HawkShack.com

Well here's a quick update this Monday morning on a couple of topics.

1. Trade. Looks like the S. Korean deal is done and NAFTA is now going to be called USMCA (U.S. Mexico, Canada Association). Great breakthrough on this today. EU is still being worked and the Chinese have asked to negotiate but Pres. Trump says its too early to negotiate with China. India was told to lower their tarrifs and the Indian president said no one has ever asked him to do that before but that yes, they will be lowering them. Brazil same issue.

2. McCabe, Mueller, Rosenstein Russia Gate will have significant developments this week after Trump meets with Rosenstein, the FISA warrants are released along with the McCabe notes and Orr 302s. This will get interesting very quickly so get yor popcorn ready.

3. Kavanaugh hearing and FBI investigation. News is reporting that an inside source says that the FBI investigation update to the background will be complete on Tuesday (tomorrow). This is going to throw the Dems into a frenzy and lots of tampering allegations will be forth coming.

Should be an awesome week for the Pres. and repubs.

Nothing matters until the midterms. That decides everything. All this is time wasting until that occurs. Repubs hold the House or things get bad for Trump. It's pretty much that simple. I expect a lot of releases of information leading up to the midterms. Dems are going to be throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the midterm elections with key release of information to influence voters. Going to be a fun month or two.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Nothing matters until the midterms. That decides everything. All this is time wasting until that occurs. Repubs hold the House or things get bad for Trump. It's pretty much that simple. I expect a lot of releases of information leading up to the midterms. Dems are going to be throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the midterm elections with key release of information to influence voters. Going to be a fun month or two.

I think the Dems would be better off saying nothing. Their base is already infuriated and coming out with stuff would only infuriate the Repubs more than this latest debacle of a confirmation hearing.

idhawkman wrote:Well here's a quick update this Monday morning on a couple of topics.

1. Trade. Looks like the S. Korean deal is done and NAFTA is now going to be called USMCA (U.S. Mexico, Canada Association). Great breakthrough on this today. EU is still being worked and the Chinese have asked to negotiate but Pres. Trump says its too early to negotiate with China. India was told to lower their tarrifs and the Indian president said no one has ever asked him to do that before but that yes, they will be lowering them. Brazil same issue.

2. McCabe, Mueller, Rosenstein Russia Gate will have significant developments this week after Trump meets with Rosenstein, the FISA warrants are released along with the McCabe notes and Orr 302s. This will get interesting very quickly so get yor popcorn ready.

3. Kavanaugh hearing and FBI investigation. News is reporting that an inside source says that the FBI investigation update to the background will be complete on Tuesday (tomorrow). This is going to throw the Dems into a frenzy and lots of tampering allegations will be forth coming.

Should be an awesome week for the Pres. and repubs.

The stuff you mentioned might not even make it to the classified ads section. It's not that riveting, unless you're one of these political geeks that spends their spare time watching CSpan. Most people are consumed with Kavanaugh, not with these relatively trivial events.

The big stories are the SCOTUS hearings and the upcoming midterm elections. Everything else pales in comparison.

RiverDog wrote:
The stuff you mentioned might not even make it to the classified ads section. It's not that riveting, unless you're one of these political geeks that spends their spare time watching CSpan. Most people are consumed with Kavanaugh, not with these relatively trivial events.

The big stories are the SCOTUS hearings and the upcoming midterm elections. Everything else pales in comparison.

You may be right. I see a lot of coverage of the trade deal on the financial channels and it matters to some. I know Trump made it a big point at his rally last night in Tennessee though. He also made the Kavanaugh deal a big topic at the same rally though.

I don't doubt that the Russia thing has totally been wiped from the headlines finally after 2 years of this witch hunt. Probably because the media and the dems know there's no there, there and it doesn't fit their narrative now. With that said, the Chinese meddling in the mid terms hasn't gotten the play it should on the other news channels because it just bolsters Trump position on trade against China. At some point, they are going to come out with a story asking why Trump didn't make more of a deal about it though.

idhawkman wrote:You may be right. I see a lot of coverage of the trade deal on the financial channels and it matters to some. I know Trump made it a big point at his rally last night in Tennessee though. He also made the Kavanaugh deal a big topic at the same rally though.

