The Glade 4.0

The Australian ambassador to the UK doesn't seem to represent the information he gave quite the same way the FBI does.



Now, it's possible Mr. Downer simply didn't remember the Five Eyes agreement, but the State Department should have. Australian intelligence (who clearly have no dog in the fight) didn't find this a worthwhile tip to pass on.

But there's more:

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

None of this was supposed to come to light. Hillary was supposed to win; therefore it was ok to softball her investigation while assiduously "following procedures" in regard to Trump - except of course for misrepresenting opposition research to the FISA court.

The irony in all of this is that the bungled attempts to both cover Clinton's *** and look like the FBI was being transparent with Congress may have thrown the election to Trump. Nothing quite like trying to "stop him" and getting him elected.

I don't know what's more hilarious; the bungling attempt to throw the election, or the attempts to spin it as anything other than a partisan FBI trying to look out for someone they assumed would take care of the organization in the future. The actual evidence is right there - the internal communications, the failures to "fully comply" with recusals, and of course the acceptance of favors from the press. Oh yes, and the previously-known fact that two people with extremely high-level access were busy cheating on their spouses with each other; normally grounds for denial of clearance due to vulnerability to blackmail.

It seems that impeccable credentials are not, in fact, an indicator of intelligence or competence.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

We are close to the point where the main political factions in the US will not consider the results of a future election valid if their side loses.

The only things that come after that point are horrible.

Sadly the things that could prevent it from that point are all not likely and very risky themselves.

A military coup though those seldom go well. A complete abandonment of the political system peacefully - people are too addicted to their ego feeding. The worst economic crash in world history that destroys the deep state at the employment level. Mind control aliens healing us all of our foibles.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Dude, the left has been there since Al Gore lost to George Bush.

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

It's harder to notice since the mass media is overwhelmingly liberal, but this sentiment is pretty common on the right too, now. If you go on right wing media you hear about stuff like how "18 million illegals voted" all the time.

No, you actually don't, unless you're talking about the "right wing media" that even the right doesn't take seriously. That's certainly not the sentiment at The National Review. On the other hand, even normally sober left publications (even left-leaning ones, not just actual left wong) regularly post hystrionics about "threats to democracy" and a "dictatorship" and so forth. The left quite literally believes that there is some unwritten norm which is supposed to cause Republican administrations to stay firmly in the center, at worst, at all times.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And white supremacy rhetoric was was at it's height during and totally responsible for all the race riots of the 8 year administration of the first black president that conceived the second civil war.

Oh, wait, no, it was when crooked Hillary lost to the worst possible candidate someone could have possibly conceived of. That's what started the war.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

They've since backed off the full on never-Trump rhetoric but the National Review is extremely anti-Trump for a right wing publication, and the Trump camp generally dislikes it. They also went hard in on attacking Arpaio which also did not go over well with the Trump camp. I like to use Arpaio as an example of how deep the divide has gotten because he has widespread support amongst Trump's base despite, well, doing exactly the same thing Hillary did by weaponizing the apparatus of the state against his political opponents. That's in addition to all his other abuses, obviously. If you head on over to Breitbart it's pretty common to see sentiment like how California is only blue because of millions of illegal voters, claiming there are more illegal voters than there actually are illegals in total, etc.

Nope. This actually gets considerably worse than that.

This is only the opening salvo.

Notice the continually shifting timelines in the "when did the investigation into President Trump and his campaign start?" question.

What you're going to learn is that there is no defensible start date because the illegal spying on political opponents was ongoing for the entire duration of President Obama's term in office, and the entire Russia narrative and investigation was concocted in order to frame the President, throw the election, and then to initiate a palace coup once he won and they were exposed.

You were 100% correct in one part of your analysis, however: she was never supposed to lose.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Please clarify the following for me.


President Trump?


She?


Thanks!

_________________
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come sit next to me." - Alice R. Longworth

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun." - Ash Williams

To frame President Trump.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

this will all blow over - the FBI is too big to fail

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Normally I'd be inclined to agree, but nothing about what we're experiencing is normal. President Trump was recruited to run for office by military intelligence for exactly this purpose. Six of the top leadership within the FBI have been fired or resigned. Indictment and prosecutions are coming next.

Word is that the second OIG report is being circulated, and a common phrase being used is "sedition".

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I read the National Review every day, and there is a variety of opinion there. However, the National Review is one of the most credible media organizations out there right now (possibly the most) while Breitbart is... not. The sort of people who take Breitbart seriously are mostly younger than my daughter and are more interested in trolling for the sake of trolling than anything else.

The difference between the left and the right is that while the National Review will criticize, often strongly, the President, they also don't post hysterics about how the end of the Republic is nigh because he said something mean, or legal theories for which "dubious" would be a generous description, such as the idea that Trump criticizing the Russia investigation or firing Comey is "obstruction" which serious publications on the left have put forth, despite the fact that one must be Constitutionally, and possibly functionally, illiterate to hold such a view - the "indepedence" of the FBI is not a thing we need to worry about because it is not a thing under the Constitution.

In many ways, the reaction to Trump is the recation to Bush turned up to 11. The left felt entitled to win after Clinton; they believed history had ended, they had a demographic permanent lock on the Presidency and the Republicans were to be a permanent opposition party. To be fair, Bush's win was a bizarre electoral happenstance, but even had he lost the vote would have been close enough to show that the Democrats had no mandate for permanent rule.

Trump had different happenstances, but the fact that someone like Donald Trump was able to even get within striking distance of your candidate should speak volumes about just how wrong the left is. Hillary Clinton embodied leftist assumptions about how the world works - she was supposed to win, no matter what else, because vagina. The status quo was supposed to go on where a left agenda is ever pushed forward by claiming that opposition is hate, no matter how unsustainable it is. The media was supposed to be able to isolate out opposition by asking questions in just the right way, using just the right amount of bias to portray center-left as the center, just as they have for decades.

