Moose & Squirrel v Boris & Natasha: what's the deal with the rooskies and trumpland?

[skinsmarydu]

NBC is advertising that her first new show will have her interviewing Vlad.  (I just may give that specialty popcorn store a try.)

[LD0506]

As intelligible as some of the posts lately............

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[techboy]

1 hour ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

He can not order an investigation to be ended unless it has National Security implications but he didn't do that. 

 

ACT 1:

 

Jerry the shopkeeper is working behind the counter, when two very large swarthy gentlemen in suits come in.

 

Jerry: Hi, can I help you?

 

Gentleman 1: Hello, we are here bringing you greetings from Mr. Gambini. He would like to make sure everything is running smoothly with your business.

 

Jerry: Uh, yes. Everything's fine.

 

Gentleman 2: Good, good. You have a nice business here. I'd hate to see anything happen to it.

 

Jerry: Gulp, thanks!

 

Gentleman 1: Say, that reminds me... do you have anything for Mr. Gambini?

 

Jerry: Uh, yes. Hold on a minute while I get an envelope from the back.

 

Narrator (ABQCOWBOY): This nice pastoral scene, where two well dressed gentlemen express concern for the business of a neighborhood shopkeeper, and then the shopkeeper of his own free will gives them an envelope, is a model interaction of good citizenship and neighborhood values. How can the MSM tweet about "extortion"? Did anyone say "I'm going to blow up this shop if you don't give me money"? No? Good luck getting a conviction then!

[DCranon21]

42 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

Nothing is going to happen on this IMO.  There is no proof of wrong doing, unless you go after unmasking, that I can see.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

18 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

ACT 1:

 

Jerry the shopkeeper is working behind the counter, when two very large swarthy gentlemen in suits come in.

 

Jerry: Hi, can I help you?

 

Gentleman 1: Hello, we are here bringing you greetings from Mr. Gambini. He would like to make sure everything is running smoothly with your business.

 

Jerry: Uh, yes. Everything's fine.

 

Gentleman 2: Good, good. You have a nice business here. I'd hate to see anything happen to it.

 

Jerry: Gulp, thanks!

 

Gentleman 1: Say, that reminds me... do you have anything for Mr. Gambini?

 

Jerry: Uh, yes. Hold on a minute while I get an envelope from the back.

 

Narrator (ABQCOWBOY): This nice pastoral scene, where two well dressed gentlemen express concern for the business of a neighborhood shopkeeper, and then the shopkeeper of his own free will gives them an envelope, is a model interaction of good citizenship and neighborhood values. How can the MSM tweet about "extortion"? Did anyone say "I'm going to blow up this shop if you don't give me money"? No? Good luck getting a conviction then!

 

This is all very interesting but once again, this is the problem right?  You make up these what ifs and then you expect to get a conviction out of them.  That's not how it works.  If you get actionable proof of wrong doing, that's one thing.  If you got nothing, it's just a cool story bro.

15 minutes ago, DCranon21 said:

 

 

I kinda liked supernatural but I honestly thought it was off the air.  Haven't watched it in awhile.  Anyway, it's a cool gif.

Edited June 1, 2017 by ABQCOWBOY

[mistertim]

I think one of the problems here is that it seems people on the right insist on seeing the "smoking gun", so to speak...otherwise they won't believe anything about collusion or obstruction. But in real life it's going to be incredibly rare to get a "smoking gun" that will make the case a fast, open and shut dealio.

 

In this situation that would basically be video/audio of Trump saying "Hello James Comey. I am going to obstruct justice and I know that what I am about to say is completely wrong and likely illegal. I want you to stop the Russia investigation because it is getting too close to me and my associates. If you don't I will terminate your employment and then lie about why I did so. Would you like a cup of coffee while we discuss my illegal and unethical activities?"

 

Or maybe a recording of a conference call between Trump and some of his cohorts and Russian top level people where we hear "So to make sure we all understand each other...you all will try and disrupt the election and tip it in our favor and in return we will be nice to you, relax sanctions, and weaken our NATO alliances. Oh, and you also won't disclose all of our shady financial ties to your oligarchs, right? Thanks."

