Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

New Donald Trump thread


Muda69

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Ok..I hear ya.  You are one of those type people that can offer feedback, but not good at taking it.  I shared my PERCEPTION of your targeted posts as being biased.  I get you don't like that.  You don't have to accept it and you could certainly ignore it.  But it is my perception and it is what it is.

Absolutely I accept my role and really don't care if you like or dislike my tone.  Report me, ignore me, chastise me, or stay silent...at the end of the day, I don't care.  But offer you opinion away...I ignored it the first few times.  I do take exception that you singled out Howe, while letting GID friends off the hook.

I have always viewed him as much more of a partisan than a moderator.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

Ok..I hear ya.  You are one of those type people that can offer feedback, but not good at taking it. 

Possibly the government school teacher career,  used to passing out judgments instead of being judged. Combined with the GID position of authority he holds over the rest of us peons such feedback is probably difficult to stomach.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, swordfish said:

SF wonders if Howe, Gonzo, Irish, Trojan had nothing better to do on a beautiful Saturday then sit on this thread and post over 4 pages of something that had NOTHING to do with the current President......So here was the discussion from Friday afternoon........

3 of the 5 still don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Ok..I hear ya.  You are one of those type people that can offer feedback, but not good at taking it.  I shared my PERCEPTION of your targeted posts as being biased.  I get you don't like that.  You don't have to accept it and you could certainly ignore it.  But it is my perception and it is what it is.

Absolutely I accept my role and really don't care if you like or dislike my tone.  Report me, ignore me, chastise me, or stay silent...at the end of the day, I don't care.  But offer you opinion away...I ignored it the first few times.  I do take exception that you singled out Howe, while letting GID friends off the hook.

 

2 hours ago, Howe said:

I have always viewed him as much more of a partisan than a moderator.

 

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Possibly the government school teacher career,  used to passing out judgments instead of being judged. Combined with the GID position of authority he holds over the rest of us peons such feedback is probably difficult to stomach.

 

Awwwwww look at the cute little threesome we have going here. lol 

Get upset because someone called someone out on a post; and turn right around to do the exact same thing. It's adorable really. 

  • Haha 1
  • Sit and spin 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Irishman said:

Awwwwww look at the cute little threesome we have going here. lol 

Get upset because someone called someone out on a post; and turn right around to do the exact same thing. It's adorable really. 

Upset? Hardly. Amused is more like it. 

And frankly one should expect more impartiality and less ridicule from a member of the GID Administration.

 

 

Edited by Muda69
  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Muda69 said:

Upset? Hardly. Amused is more like it. 

And frankly one should expect more impartiality and less ridicule from a member of the GID Administration.

 

 

Yeah....so a guy who gives the sit and spin reaction is amused? yeah ok.......like I said Saturday; you're funny. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Irishman said:

Yeah....so a guy who gives the sit and spin reaction is amused? yeah ok.......like I said Saturday; you're funny. 

Yes Irishman, amused.  Picturing you on one of these:

 

713FObShp1L._AC_SL1500_.jpg

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Irishman said:

Awwwwww look at the cute little threesome we have going here. lol 

Get upset because someone called someone out on a post; and turn right around to do the exact same thing. It's adorable really. 

getting stuck in a mud hole .... aint nobody got time for that ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on topic:

The Massive Trump Coronavirus Supply Effort that the Media Loves to Hate

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/the-massive-trump-coronavirus-supply-effort-that-the-media-loves-to-hate/

Quote

There is a new cardinal rule in journalism — never write anything favorable about the Trump administration’s coronavirus response, even about its successes.

It’s why the story of how the administration handled the potential ventilator crisis has gone almost entirely untold, and why its effort to secure supplies of personal protective equipment, or PPE, has been gotten largely skeptical or hostile coverage.

Any government response to a once-in-a-generation crisis is going to be subject to legitimate criticism, and there’s no question that almost every major government in the Western world, including ours, should have acted sooner. But to read the press, there is basically nothing good that the Trump administration has done over the last three months.

This is manifestly false. In a briefing for reporters last week on FEMA’s work securing PPE, FEMA administrator Peter Gaynor laid out the raw numbers: FEMA, HHS, and the private sector have shipped or are currently shipping 92.7 million N95 respirators, 133 million surgical masks, 10.5 million face shields, 42.4 million surgical gowns, and 989 million gloves.