I don't doubt that the Russia thing has totally been wiped from the headlines finally after 2 years of this witch hunt. Probably because the media and the dems know there's no there, there and it doesn't fit their narrative now. With that said, the Chinese meddling in the mid terms hasn't gotten the play it should on the other news channels because it just bolsters Trump position on trade against China. At some point, they are going to come out with a story asking why Trump didn't make more of a deal about it though.

The "witchhunt" (interesting how you constantly employ Trump's terminology) has quieted down as there hasn't been any indictments, trials, or plea deals in the past few weeks, and like everything else, it's getting pushed off the headlines and talk shows by the SCOTUS hearing. I seriously doubt that the Dems have forgotten about it or that Mueller will suddenly conclude that there's no there, there.

As far as the Chinese election meddling goes, there hasn't been a lot of evidence put forth so there's not a lot for the news outlets to report on, but even if there was, it would still take a backseat to the SCOTUS debate, at least for the time being.

RiverDog wrote:The "witchhunt" (interesting how you constantly employ Trump's terminology) has quieted down as there hasn't been any indictments, trials, or plea deals in the past few weeks, and like everything else, it's getting pushed off the headlines and talk shows by the SCOTUS hearing. I seriously doubt that the Dems have forgotten about it or that Mueller will suddenly conclude that there's no there, there.

As far as the Chinese election meddling goes, there hasn't been a lot of evidence put forth so there's not a lot for the news outlets to report on, but even if there was, it would still take a backseat to the SCOTUS debate, at least for the time being.

I get it, Kavanaugh allegedly throwing ice across a bar deserves so much more media than Chinese meddling in the mid terms, the largest trade deal being agreed to, the stock markets hitting all time highs, etc, etc, etc.

idhawkman wrote:I get it, Kavanaugh allegedly throwing ice across a bar deserves so much more media than Chinese meddling in the mid terms, the largest trade deal being agreed to, the stock markets hitting all time highs, etc, etc, etc.

It's not up to me, my friend. I'm simply stating a fact. It's not whether your favorite stories are newsworthy or not, it's that they're trumped (no pun intended) by stories that are sensational, ie having to do with sex or other such scandalous behavior, and right now, the SCOTUS confirmation is ripe with that kind of gossipy crapola. It's no different than the Clinton-Lewinsky escapades. It's what attracts listeners/readers that gets the press's attention. Advertising pays their bills, and the more readers/listeners they get, the more money they make.

RiverDog wrote:It's not up to me, my friend. I'm simply stating a fact. It's not whether your favorite stories are newsworthy or not, it's that they're trumped (no pun intended) by stories that are sensational, ie having to do with sex or other such scandalous behavior, and right now, the SCOTUS confirmation is ripe with that kind of gossipy crapola. It's no different than the Clinton-Lewinsky escapades. It's what attracts listeners/readers that gets the press's attention. Advertising pays their bills, and the more readers/listeners they get, the more money they make.

Yeah, I get it. Its all about the clicks which is why we can't trust our media anymore. INstead of reporting the news, they report only the sensational or what they can make look sensational. Pretty sad. Walter Kronkite must be rolling over in his grave.

idhawkman wrote:Yeah, I get it. Its all about the clicks which is why we can't trust our media anymore. INstead of reporting the news, they report only the sensational or what they can make look sensational. Pretty sad. Walter Kronkite must be rolling over in his grave.

Even you're not interested in unbiased political news. This is what you get when politics is more like sports. Pick a side and read those stories and views that support what you believe. Ignore the rest whether it is true or not. That's the state of affairs in politics. Get them votes any way you can is the way of it. If the Dems win the House upcoming, prepare for more "back to High School investigations" of personal behavior by both sides. It's going to get dirty.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Even you're not interested in unbiased political news. This is what you get when politics is more like sports. Pick a side and read those stories and views that support what you believe. Ignore the rest whether it is true or not. That's the state of affairs in politics. Get them votes any way you can is the way of it. If the Dems win the House upcoming, prepare for more "back to High School investigations" of personal behavior by both sides. It's going to get dirty.