 

That isn't going to happen and hardly ever happens in any sort of criminal investigation. That's why they have that whole "building a case" process where they take various pieces of evidence, build a timeline, build connections between events, statements, meetings, personal relationships, etc...and then determine if there is enough to bring charges and convict.

Edited June 1, 2017 by mistertim

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 1, 2017 by visionary

[Dan T.]

1 hour ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

In the Presidential Election, I voted for Trump. 

 

To me, this indicates one of two things. 

1. Severe lack of comprehension of how utterly unqualified Donald Trump was to be President,  in terms of temperament, experience, and knowledge of issues. Many ignorant people voted for him because they perceived him as being the person they saw on The Apprentice, a fictionalized, heavily edited "reality" show that portrayed him as some sort of all-knowing business guru. He wasn't, and isn't.  The man, in his own book (The Art of the Deal) admits he built a business model based on lying and on going to all ends for revenge against his perceived enemies. 

 

2. Blind party-line loyalty.

 

Or maybe both.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Dan T.

[ABQCOWBOY]

53 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

To me, this indicates one of two things. 

1. Severe lack of comprehension of how utterly unqualified Donald Trump was to be President,  in terms of temperament, experience, and knowledge of issues. Many ignorant people voted for him because they perceived him as being the person they saw on The Apprentice, a fictionalized, heavily edited "reality" show that portrayed him as some sort of all-knowing business guru. He wasn't, and isn't.  The man, in his own book (The Art of the Deal) admits he built a business model based on lying and on going to all ends for revenge against his perceived enemies. 

 

2. Blind party-line loyalty.

 

Or maybe both.

 

If I were interested in your opinion on this, that would mean that I felt as if you knew anything, at all about the subject matter, this statement might mean a great deal.  Since I am not and you don't, it matters not.

 

How did that party line go for you Dan? 

58 minutes ago, mistertim said:

I think one of the problems here is that it seems people on the right insist on seeing the "smoking gun", so to speak...otherwise they won't believe anything about collusion or obstruction. But in real life it's going to be incredibly rare to get a "smoking gun" that will make the case a fast, open and shut dealio.

 

In this situation that would basically be video/audio of Trump saying "Hello James Comey. I am going to obstruct justice and I know that what I am about to say is completely wrong and likely illegal. I want you to stop the Russia investigation because it is getting too close to me and my associates. If you don't I will terminate your employment and then lie about why I did so. Would you like a cup of coffee while we discuss my illegal and unethical activities?"

 

Or maybe a recording of a conference call between Trump and some of his cohorts and Russian top level people where we hear "So to make sure we all understand each other...you all will try and disrupt the election and tip it in our favor and in return we will be nice to you, relax sanctions, and weaken our NATO alliances. Oh, and you also won't disclose all of our shady financial ties to your oligarchs, right? Thanks."

 

That isn't going to happen and hardly ever happens in any sort of criminal investigation. That's why they have that whole "building a case" process where they take various pieces of evidence, build a timeline, build connections between events, statements, meetings, personal relationships, etc...and then determine if there is enough to bring charges and convict.

 

I don't really agree with this.  I think they just want to see anything.  To this point, I don't believe that any proof, at all, has been made public.  However, I am open to understanding what might be considered proof.  Of course, I am only speaking for myself here.  I can not speak for everybody on the Right.

Edited June 1, 2017 by ABQCOWBOY

[RedskinsMayne]

54 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

To me, this indicates one of two things. 

1. Severe lack of comprehension of how utterly unqualified Donald Trump was to be President,  in terms of temperament, experience, and knowledge of issues. Many ignorant people voted for him because they perceived him as being the person they saw on The Apprentice, a fictionalized, heavily edited "reality" show that portrayed him as some sort of all-knowing business guru. He wasn't, and isn't.  The man, in his own book (The Art of the Deal) admits he built a business model based on lying and on going to all ends for revenge against his perceived enemies. 

 

2. Blind party-line loyalty.

 

Or maybe both.

 

3) How poorly ran other republican campaigns were.

