-theory-wrong-imf/

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ckle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85

https://mic.com/articles/12346/trickle-down-economics-debunked-in-one-chart#.PZdtfql0Y

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welco....google.com/&referrer=https://www.google.com/

 

In your own un-American opinion....we the people are those that actively resist our constitutionally elected Executive.
When it is determined that fake-news and unsubstantiated resources have been used to justify these investigations, it will be over for the Democrat Party.

 

But there *were* in the 2nd attack! And that was known to the WH also! It was known long before Susan Rice and Obama tried to convince us that it was caused by a demonstration over the video that went bad!

 

The two attacks were 5 1/2 hours apart.. Do you think they were mind readers or could predict the second attack?

Sometimes you have to wait until the facts are in.. You just don't get instant gratification.

 

Trust me, this isn't the first time this has happened, and even after its explained to him multiple times that the USIC makes up 17 agencies, he's still not going to get it

If it were the same tactic, everyone would be in jail without any trial or due process of any kind. That is not what is happening, all they're doing is taking an official course of actions to uncover the truth. No one is being charged of any wrong doing unless it is proven they did something illegal, and even then so, those individuals would be given a trial and a due process. The official government reports say that Russia did meddle with our elections. Now perhaps you do not trust the official government reports, and that is fine, but we must acknowledge that you're basing your assessment that there is no probable cause on the fact that you do not believe the official reports. It also just so happens that members of both parties agree that we need to investigate further, because it is the rational course of action... unless of course you believe that the United States Intelligence Community is fake news, in which case I would fully understand why one would feel there is no probable cause for an investigation.

The entire joint statement

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process.

Nevertheless, DHS continues to urge state and local election officials to be vigilant and seek cybersecurity assistance from DHS. A number of states have already done so. DHS is providing several services to state and local election officials to assist in their cybersecurity. These services include cyber “hygiene” scans of Internet-facing systems, risk and vulnerability assessments, information sharing about cyber incidents, and best practices for securing voter registration databases and addressing potential cyber threats. DHS has convened an Election Infrastructure Cybersecurity Working Group with experts across all levels of government to raise awareness of cybersecurity risks potentially affecting election infrastructure and the elections process. Secretary Johnson and DHS officials are working directly with the National Association of Secretaries of State to offer assistance, share information, and provide additional resources to state and local officials"

Basically none of what you just claimed, it's a joint statement from the USIC and DHS, which makes up 17 agencies. Again, this isn't something that is up for debate, the USIC and DHS in itself represents 17 agencies. Hence why the emblem of the USIC is the combined emblems of the involved agencies


And again, there is nothing in the statement excluding any part of the intelligence community. The last paragraph states that DHS is working with NASS (which is not a member of the USIC) to offer assistance and share information. There is nothing in the statement that excludes any part of the USIC. None

uhh.. yeah.. that is the issue actually.. the USIC is 17 combined agencies in itself. Deal with it

 

Your entire argument is just one more argumentative fallacy - the one known as Begging the Question.

I asked you *this* question: "How does a lower capital gains tax shift wealth and earnings away from the middle class? Be specific - VERY specific!"

All you have done is try to show that income inequality exists! In other words your assertion and your proof ARE THE SAME THING. Income inequality exists because income equality exists! Circular logic! Begging the question!

The fact is that a lower capital gains tax makes investment more attractive. The more investment you have the more jobs you have. The more jobs you have the lower unemployment rates go. The lower unemployment goes the higher wages go.

This is all simple Econ 101. Something Marxist Democrats refuse to understand. It's the law of supply and demand. The higher the cost of something (i.e. capital gains tax) the less supply you get. What is so hard to understand about this simple, well-proven axiom of basic economics?

I'm not surprised you can't explain how how lower capital gains taxes shift wealth and earnings away from the middle class. It's because it DOESN'T!

You might even want to actually read some of the articles you reference. From your last one, the Forbes article:
"The trouble is that it has led vast numbers of people into a disastrously mistaken idea about the source of prosperity – that high taxes and a growing government is the way to increase it."

This article totally disagrees with you. High taxes and bigger government are *NOT* the way to prosperity - even though you wish it were so!

 

You are flailing away and getting nowhere! The fact that this was a terrorist attack was known from the very beginning.
That you refuse to accept that fact only shows how brainwashed you are!

 

I'm not brainwashed at all..