What you mentioned is a real phenomenon, and I'm very conscious of it. My mid day exercise routine at my club does not allow for a large variety of TV programming, so I'll intentionally watch Fox News one day and MSNBC the next. Both are at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

But most of my news I get off my start page of my browser or the news app on my tablet. It is biased in that it has an algorithm that follows what I click on so it will pick up on what kind of stories I like or websites I click on and show those first, so it sort of double backs on you, but it's a lot better than getting your news from an exclusive source like most people do.

idhawkman wrote:Yeah, I get it. Its all about the clicks which is why we can't trust our media anymore. INstead of reporting the news, they report only the sensational or what they can make look sensational. Pretty sad. Walter Kronkite must be rolling over in his grave.

Not sure how much you could trust media of the past, either. If all you read in the 40's was "Stars and Stripes" or got your news from the movie time newsreels, do you think that you would have gotten an unbiased account of the news?

As I said in my above post, we have to force ourselves to get our news from multiple sources. I have a lot of friends that wrench in pain when I tell them that I'll occasionally watch Fox News, just as you would wrench in pain if I told you that I occasionally listen to NPR.

And by the way, if he had the ability to roll over in his grave, Walter "Cronkite" would have done a log roll had he seen how you spelled his last name. And here I thought that you were a fellow baby boomer.

RiverDog wrote:What you mentioned is a real phenomenon, and I'm very conscious of it. My mid day exercise routine at my club does not allow for a large variety of TV programming, so I'll intentionally watch Fox News one day and MSNBC the next. Both are at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

But most of my news I get off my start page of my browser or the news app on my tablet. It is biased in that it has an algorithm that follows what I click on so it will pick up on what kind of stories I like or websites I click on and show those first, so it sort of double backs on you, but it's a lot better than getting your news from an exclusive source like most people do.

I'm glad I spent time reading history, science, and economics. I don't have to have my decisions spoonfed to me by the media. I can analyze information to see what the truth of it is. I don't get snookered by big words and the word "expert" next to an opinion piece or theory. I grow so weary of people citing "sources" while being unable to verify if the science behind the sources is credible. You get a 1000 scientists to sign off on something, suddenly it's credible even if those scientists have absolutely no expertise in the field or no ability to run their own analysis. It's like when doctors sign off on something or social scientists (this is the worst given social scientists skew information with carefully worded questions) they know nothing about.

I recall when every scientist and their mother was buying the Malthus theory of starvation and food deprivation like it was gospel. It never happened. Then in the 50s it was fear of nuclear war with people building their own shelters. Then in the 80s it was we're going to run out of oil in 20 years, then 50 years, then a 100 years, and now they don't have any idea when we will run out. Then the Y2K bug. Now it's global warming is Armageddon, but we don't know when or if we can stop it. We're just going to pass a ton of laws to halt carbon emissions without really knowing exactly when or how the earth will be destroyed. It's just a bunch of theory that is currently driving hysteria and policy. So many of these theories have failed with no time table, I'm surprised these scientific Armageddonists haven't been laughed off into the sunset given they're about as credible as religious folk with the same theories.

You would think they would use more credible evidence for reducing air pollution like increases in respiratory illness and the very obvious realty of oxygen balance which must be maintained or we die. Instead we get a global warming Armageddon theory similar in every way to Malthusian starvation theory, oil depletion theory, and most of the theories that have us going extinct. No real timetable for when it will happen, just a constantly reinforced theme like a boogieman that people will eventually grow weary of when it doesn't happen like they think it will. Instead we have very real issues with pollution that must be dealt with like air quality, poison in the food supply, bee death, depletion of the corral reefs, and general overpopulation by humans that is subsumed by hysteria over global warming. It's like worrying about the sun exploding while your house is on fire.

Oh well. Not much I can do about other than keep information flowing. One of my co-workers at work said she hates school and finds it boring. She's mainly doing it because it's the path to a decent job. This has been the common them conversing with others. It's like you're speaking Chinese when you start using big scientific words, mathematical analysis, governmental theory, conceptual analysis, historical analysis grounded in moral concepts, and even basic science knowledge. I do my best to dumb down my speech for general conversation as I know so few people that truly enjoy that type of discussion or can engage it.