 

4) What a terrible candidate Hillary Clinton was

 

5) How desperate Middle America is for change.

[daveakl]

2 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

3) How poorly ran other republican campaigns were.

 

4) What a terrible candidate Hillary Clinton was

 

5) How desperate Middle America is for change.

 

6) I'm an upper middle class white guy and want to get even uppier

[ABQCOWBOY]

1 minute ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

3) How poorly ran other republican campaigns were.

 

4) What a terrible candidate Hillary Clinton was

 

5) How desperate Middle America is for change.

 

I really wanted another Candidate to represent the Republican ticket.  I just didn't have any other option.  The problem was that it was either Hillary, who I would never vote for, a socialist, which I do no believe in or Trump.  Seriously, it sucked but that's what we got unfortunately.

[Burgold]

5 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

3) How poorly ran other republican campaigns were.

 

4) What a terrible candidate Hillary Clinton was

 

5) How desperate Middle America is for change.

No matter how terrible a candidate Clinton was Trump was magnitudes worse. Look at it this way... we know how America fared under a Clinton Presidency. The US did well. At worst, Clinton would have been a competent, if uninspired wonk, and the country would shift towards centrism. With Trump, even in his first 100 days, he has multiple actions that the courts have ruled unconstitutional. Further, his proposals will cost America trillions of dollars according to the CBO and that's not even looking at major intel gaffes, or the relations he has with multiple dictators in the Middle East, Russia, and Africa.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Burgold

[ABQCOWBOY]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

No matter how terrible a candidate Clinton was Trump was magnitudes worse. Look at it this way... we know how America fared under a Clinton Presidency. The US did well. At worst, Clinton would have been a competent, if uninspired wonk, and the country would shift towards centrism. With Trump, even in his first 100 days, he has multiple actions that the courts have ruled unconstitutional. Further, his proposals will cost America trillions of dollars according to the CBO and that's not even looking at major intel gaffes, or the relations he has with multiple dictators in the Middle East, Russia, and Africa.

 

I don't agree with this Burgold, I mean if Bill were running, maybe but not Hillary.  I think it's a mistake to project Bill's Presidency over to what Hillary might have done. As far as the CBO is concerned, they really haven't gotten much correct recently.  I put zero stock into what they say anymore because they are too easily influenced by simply providing poor data.  But hey, that's why we have opportunity to vote right?

[RedskinsMayne]

@Burgold, everything Clinton touched went to hell. Competent, I don't think so.

11 minutes ago, daveakl said:

 

6) I'm an upper middle class white guy and want to get even uppier

 

Nothing wrong with that either. But, it was mainly uneducated whites that voted for Trump, not rich ones....

Edited June 1, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[daveakl]

3 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

@Burgold, everything Clinton touched went to hell. Competent, I don't think so.

 

Nothing wrong with that either. But, it was mainly uneducated whites that voted for Trump, not rich ones....

Only because there are more of those.

[Burgold]

Just now, RedskinsMayne said:

@Burgold, everything Clinton touched went to hell. Competent, I don't think so.

Did it? Boy have you sucked in a lot of hard right media fumes. Look where we were when his presidency ended. Look where we were for a few years after. We were in damn fine shape. The problems came with unpaid for tax cuts, an unpaid for war, and the housing bubble which was caused by intentional and aggressive avoidance of wrongdoing. Now, you can say that Clinton's Presidency was buoyed by the internet bubble, and it was, but what happened afterwards was a trainwreck of an administration that nearly destroyed the economy entirely. 

 

We're potentially witnessing a deja vu. Obama brought us back pretty well from the abyss of 2000. It is very likely Trump and Congress' policies will sink us back into a recession or even worse. Even conservative economists hate Trump/Congress' plans.

[RedskinsMayne]

Just now, daveakl said:

Only because there are more of those.

 

More uneducated whites than educated ones? I think you are incorrect.

[Burgold]

6 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

I don't agree with this Burgold, I mean if Bill were running, maybe but not Hillary.  I think it's a mistake to project Bill's Presidency over to what Hillary might have done. As far as the CBO is concerned, they really haven't gotten much correct recently.  I put zero stock into what they say anymore because they are too easily influenced by simply providing poor data.  But hey, that's why we have opportunity to vote right?