According to Admiral John Polowczyk, head of the supply-chain task force at FEMA, we manufactured roughly 30 million N95 respirators domestically a month before the COVID-19 crisis. He says we are on a path now to ramp up to 180 million N95 respirators a month.

None of this happened by accident. At a time of unprecedented stress on the supply chain and a yawning gap between supply and demand in the market, it required considerable clever improvisation and determined hustle. This was not your average bureaucratic response. It was a partnership between the public and private sector to get supplies to the United States on an urgent basis and ship them to the places that needed them most, and then begin to ramp up manufacturing here at home.

A team around White House adviser Jared Kushner and the supply-chain task force under Admiral Polowczyk worked to fly supplies from overseas to the U.S. quickly, to vet leads for additional PPE (the work of volunteers from the business world mustered by Kushner’s team), and to build a cooperative relationship with 3M, the country’s most important manufacturer of N95 respirators.

The story of what they’ve done is a key part of the administration’s response, even if it has been obscured by a press that has an allergy to anything that has worked.

Kitchen-Sink Attacks
The initiative to secure PPE has been the subject of constant criticism, whether it makes much sense or not.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has repeatedly said that the president needed a military leader to take charge of the supply chain — when Admiral Polowczyk, the vice director of logistics for the joint chiefs, was already in charge.

The administration has been urged over and over again to invoke the Defense Production Act — when it has indeed used this act many times to prod and guide the supply chain, just not to take over industries wholesale.

Stories in the press have tended to relay complaints that FEMA has “commandeered” supplies headed for states or other entities. According to FEMA, this is erroneous. After looking into supposed instances of commandeering, Gaynor says, FEMA believes that shady brokers have been using this line an excuse for their own failures. “FEMA has become a convenient scapegoat for malicious actors who are unable to deliver on the promises they had made or are engaging in illegal activity,” he says.

They might make promise to various potential buyers and then pull the rug out from under them when they get a higher bid, explaining that the situation is out of their control because FEMA swooped in and took the material. Gaynor is emphatic that “FEMA does not have the authority to conduct seizures.”

A typical journalistic tack has been to find someone who had a frustrating experience with the administration and make him representative of the entire effort.

A large, quintuple by-lined New York Times feature on Kushner’s volunteers was a particularly egregious example of the genre. It found a doctor named Jeffrey Hendricks who approached the federal government with information that he had “longtime manufacturing contacts in China and a line on millions of masks from established suppliers.”

This wasn’t earth-shattering information, given that many tipsters said exactly the same thing. According to the Times, Hendricks was disappointed when it took weeks to act on his request before a site visit was finally set up to inspect the masks.

After the story appeared, Hendricks said it “did not fully reflect my experience.”

....

There’s no doubt that some hospitals, especially public hospitals, lacked the gear they needed at the outset of the crisis, and even those that didn’t have shortages felt as though they were living on the edge.

Polowczyk says that he believes every place that needed PPE got it, although he had “the unenviable job of managing scarcity as we went through March into April and now May, where the volume of supplies has increased.”

He explains that during the worst period, “people, hospitals, point-of-care, were getting supplies on the numbers-of-days amounts instead of, ‘Hey, I want like a month, two months.’”  He says he can understand how this just-in-time allocation method “would make you feel uncomfortable,” adding that as supplies were focused on hot spots, “other areas of the country that did not have such significant COVID outbreaks certainly got less of an allocation and were fed as needed.”

How the administration worked through this and got to a better place would seem an interesting story, if the press weren’t too vehemently opposed to Trump to even consider occasionally giving some credit where it’s due.

OMB.

TDS.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Are you really a moderator?  If so, I am taken back a little.

I get you are trying to deflect to me.  The difference is I own it.  I am be rough on people that are rough on me.  I admit it.   You won't admit it and that's ok.

I shared with you a perception that after your repeated requests to "calm down the tone", you then selectively went after someone that you have a history of going after.  You can deny that...FINE!  I don't care.  Either accept the feedback that is seems like you are selective or don't.  