I think long-term the only path forward for humanity is depopulation likely in some very unpleasant natural or man-made disaster or colonization of other worlds. Science fiction has written of this for years. Science fiction usually predicts the future in general concepts. The trappings of most science fiction is likely inaccurate, but the general concepts of colonize other worlds or die seems to be the path humanity is on. Leadership can see this even if the masses are going to do like they usually do and follow the leader hoping they have the answer to survival.

I can remember in a college class the professor talking about how in 1890, there was a forecast that at the rate things were going, that in 50 years there'd be so much horse manure in city streets that it would overwhelm their ability to collect and dispose of it.

Perhaps it's because I'm older, but I am less impressed by doctors and other so-called authorities than I was in my younger years. My 81 year old mother had a bleeding ulcer that caused her to lose enough blood to go into cardiac arrest. They decided that she needed a heart bypass but the GI doctor said that they needed to wait a few days for the catherization to heal as they didn't want to risk it bleeding during surgery. A few minutes later, another doctor, anesthesiologist I think, came in and told us that they were scheduling surgery for the next day. I pointed out to him the comments of the previous doctor to which he replied "we deal with bleeding all the time". I got mad and told him that they weren't touching my mother until they got their stories straight and to go find the last doctor and talk to him. Out of the corner of her eye I caught a glimpse of my mom and like a little kid, she had put her hands over her ears, so I guess I was pretty intense.

The latest laugher was how they've done a study that shows video games like "Call of Duty" has an adverse effect on juveniles and causes them to be more violent. In my day, the fear was that violence on television from shows like "Barretta" and "Starsky and Hutch" would do the same thing.

So yea, I agree with you about some people accepting anything and everything the self appointed experts tell them.

RiverDog wrote:Not sure how much you could trust media of the past, either. If all you read in the 40's was "Stars and Stripes" or got your news from the movie time newsreels, do you think that you would have gotten an unbiased account of the news?

As I said in my above post, we have to force ourselves to get our news from multiple sources. I have a lot of friends that wrench in pain when I tell them that I'll occasionally watch Fox News, just as you would wrench in pain if I told you that I occasionally listen to NPR.

And by the way, if he had the ability to roll over in his grave, Walter "Cronkite" would have done a log roll had he seen how you spelled his last name. And here I thought that you were a fellow baby boomer.

LoL, I knew it was wrong when I wrote it - just didn't look right but was late getting out of the house and didn't take the time to look it up. You are probably right that he did a log roll on that.

You are correct about the stars and stripes and even in the VietNam war there were censors white washing the news. The level it is at now is so much worse than that in my mind though. I have listened to NPR and I've also watched the nightly NBC, CBS etc news. I will not watch CNN at all though. What I find much worse than the bias in what they report is the total lack of major life impacting stories that they won't say a word on.

I heard someone on the radio today (Not Rush or Hannity but a local guy in the morning) who had a caller. The caller quoted President Thomas Jefferson on how the population can control the government through "Jury manipulation." E.g. the quote from Jefferson was something to the effect that the population has a duty to hang a jury if they believe the underlying law is out of line. It was an interesting idea - he was addressing the gun laws at the time but then switched to the grand juries in holding Facebook and Google accountable for their personal information practices.

Not sure I totally agree but it was an interesting idea as he laid it out. (DISCLAIMER: I HAVE NOT RESEARCHED ANY OF THIS OR VERIFIED THE QUOTE)

idhawkman wrote:You are correct about the stars and stripes and even in the VietNam war there were censors white washing the news. The level it is at now is so much worse than that in my mind though. I have listened to NPR and I've also watched the nightly NBC, CBS etc news. I will not watch CNN at all though. What I find much worse than the bias in what they report is the total lack of major life impacting stories that they won't say a word on.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are too many people on both sides of the political spectrum that, like you, swear off information sources as being opposite of their political compass as you have when you say you'll never watch CNN. Heck, often times news sources won't even cover events that do not shed a good light on their political cause.

RiverDog wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that there are too many people on both sides of the political spectrum that, like you, swear off information sources as being opposite of their political compass as you have when you say you'll never watch CNN. Heck, often times news sources won't even cover events that do not shed a good light on their political cause.

