Hodad

Nope. Not everyone lives in conspiracy land. Favorability of the FBI has hovered in about the same 10 point range for the last 20 years or more. There has been no mass rejection. In fact, favorability was up last year. And here's where it sits most recently. +16 is not too shabby. Trump would have killed for those numbers, but never came even close. lol It's particularly telling, after the crooks and liars spent the last few years waging a negative campaign against the FBI, because the FBI was investigating them. Turns out they aren't fans of accountability after all. Who knew?

Rather than cuisine and shopping, Ellensburg is most notable for the pervasive smell of cow shit. Lol

Yep, CRT is not "taught" in any schools until college, at a minimum, and it's typically graduate-level work. Rather, exactly as you describe, any mention of the historical oppression of Black Americans is categorized by the ignorant as CRT. CRT has been an academic subject for decades, but three years ago the conservative culture warriors decided to market it as enemy #1 and now the Fox News crowd is up in arms. But if you offered most of them $100 on the spot to define it they wouldn't be able to come close.

I'm constantly trying to get some sodomy. I will (and do) definitely celebrate.

And you're a know-nothing fanboy, as demonstrated handily this, your most recent post. Can't excuse your way out of that. ? Nobody "turns off" deficit spending. It's not a faucet. You gradually wind it down to avoid shocking and disrupting the recovery as growth closes the gap from the other side. You have no idea what you're talking about. Congrats. ^^This is now one of the dumbest things on the internet. You may be the only person in the world who believes that massive disruption to productivity, consumer activity, employment and supply chains do not constitute a financial crisis. And what you describe as Biden's overreaction was in fact less action than Trump (hence why the deficits decreased rather than increased) and the inflation is mostly a product of the supply chain disruption and the interest rates are standard remedy to inflation. You clearly do not understand how these things relate to one another in an economy. As who previously noted? Regardless, it's more fanboy crap. The GDP under Trump was not better, let alone "far better." Coming out of the Great Recession while reducing deficits the Obama economy was nearly identical to what Trump managed--except that Trump had no recovery to manage while growing the deficits. WTF is wrong with you? Do you really think the average deficit of an administration recovering from the Great Recession should be compared to the average deficit of a post-recovery administration facing no such challenge? That's asinine. What you should be paying attention to is the direction that the administrations moved--the turning points. No POTUS has control over what they inherit. Instead, fiscal responsibility is graded on what they do with the hands they were dealt. Obama started with a huge recovery deficit and brought it down gradually over his time in office as the recovery allowed. And in contrast, Trump took the progress made reducing deficits and reversed course to drive them back up--for various stupid reasons, but mostly fan service. And again, contrasted with Biden, who inherited a dumpster fire and has been navigating a recovery while still reducing deficits. None of these presidents is going to go down in history as fiscal conservatives, but the contrast between the two who were trying to put out (or at least manage) raging fires of deficit and the one who threw thought it would be fun to throw on more gas.

I'm not "triggered." That was a factual statement. You are woefully ignorant, but still defending Trump out of some misplaced sense of admiration. It is a fact that Obama inherited a financial crisis and massive deficits from the final Bush budget. It's also a fact that those deficits came down steadily over Obama's years in office. It is a fact that Biden inherited a financial crisis and record deficits from Trump's final budget. It's also a fact that the deficits have come down under Biden. It is a fact that Trump inherited a healthy, growing economy and downward-trending deficits and then electively increased the deficits to very high levels even before the pandemic. It is a fact that he squandered the opportunity to reduce deficit and debt as he promised, and instead chose to do the opposite. It is a fact that it left us in a much poorer position to respond economically to the pandemic. It is a fact that he is a record-setting debt monster as befits the self-styled "king of debt." -- “I’m the king of debt. I’m great with debt. Nobody knows debt better than me.” There is nothing good, let alone great about Trump's economic record. It was a healthy-seeming but fragile economy propped up by a lot of borrowing and ill prepared to deal with pandemic response. And as a result we have record deficit and debt that will be a drag on future economies for decades. Or the illustrated version: When you don't know anything "kiddo" just shut up and let the conversation pass by.

No, you know-nothing fanboy. Deficit spending to moderate or reverse recession is sound policy. Obama and Biden both took office during economic crises, inherited huge deficits and reduced those deficits over the course of their terms as the economy improved. Trump inherited a healthy economy and then cut taxes (significantly and electively increasing deficits) in an attempt to chase the unrealistic growth promises he made. Which a) didn't work (duh) and b) left us already overextended when he needed to react to COVID. As usual, he farked us over to feed his ego

The Murdoch family learned from history to avoid repeating past mistakes. After all, if they don't defend the nazis then who will? "First they came for the nazis, and no one spoke out. Then they came for the fascists, and no one spoke out. And when, finally, they came for the propagandists, there was no one left to speak."