The problem was, those were not rules. They were assumptions. The FBI is a microcosm of this - rules are rules when Trump is the target, but they can be waived aside for Hillary because she's supposed to be the next President. That's what's "supposed to" happen. After all, our degrees from Georgetown tell us so. Wisconsin hasn't gone Republican since 1988 therefore it never will because it isn't supposed to.

The left - and not just the media, but the average voter on the left - must learn that the left does not set norms unchecked. The left does not represent progress or any "right side of history"; it is a different political viewpoint and that's all. It is not entitled to a media and bureaucracy weighted playing field.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Hillary Clinton was supposed to win because she's a woman? Who the hell thought that?

I'm pretty sure nearly everyone assumed Hillary would win (including you), because no one took Trump as a serious threat. Hillary also consistently beat him in the polls and there was lots of statistical evidence suggesting she would win. So yeah... the Democrats were pretty surprised and upset when he won. But don't spin that as them feeling entitled to the presidency. That's ridiculous.

The same folks that felt the presidential election being won by a black man was an international prize winning accomplishment, and that the tide of history was on their side.

Democrats seem to feel entitled to set the direction and tone of the march of progress of mankind. The presidency doesn’t matter as much to them because of that.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

This was not an uncommon sentiment. Plenty of shallow-minded folks simply wanted a female president because "it was time."

I AM VOTING WITH MY VAGINA: HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT
I Voted With My Vagina And I’m Proud Of It

Was it most Democrats? Probably not. Did those that expressed those feelings even necessarily want it to be Clinton? I doubt that too. But people were saying it, even if it was just an effort to sway others by reassuring them they were at least helping to check off a box on the country's diversity card even if it meant choosing a terrible candidate.

_________________
The Dude abides.

That: or the left was naive and didn’t realize just how racist, mysoginistic and hateful much of the country still is.

Yeah, because certainly Clinton couldn't have possibly earned any of that dislike on her own merits.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Every single woman wearing suffragette white to the polls to vote for her, for starters. Madeline Albright and her "special place in hell." Every analyst who thought "first Woman" would drag in votes the way "first Black" did despite the difference in voting patterns between those groups. She herself.

That's off the top of my head. Let's not pretend this was not a thing; hell, every "misogyny" excuse made after the election reinforces that vagina is not suppoed to lose according to the rules the left thinks are in operation.



You do realize there was a point at which no one thought Trump would even get nominated? The history of the election goes back farther than the primaries. Yes, his apparent unlikelyhood aas a victor was a factor late in the cycle, but early on "Isn't it time we had a woman President?" was her de facto campaign theme.



Democrats felt entitled to the Presidency regardless of who ran against Hillary. It was "Her Turn." They felt entitled for Gore in 2000.

What's ridiculous is pretending the left does not think it controls the terms of debate. The left in this country cannot imagine having to deal with a truly level political playing field; they have not had to in decades.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Except for the fact that it isn't. People on the right decide what's racist, mysoginistic, or hateful, not people on the left. Those accusations are credible if I make them, not if you make them.

Even if we accepted your definition, the left - the press, its politicians, and people like you pretending that you have some sort of moral authority or are actually somehow more informed on pretty much anything than the people you look down on - is just proving that it is actively trying to manufacture group animosity. The left thrives on antagonistic language towards men, white people, and Christians and then trying to pretend it's not somehow being incredibly hypocritical.

Hell, you're basically a massive bigot yourself. Calling people racist and misogyinistic is not really different than calling people the n word or **** or faggots. Accusing people of racism marks the speaker as human garbage in about 99% of cases. You're basically "blood and soil" dressed up in different clothing.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This is a truth I doubt will be admitted.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

False equivalence. Racism, sexism, anti-gay, etc are disliking people for what they are, the way they are born.

I actively dislike people for the things they choose and they way they treat others. Choosing ignorance. Choosing intolerance.


These are not the same and you goddamn well know it. It makes you feel better to claim that they’re somehow the same. It’s an attempt to justify the indefensible position you hold; that the left is somehow just as bad as you are.

Blah, blah, blah, racist. Blah, blah, homophobe.

This is exactly the point. You're not making an argument against the viewpoints in this thread. You are just denouncing people as deplorables to justify your own mental laziness in engaging in open debate. This makes you an *******. This broad-stroke labeling is also why Democrats are dead even with Republicans in an election they should absolutely be cleaning house in.

To take this back to Clinton's loss though... I understand the Democrats and a good chunk of independent voters had a perception of President Obama as a man of class, temperance, and tolerance. Clinton was none of these things. She repeatedly insulted large blocks of the voters, she ignored entire states in her campaign tours, she had her own share of scandals during her candidacy, and SHE RIGGED HER OWN PRIMARY. Sanders probably would not have won anyway, but her campaign's collusion with the DNC should necessarily make her a dirty candidate to everyone. Apparently many independent voters felt this sort of behavior was indicative of a need for change that didn't involve the establishment existing at that time. Maybe Democrats should run a cleaner (-appearing) candidate next time.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Dehumanizing folks you have a beef with by dredging up the most vile image to project onto them is the point, lack of intellectual honesty seems common among those that do so.

I should have put money on his refusal to admit it. Disagree about baking a cake? You’re a homophobe, no matter how logical your resistance to being forced to create by order of the state. Disagree with open borders, you’re racist. Vote for Trump ‘cause you felt he was better than Clinton, you’re mysogenic. No intellectually honest person would come to those conclusions.

A bigot would, though.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.