I couldn't turn off CNN during the first gulf war but they have gone way off the reservation in that they don't even try to hide their annomous toward the POTUS now. Also, they never had an opposing view on their show. E.g. you'll see every segment of Fox news have a Liberal, democrat strategist, etc to give their side of the topic. You just have a whole bunch of people on CNN trying to one up the last speaker's annomous without a counter point. That's not news, it is propaganda.

idhawkman wrote:I couldn't turn off CNN during the first gulf war but they have gone way off the reservation in that they don't even try to hide their annomous toward the POTUS now. Also, they never had an opposing view on their show. E.g. you'll see every segment of Fox news have a Liberal, democrat strategist, etc to give their side of the topic. You just have a whole bunch of people on CNN trying to one up the last speaker's annomous without a counter point. That's not news, it is propaganda.

You can say the same thing about MSNBC. They are extremely liberal, and don't do much to hide their partisanship. But I will intentionally watch them just so I can get a balanced view of which you can't get by simply watching Fox. Both networks will under report news that makes their side look bad and sensationalize the news that makes them look good.

I'd like to know the subject that Fox under reports.

By the way, the reason why CNN and MSNBC have ratings below the Cartoon network and below the house flipping shows it tells you that they have lost the confidence of the populace in reporting anything that looks like news but instead they only spread propaganda.

idhawkman wrote:I'd like to know the subject that Fox under reports.

For one, the Stormy Daniels' 60 Minutes interview. It was the lead story on MSNBC. Not so on Fox as that was too big of an embarrassment for Trump.
.
And consequently, one of Fox's lead stories was the missing Iowa student found dead and the alleged killer (supposedly) being an illegal alien. MSNBC barely mentioned it.

By the way, the reason why CNN and MSNBC have ratings below the Cartoon network and below the house flipping shows it tells you that they have lost the confidence of the populace in reporting anything that looks like news but instead they only spread propaganda.

I disagree. Fox is the lone ranger in the TV conservative news market. The liberal side of the spectrum has much more competition, like CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and so on, so they have a much greater challenge than Fox.

RiverDog wrote:I disagree. Fox is the lone ranger in the TV conservative news market. The liberal side of the spectrum has much more competition, like CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and so on, so they have a much greater challenge than Fox.

I'm glad you were honest. Just about every other station is a stronger voice for Democratic left because the reporters, "experts", and hosts are mostly Democrats. Plenty of online sources for conservative news or information, but mainstream media is anywhere from center left to far left but Fox news. Fox news is middle to center right. The far right wingers are on the web and getting censored at this point, maybe rightly so for some of them.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I'm glad you were honest. Just about every other station is a stronger voice for Democratic left because the reporters, "experts", and hosts are mostly Democrats. Plenty of online sources for conservative news or information, but mainstream media is anywhere from center left to far left but Fox news. Fox news is middle to center right. The far right wingers are on the web and getting censored at this point, maybe rightly so for some of them.

Here's a good article that briefly explains the media bias:

http://fortune.com/2015/11/02/liberal-media/

But if you think it's bad now, it was much worse back in the 60's and 70's. Talk radio, dominated by conservatives, reaches huge audiences. In addition to Limbaugh and Hannity, both of whom attract around 14 million listeners, there's Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and Mark Levin, all conservatives that top 10M listeners. That industry didn't exist prior to the 1980's and FM radio's take over of the music listening auience, forcing AM radio to go more towards news, sports, and politics in order to survive. Additionally, Fox News didn't get started until the 1990's.

So while I agree that the mainstream media is decidedly liberal, the conservatives are in a much better position to compete nowadays than they were 30-50 years ago. Fox and talk radio somewhat balances out the effect the liberal media has on the American public.

AM radio is said to have been saved by Limbaugh after he started buying up all the stations at dirt cheap prices since everyone was going to FM.

You are correct in saying the AM radio stations are dominated by conservative hosts but that's not because the Liberals didn't try. There were many that tried back in the 90s and even into the early 2000s but they couldn't attract a big enough audience with enough advertisers to stay relevant and eventually went down. Many say it was because the platform of personal destruction and division doesn't hold an audience. People want something to aspire to and the issues were not favoring the Liberals.