I really do hope you're right, but every economist I've read on has been alarmed at best by the plans they see being pushed.

[RedskinsMayne]

2 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Did it? Boy have you sucked in a lot of hard right media fumes. Look where we were when his presidency ended. Look where we were for a few years after. We were in damn fine shape. The problems came with unpaid for tax cuts, an unpaid for war, and the housing bubble which was caused by intentional and aggressive avoidance of wrongdoing. Now, you can say that Clinton's Presidency was buoyed by the internet bubble, and it was, but what happened afterwards was a trainwreck of an administration that nearly destroyed the economy entirely. 

 

We're potentially witnessing a deja vu. Obama brought us back pretty well from the abyss of 2000. It is very likely Trump and Congress' policies will sink us back into a recession or even worse. Even conservative economists hate Trump/Congress' plans.

 

Sorry burgold, I was referring to Hillary. Bill did alright.

Edited June 1, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[ABQCOWBOY]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

I really do hope you're right, but every economist I've read on has been alarmed at best by the plans they see being pushed.

 

I, like you, am unsure of what we might see.  I mean, I feel as if economically we will be stronger.  If he can get tax relief done, that will help a lot IMO.  But he has to get it done and the longer he is involved in this type of stuff, the less time spent on the important stuff.  That's a problem that he has to get a handle on IMO.

[Stadium-Armory]

Hillary is a socialist?  I thought the narrative was that she was a shill for Wall Street. 

 

I don't think she ever suggested central control of the means of production.

[Burgold]

Just now, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

I, like you, am unsure of what we might see.  I mean, I feel as if economically we will be stronger.  If he can get tax relief done, that will help a lot IMO.  But he has to get it done and the longer he is involved in this type of stuff, the less time spent on the important stuff.  That's a problem that he has to get a handle on IMO.

See, I'm skeptical of tax relief as a panacea. In the abstract, we all like paying less in taxes. In reality, we have tried for tax cuts with Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and even most of Obama. Has drip down ever dripped down? I do see the rich have taken advantage, but the overall economy itself? In fairness, at least Trump is coupling tax cuts with cruel as hell spending cuts. If you are poor or middle class you are in for incredible pain if his plan is passed, but at least the tax cuts are sort of paid for.

 

The question is are they really going to kill medicaid, social security, and wipe out all safety net funding to pay for corporate and upper class tax cuts? Will that actually cause ships to rise or force those nearly underwater to drown and then capsize the rest of us.

[ABQCOWBOY]

1 minute ago, Burgold said:

See, I'm skeptical of tax relief as a panacea. In the abstract, we all like paying less in taxes. In reality, we have tried for tax cuts with Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, and even most of Obama. Has drip down ever dripped down? I do see the rich have taken advantage, but the overall economy itself? In fairness, at least Trump is coupling tax cuts with cruel as hell spending cuts. If you are poor or middle class you are in for incredible pain if his plan is passed, but at least the tax cuts are sort of paid for.

 

The question is are they really going to kill medicaid, social security, and wipe out all safety net funding to pay for corporate and upper class tax cuts? Will that actually cause ships to rise or force those nearly underwater to drown and then capsize the rest of us.

 

8 minutes ago, Stadium-Armory said:

Hillary is a socialist?  I thought the narrative was that she was a shill for Wall Street. 

 

I don't think she ever suggested central control of the means of production.

 

 

Hillary is an idiot, IMO.  Sanders is a Socialist.  However, he is light years smarter then Hillary.  JMO

[Dan T.]

47 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

If I were interested in your opinion on this, that would mean that I felt as if you knew anything, at all about the subject matter, this statement might mean a great deal.  Since I am not and you don't, it matters not.

 

How did that party line go for you Dan? 

 

My statement was in general.  In fairness to you, can you tell us why you voted for Donald Trump?  I honestly have a hard time understanding why someone would.  I often feel like the kid in The Emperor's New Clothes when I think about this.

 

As for your party comment, the only party I belong to is one where beer is served.