Yes, I'm sure, for example, that running huge elective deficits with poor ROI was super helpful when we had to stack COVID deficits on top of them. ?

Nah, he was a victim of bad luck, but not just a victim of bad luck. He recklessly pulled the levers to goose an already healthy economy (to stoke his own ego) and then had nothing left to throw at a real problem when one arose. One of the many instances in which Trump prioritized his own interests above those of the country. To be clear, COVID was going to do serious damage either way, but Trump's earlier actions compounded the harm. He doesn't get a free pass.

I dunno. Was it really over the top, or exactly commensurate with the persistent, chaotic, norm- breaking behavior of the most powerful person on the planet? Whoever sits in the oval office gets that kind of scrutiny. Whenever they say something dumb or crazy or reckless or deplorable they get heavy press. Trump just did those things are an unprecedented level, constantly, from midnight tweets to ego rallies to press events. Frankly, he did it with such volume that a lot of it sailed by. They're is only so much outrage to go around in a 24 hour news cycle. We had to triage.

Eh, it's Florida. They are probably just offended that any poetry is in schools. It is the gayest form of written communication, after all.? But seriously, Republican presidential candidate DeSantis is doing his damnedest to create a state in which ideas outside of white, heteronormative, heterodoxy cannot be spoken in schools. Small government, and all...

Jeebus, you have moved into pole position for the most profoundly dishonest poster. The idea that one can look at *hundreds* of pages of evidence and then say out the other side of their mouth that there is "no evidence" is appalling. You can correctly say that Mueller determined that he couldn't get a conviction with the evidence he had at the time, but to say there is no evidence--particularly as it's been spoon fed to--is a bald faced lie.

No, it's a huge stretch. I'm not sure what you've heard about the Democratic primary that year, but it's nothing to do with voting hanky panky. Everything went down according to the voting rules and processes everyone knew getting into the race. It's okay if you don't like the notion of super delegates, or didn't know about it beforehand, but the candidates all knew what they had to do to win.

You are lying, plain and simple. That's why you can't cite any such finding. The Mueller report DOES NOT say there is no evidence. It literally spends *hundreds* of pages laying out evidence. What Mueller concluded is that due to obstruction, deletion and destruction of evidence, lying, taking the 5th etc., he could not build a legal case beyond a reasonable doubt. In his own words, explicitly, Mueller refused to exonerate Trump Mueller hit a wall in terms of a prosecutable case on any of the collusive activities, but he uncovered a ton of evidence. And the Senate committee added a lot more. And further investigations build on that. At this point it isn't a question if whether there was collusion, but rather if anyone will be held accountable for the shit that has been confirmed. The DOJ policy is not to prosecute sitting presidents. There was really no question of Trump being tried in a regular court. He was impeached and tried, but Republicans choose party over country.

Are you talking about the primaries? I'm not a Democrat, but each party sets the rules for their primaries and there is a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes to promote more viable candidates. Welcome to politics.

Yeah, like how there's no evidence that OJ did it! You are simply and shamelessly lying. The FBi, the Mueller investigation, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the follow up from Treasury ALL found significant evidence. It's been presented to you dozens of times. You simply pretend it doesn't exist. It maybe it's hard to see even a mountain of evidence with your head so far up Trump's ass? In either case, you're not fooling anyone. The evidence is there for all to see. He was not tried by his peers, but acquitted as a matter of partisan certainty. And just as certainly, his campaign colluded with Russia in an effort to win the election. That's exactly what Manafort was doing. That's exactly what Stone was doing. And it's exactly why he pardoned them instead of feeling betrayed by the criminals within his organization.

Jeebus, "kid," did you sleep through that election cycle? *Many* things happened in concert. As had been documented and shared here many times. You just don't care. It's yet another deflection. The volume and specificity of the internet influence campaign jumped after Mandatory started sharing Intel. Roger Stone was in regular contact with WikiLeaks about the Russian hack and leak- and the Trump campaign even teased early releases--all while Assange was trying to get Putin to give him asylum. And Trump offered to pardon Assange (as he did Manafort and Stone) if Assange would lie about the fact that the Russian hack and leak was the source. And the FBI did not conclude what you claim. There's a mountain of evidence. But there are certain challenges to closing a case when half of the action is in Russia and presidential pardons are being brokered for silence. If you're even a tiny bit honest with yourself and imagine that even a fraction of this shit happened in a democratic campaign you'd be appalled. I mean, FFS, Hillary's contracted law firm hired a standard research agency, who hired a retired British spy, who interviewed sources in Russia about things that allegedly happened in/with Russia, and the wingnuts here are concocting fantasies about collusion.

A. They were right. B. Trump, the the only twice-impeached president and the only president to attempt a coup to remain in power, is an historically awful president, and is already being recorded as such. That will be his legacy. The only positive thing about his single term in office was the economy, which managed for some while not to fark up--until he did.