Yes, there's more left leaning main stream media and they have to compete for the audience but many times Fox News beats them all combined in the ratings. I used to have access to the reports when I had my radio show but I don't do that anymore and don't have those inside reports.

idhawkman wrote:You are correct in saying the AM radio stations are dominated by conservative hosts but that's not because the Liberals didn't try. There were many that tried back in the 90s and even into the early 2000s but they couldn't attract a big enough audience with enough advertisers to stay relevant and eventually went down. Many say it was because the platform of personal destruction and division doesn't hold an audience. People want something to aspire to and the issues were not favoring the Liberals.

The difference in the success rate of conservative vs. liberal talk radio can be attributed more to demographics, not the content. Millennials, who tend to be more liberal, don't listen to radio nearly as much as baby boomers. Minorities, especially those in urban areas, don't, either. However, rural America listens to talk radio a lot, and of course, they are decidedly white and tend to be older.

Yes, there's more left leaning main stream media and they have to compete for the audience but many times Fox News beats them all combined in the ratings. I used to have access to the reports when I had my radio show but I don't do that anymore and don't have those inside reports.

Once again, you can attribute that to demographics more so than content. Women, whom are decidedly liberal, are more likely to watch programming like the morning talk shows (Today, Good Morning America, etc), and variety shows like The View, Ellen DeGeneres, or stations like Home and Garden, Flip or Flop (taken from my wife's viewing habits) than they are MSNBC or CNN. I can go into my gym and take a sampling of tv programming being watched on ellipticals, treadmills, and stationary bikes. Very few women are watching the two options for news commentary, MSNBC and Fox, yet most of the guys will be watching either news or sports. The Millenials will either be looking at something on their phones or have their own personal listening device on and usually don't watch the TV.

RiverDog wrote:
The difference in the success rate of conservative vs. liberal talk radio can be attributed more to demographics, not the content. Millennials, who tend to be more liberal, don't listen to radio nearly as much as baby boomers. Minorities, especially those in urban areas, don't, either. However, rural America listens to talk radio a lot, and of course, they are decidedly white and tend to be older.

Once again, you can attribute that to demographics more so than content. Women, whom are decidedly liberal, are more likely to watch programming like the morning talk shows (Today, Good Morning America, etc), and variety shows like The View, Ellen DeGeneres, or stations like Home and Garden, Flip or Flop (taken from my wife's viewing habits) than they are MSNBC or CNN. I can go into my gym and take a sampling of tv programming being watched on ellipticals, treadmills, and stationary bikes. Very few women are watching the two options for news commentary, MSNBC and Fox, yet most of the guys will be watching either news or sports. The Millenials will either be looking at something on their phones or have their own personal listening device on and usually don't watch the TV.

I believe you are correct now but back in the 90s before ipods and mp3 players and personal viewing screens per exercise machine, I think they just didn't resonate with the populace.

There's suppose to be some explosive stuff coming out today or tomorrow about how the FBI upper levels were out to get Trump for firing Comey. We'll see what it is all about when it is released. I got my popcorn ready.

I expect lots of dirtiness within the next 30 days. These parties are in the mud fighting it out.

Aseahawkfan wrote:These parties are in the mud fighting it out.

*Party*, singular, is in the mud. They're dying to bait the other to join them so they both look like clownshoes. And nobody will be surprised if they join them.

burrrton wrote:*Party*, singular, is in the mud. They're dying to bait the other to join them so they both look like clownshoes. And nobody will be surprised if they join them.

Trump been in the mud for a while. Trump represents the Republicans. He's been worrying about stupid, petty crap for a while. Dems have followed him into the mud, just where he wants them. They're trying to outdo Trump at being Trump and losing.

So now we are starting to see the full picture of what the FBI and DOJ tried to do to a duly elected president.

The top lawyer for the Clinton campaign was feeding false opposition research to the FBI's top lawyer to open up the Carter Page surveillance FISA warrant. 4 FBI and DOJ officials illegally signed off on the Warrant. When Trump won anyway they tried to set him up for invoking the 25th ammendment. The fricken rats are starting to turn on themselves and the full story is now coming out.

idhawkman wrote:So now we are starting to see the full picture of what the FBI and DOJ tried to do to a duly elected president.

The top lawyer for the Clinton campaign was feeding false opposition research to the FBI's top lawyer to open up the Carter Page surveillance FISA warrant. 4 FBI and DOJ officials illegally signed off on the Warrant. When Trump won anyway they tried to set him up for invoking the 25th ammendment. The fricken rats are starting to turn on themselves and the full story is now coming out.