 

This is just another argumentative fallacy - known as Broad Generalization. An "official" course of action based on no probable cause is *still* anathema in a free society.

You keep missing the point. When "officials" can initiate an investigation with no probable cause then that is a violation of the 4th amendment. It doesn't matter if you are innocent or guilty! " no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause". Right out of the 4th Amendment! And yet the Congress and the DOJ are handing out subpoena's ALREADY! With no probable cause having been shown!

If these subpoena's were being served on RUSSIANs, it would be a totally different story. But they aren't!

Again, ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT PROBABLE CAUSE! And all the reports you mention provide are allegations! People like Diane Feinstein and James Clapper say the same thing. They have seen *NO* evidence of wrong doing, only allegations.

Maybe living in a society where the secret police can initiated an investigation against you with no probable cause, based solely on unproven allegations is ok with you.

It's not ok with most Americans and that is what is eventually going to be the undoing of the Marxist Democrats making all these allegations for political purposes. It took the GOP a long time to get out from under Joseph McCarthy. It's going to take a long time for the Marxist Democrats to get out from under Hillary and the cloud of allegations her "champions" are leveling!

 

Of course you are. You've been brainwashed into believing Obama didn't lie to you about anything. You still believe his lies about keeping your doctor, your insurance, and that a video caused the Benghazi incident.

 

Nope.. I don't care about the video.. I know a lot about Libya because I lived there for a while and I have been following Libya for 50 years.

 

but once again, you're basing your notion on there being no probable cause on the belief that the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia meddled with our elections to be false reports. Also, you're wrong, the majority of Americans support an independent investigation http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...voters-support-special-counsel-on-russia.html

To say it is not okay with most Americans is completely inaccurate, members of the Republican party support the investigation as well, including Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and Mitch McConnell.

 

That doesn't mean you know *anything* about what happened in Benghazi that nite!

 

I am *NOT* considering the reports to be false. I consider them to be UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS. Allegations are *NOT* probable cause no matter how much you wish it were so!

Not even the intelligence agencies will admit to their reports providing evidence of wrong-doing. Even Clapper, in his testimony to Congress, admitted he had seen no EVIDENCE of collusion.

The American people support an investigation of RUSSIA activities, not open ended investigations against American citizens based solely on allegations with no probable cause. The American people *still* support the 4th Amendment no matter how infected with TDS the Marxist Democrats become!

 

[QUOTE="TCassa89, post: 1067537897, member: 63961


The entire joint statement

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

Some states have also recently seen scanning and probing of their election-related systems, which in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company. However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion. This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process.

Nevertheless, DHS continues to urge state and local election officials to be vigilant and seek cybersecurity assistance from DHS. A number of states have already done so. DHS is providing several services to state and local election officials to assist in their cybersecurity. These services include cyber “hygiene” scans of Internet-facing systems, risk and vulnerability assessments, information sharing about cyber incidents, and best practices for securing voter registration databases and addressing potential cyber threats. DHS has convened an Election Infrastructure Cybersecurity Working Group with experts across all levels of government to raise awareness of cybersecurity risks potentially affecting election infrastructure and the elections process. Secretary Johnson and DHS officials are working directly with the National Association of Secretaries of State to offer assistance, share information, and provide additional resources to state and local officials"

Basically none of what you just claimed, it's a joint statement from the USIC and DHS, which makes up 17 agencies. Again, this isn't something that is up for debate, the USIC and DHS in itself represents 17 agencies. Hence why the emblem of the USIC is the combined emblems of the involved agencies


And again, there is nothing in the statement excluding any part of the intelligence community. The last paragraph states that DHS is working with NASS (which is not a member of the USIC) to offer assistance and share information. There is nothing in the statement that excludes any part of the USIC. None




uhh.. yeah.. that is the issue actually.. the USIC is 17 combined agencies in itself. Deal with it[/QUOTE]

I've already dealt with it by providing you actual evidence, while you've not provided anything that confirms that all 17 intelligence agencies made any key judgement about Russia, Trump, or hacking. Go back and check the links I provided. They were very specific which agencies they were joint messages from. I'm unclear why you are insisting on this ridiculous charade, but I have to admit, I don't mind you posting factual, easy to check inaccuracies, over and over.

 

Where do you get "news"? Voices in your head?
Show where these reports are false.
What is false is Trump saying there is nothing to see...as he obstructs justice.

 

Trying to hold democrats accountable is like trying to hold your girlfriend accountable