You live in an entirely different (and fictional) universe.

Oh, noes. Your ignore list is broken again! Again, to the point, even Durham thinks the investigation was justified. And try as he might, the best he could manage was some finger wagging about process. And this is a "bombshell" for you folks. lol

It's not quite clear what you're trying to say here, but it's been verified in multiple investigations that the Trump campaign was deeply engaged with Russia at multiple intersections. And as for suspicion, the General Inspector concluded that there was sufficient cause to open a full investigation. The Durham report concluded that there was cause to open a preliminary investigation, though not necessarily a full investigation. <-- That disagreement is pretty trivial. The preliminary would have led to a full investigation anyway. So the core criticism is the at the FBI cut corners when trying to investigate something as critical as a US Presidential candidate potentially being compromised by Russian intelligence. Can't imagine why they'd rush??

The Republican-led US Senate Intelligence Committee thinks you're FOS. Page 170 " (U) Hack and Leak ( 1. (U) Introduction and Findings (U) Beginning in March 2016, officers of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate, the GRU, successfully hacked computer networks belonging to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and the email accounts of Clinton Campaign officials and employees, including Campaign Chairmap.John Podesta. Over the following months, these hackers carefully established persistent access in confidential areas of the victims' systems and stole massive amounts of politically sensitive data and personal communications. The data was subsequently leaked by GRU personas and WikiLeaks at strategic moments during the 2016 election, as part of a coordinated hack--and-leak operation intended to damage the Clinton Campaign, help the Trump Campaign (the · "Campaign"), and undermine the U.S. democratic process. 1110 / (U) The Committee sought to understand the nature of the Russian hacking operation, including its origins and intent. The Committee further examined the relationship between the GRU's operation and WikiLeaks, including when, how, and why WikiLeaks was provided with the hacked DNC and Podesta documents, and what it sought to achieve. The Committee also investigated the relationship between WikiLeaks and the Campaign, including the Campaign's treatment of WikiLeaks and any attempts to contact or coordinate with it.1111 (U) The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin directed the hack-and-leak campaign targeting the DNC, DCCC, and the Clinton Campaign. Moscow's intent was to damage the Clinton Campaign and tarnish what it expected might be a Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and generally undermine the U.S. democratic process. The Committee's findings are based on a variety of information, including raw intelligence reporting. "

You are making up a motivation and explanation--that are absurdly implausible--to excuse egregious behavior. It's completely disingenuous. Or maybe you just have very strange relationships with your buddies? How many layers of encryption do you use when you are "bragging to a buddy"? Do you often delegate someone to boast to your buddy on your behalf through secret communications channels? Do you and your buddy use coded language when you are bragging? Do you buy burner phones to brag to your buddy? Does your buddy think your bragging is valuable enough to pass it to national intelligence agencies? If authorities asked you if you had bragged to your buddy, would you perjure yourself to deny having bragged at risk of prison time? (I mean, it's just casual bragging, right?) Come on. Manafort and Kilimnik worked together to coordinate a Russian electoral interference in Ukraine to get Putin's puppet Yanukovych elected. They had literally run this kind of operation together before.Neither of them had any question about what that sort of data could and would be used for. Nobody can show you explicit records of what Russian intelligence services did with the intelligence from Manafort. And frankly that's an unreasonable request. But we know that Manafort gave it to Kilimnik and Kilimnik gave it to intelligence. We do know it was data and strategy for how Trump could win with specific voting demos in specific swing states. And we do know that the Russians were trying to help Trump win. And we do know that the Russian ads did increase severalfold in those key states after Manafort shared the information. Could Russia have made their targeting and strategy decisions independently, in other ways? Sure. But they didn't need to, because Manafort gift-wrapped it for them. This is the weirdest thing to dig in about, and pure nonsense. If I have Twix bar and give one of the sticks to my friend then I shared my Twix with them. Whether or not they give me something in return, I have shared. <-- sharing is literally kindergarten curriculum. Or, alternatively, let me share a story about XYZ... <-- look I shared information, whether anyone else returns the favor or not. But again, in this case, Russian intelligence was certainly returning the favor. There's zero debate that they were trying to get Trump elected. Seriously. Starting at page 27 there's like a hundred pages of Manafort's shady shit. And Trump wasn't angry about such a betrayal. He pardoned him for it, and for literal felony offenses. Because Manafort didn't talk.

Manafort's secrecy and perjury and repeated updates--and sending unwitting minions to deliver updated Intel-- puts to rout your limp "just a casual chat" excuse. And no, you twit, sharing does not have to be reciprocal. Though in this case it clearly was, as Kilimnik delivered the Intel back to Russian intelligence, who were working to help Trump win.