No one likes to acknowledge how dirty the Clintons are, especially not the Dems. Where are you getting this information? You have a link.

Aseahawkfan wrote:
No one likes to acknowledge how dirty the Clintons are, especially not the Dems. Where are you getting this information? You have a link.

Here's a couple of links to the articles. I also saw that Rosenstein is refusing to keep his sworn testimony appearance tomorrow in front of the Senate Oversight committee now. He's in deep doo-doo.

John Solomon and Sara Carter have been all over this whole thing since the spring of last year (2017) and it is now starting to finally come to full circle.

https://saraacarter.com/former-top-fbi-lawyer-testified-that-rosenstein-seriously-considered-secretly-recording-trump/

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/409817-russia-collusion-bombshell-dnc-lawyers-met-with-fbi-on-dossier-before

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/410287-fbis-smoking-gun-redactions-protected-political-embarrassment-not

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/410447-former-fbi-lawyer-plot-to-record-remove-trump-not-a-joke

What I find appalling is that the current FBI director was in front of the Senate today and when Senator Rand Paul asked him if the President was being surveilled by the intel community Wray refused to answer. Paul then asked if they were surveilling Congress' calls which again Wray refused to answer. Paul then asked if they were surveilling the Press' calls which once again he refused to answer.

Regardless of which side you are on, this should send chills down your spine.

idhawkman wrote:What I find appalling is that the current FBI director was in front of the Senate today and when Senator Rand Paul asked him if the President was being surveilled by the intel community Wray refused to answer. Paul then asked if they were surveilling Congress' calls which again Wray refused to answer. Paul then asked if they were surveilling the Press' calls which once again he refused to answer.

Regardless of which side you are on, this should send chills down your spine.

Why would this send chills down my spine? They been doing this for ages. If it gets dragged out in public, prosecuted, and charged, then I would be surprised. They have the means to surveille anyone they want. The Patriot Act and Snowden showed the level of technology for monitoring. I'd be more surprised if I found out members of Congress weren't under constant surveillance. Someone is always watching. If a group with enough power wants to do it, they can destroy anyone in this nation. We're watching people all over the world. It's only going to get worse.

Most people are working to survive. But the people at the top are playing games of power against each other and we're the pawns used against each other. Just like in every war it's the pawns that die while the wealthy and powerful benefit. What part of this surprises you given the history books are rife with this behavior save for a few unique instances in all of history.

There is literally nothing you can do to stop it even if they tell you they stopped. As long as the technology exists, it will be used legally or illegally all around the world by those that have access.

Looks like Trump is upping the game again to China. He's going to cancel the 144 year old treaty allowing China to cheaply ship and dump goods into the U.S.

I know China's position is to match whatever we do and try to target Trump in areas of the economy that will try and turn his supporters away from him, but now that they've done that, where will they go on this new front. Not to mention that Trump still has more tarriffs in his hip pocket to play.

Looks like China was betting on an inside straight but Trump is holding 4 aces.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/politics/trump-china-shipping.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Trump told all his department heads and secretaries to cut 5% of their budget this next year. When was the last time you saw a politician do that?

Should be interesting to see how congress responds to this.

I hope they throw the book at the former Treasury employee caught leaking information about Manafort and Page's financials. That'd put her in jail for over 10 years and hefty fines. Gotta make an example to stop the leaking.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senior-treasury-employee-charged-with-leaking-documents-related-to-russia-probe/2018/10/17/74f67faa-d226-11e8-83d6-291fcead2ab1_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5427465fd9df

After all the crap we've heard about Gen Flynn and Popadopolous we've heard absolutelty nothing about this rube.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/james-a-wolfe-former-senate-intelligence-aide-pleads-guilty-to-lying-to-fbi-about-contact-with-reporter/2018/10/15/7d0b4abe-cd84-11e8-a360-85875bac0b1f_story.html?utm_term=.3a468c0c163a

And usual for our presidents we're selling out our values to the Saudis. They tortured, murdered, and dismembered Jamal Khashoggi and we're not doing anything because oil and weapons sales. And this is what you consider acceptable for our nation Idhawkman. You'd support the torture, murder, and dismemberment of another human for oil and military interests. It is completely against the values of our nation and our Constitution, yet you support it even while Trump says he doesn't intend to do anything just like all the other presidents before him. Neither of these parties care.

15 of 19 Saudis part of 9/11. An oppressive theocratic monarchy that treat their people like trash. They murder a man like some kind of mob hit. We just shrug and go on like nothing happened. We shouldn't have anything to do with that nation, yet because of oil, Israel, and Iran we avoid talking too much about it and the American people continue plinking away on their phones.

If Trump took real action against Saudi Arabia, then I'd consider him something new in a good way. Just another shill for the Republican Party knee deep in the usual swamps. He didn't drain anything. He changed almost nothing. America is selling itself out for money letting these scum do whatever they want as long as they don't disrupt our oil and good times.

I despise Saudi Arabia's leaders and religious zealots. They are poisonous to this world and our nation. I hope someday we have president with some real balls and morals to do something about it.

Aseahawkfan wrote:And usual for our presidents we're selling out our values to the Saudis. They tortured, murdered, and dismembered Jamal Khashoggi and we're not doing anything because oil and weapons sales. And this is what you consider acceptable for our nation Idhawkman. You'd support the torture, murder, and dismemberment of another human for oil and military interests. It is completely against the values of our nation and our Constitution, yet you support it even while Trump says he doesn't intend to do anything just like all the other presidents before him. Neither of these parties care.

15 of 19 Saudis part of 9/11. An oppressive theocratic monarchy that treat their people like trash. They murder a man like some kind of mob hit. We just shrug and go on like nothing happened. We shouldn't have anything to do with that nation, yet because of oil, Israel, and Iran we avoid talking too much about it and the American people continue plinking away on their phones.

If Trump took real action against Saudi Arabia, then I'd consider him something new in a good way. Just another shill for the Republican Party knee deep in the usual swamps. He didn't drain anything. He changed almost nothing. America is selling itself out for money letting these scum do whatever they want as long as they don't disrupt our oil and good times.

I despise Saudi Arabia's leaders and religious zealots. They are poisonous to this world and our nation. I hope someday we have president with some real balls and morals to do something about it.

What a crock and you know it. To call me out before the investigation is over is just folly. You consider going off the handle and punishing them before knowing exactly what has happened and what they have done about it "American". You should actually be ashamed of yourself for this post in the first sentence alone. The rest of you post must be as inane as that first sentence but I won't read it after a comment and rush to judgement like that.

idhawkman wrote:What a crock and you know it. To call me out before the investigation is over is just folly. You consider going off the handle and punishing them before knowing exactly what has happened and what they have done about it "American". You should actually be ashamed of yourself for this post in the first sentence alone. The rest of you post must be as inane as that first sentence but I won't read it after a comment and rush to judgement like that.

I spent about 10 minutes googling Saudi Arabian general scumbag activities like sex slavery, funding terrorism including 9/11, Wahhabism/Salafism they fund the teaching of, gender discrimination, and that's the tip of a very large iceberg. The fact you think we need an investigation to act against Saudi Arabia is clear proof you don't care. You would let a man get murdered for oil and not give a rip. It's been happening for years. It's literally why I despise both these parties. This sickening relationship with Saudi Arabia is backed by both Republicans and Democrats to the detriment of the American people other than cheap oil prices, which I guess are more important to American than morals or rights.

I'm not going to admonish you with this Idhawkman, even though I'm so enraged about this trash that I can barely contain it some days. Sadly it is both Democrats, Republicans, and Americans in general that have sold our nation's values out for cheap oil. It's been a very public dirty secret for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia%E2%80%93United_States_relations

This is why I wonder why anyone even bothers believing in conspiracy theories. The evil so many of these folks are engaged in is public knowledge that people choose to ignore because the consequences to act are higher than they want to pay, even if it s just higher gas costs. It's out of sight, out of mind, keep the cheap oil coming and you can be the biggest scumbag monarchy in the world and keep your friends in the United States where they pretend to support life and liberty, but really just want cheap oil.

They even screw other Islamic nations. They bought 300,000 domestic female "servants" from Somalia and their government oked it. This world is such a vile place at times. It's hard not to allow it to drive you mad wanting humans to be better than they are.