Good grief man....please tell me that you are not a moderator and Howe had that incorrect.....

What’s the matter? You can call someone out, but don’t like the feedback you get in return? hmmmmmm....sounds familiar. Either accept the feedback that YOU are selective or don’t. Are you going to try and say you are balanced In who you call out? I have not seen it. I am not the only one that has called him out for his tone here, yet you single me out, and I only see you go after one or two other members other than me recently. I provided examples of times I have called others out. It is you that decided to shift the goal posts with the added terms of recently and in the last few days. And the fact is, you even made reference to post I made about the tone of name calling, and yet you still feel I am selective, and even avoiding calling out friends here. The fact is that is not accurate at all. 

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2020/05/19/nbc-news-reporting-barack-obama-will-not-attend-portrait-unveiling-until-trump-out-of-office/?fbclid=IwAR03_8wTWqlpcvA7gsHqQNSZKuCQfjbdYCVy0qFUR4LZl2rct2L_r0_RD3M

Former President Barack Hussein Obama will reportedly forgo visiting the White House for the unveiling of his official White House portrait until Donald Trump is out office, according to NBC News. If that means waiting until 2025, that is what he will do.

Obama has apparently had a change of heart since 2012, when he said this at George W. Bush’s unveiling:

“We may have our differences politically, but the presidency transcends those differences.”

Honestly, even if Obama were willing to attend, I should hope Trump would not host him. It appears increasingly likely that Obama was involved in spying on Trump and sabotaging him and his incoming administration on the basis of lies about Russian collusion. Talk about breaking traditions! I am more concerned with traditions on peaceful transfers of power than about portrait unveilings.

BHO's true colors are coming out.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, swordfish said:

https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2020/05/19/nbc-news-reporting-barack-obama-will-not-attend-portrait-unveiling-until-trump-out-of-office/?fbclid=IwAR03_8wTWqlpcvA7gsHqQNSZKuCQfjbdYCVy0qFUR4LZl2rct2L_r0_RD3M

Former President Barack Hussein Obama will reportedly forgo visiting the White House for the unveiling of his official White House portrait until Donald Trump is out office, according to NBC News. If that means waiting until 2025, that is what he will do.

Obama has apparently had a change of heart since 2012, when he said this at George W. Bush’s unveiling:

“We may have our differences politically, but the presidency transcends those differences.”

Honestly, even if Obama were willing to attend, I should hope Trump would not host him. It appears increasingly likely that Obama was involved in spying on Trump and sabotaging him and his incoming administration on the basis of lies about Russian collusion. Talk about breaking traditions! I am more concerned with traditions on peaceful transfers of power than about portrait unveilings.

BHO's true colors are coming out.

Yes, that is chicken-bleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Irishman said:

It is hard telling from that story who went first. Did Trump decide to not have the ceremony? Or did Obama refuse to go first? 

I suppose it depends on which side is spinning it. I heard that Trump refused first, after I saw SF's post. Trump and Obama may need a moderator.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/michael-flynns-attorneys-appeal-court-order-that-allows-outside-groups-retired-federal-judge-to-argue-against-tossing-guilty-plea/2020/05/19/9e8e014c-99dc-11ea-a282-386f56d579e6_story.html

Michael Flynn’s attorneys asked an appeals court on Tuesday to order a federal judge to dismiss the conviction of President Trump’s former national security adviser. Flynn’s lawyers also asked the appeals court in Washington to reverse the judge’s order allowing outside groups and a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department’s request to toss the case.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan last week paused Flynn’s case to hear from interested parties and appointed former New York federal judge John Gleeson to argue against the government request. Sullivan also asked Gleeson to examine whether the former three-star general may have committed perjury while pleading guilty to lying about his pre-inauguration contacts with Russia’s ambassador.

In a 44-page filing to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Flynn’s lawyers accused Sullivan of bias and acting at “loggerheads” with recent Supreme Court precedent. Sidney Powell and Flynn’s other attorneys also asked that the case be reassigned for any future proceedings.

“The egregious Government misconduct, and the three-year abuse of General Flynn and his family, cry out for ending this ordeal immediately and permanently,” Powell wrote. “The district judge’s orders reveal his plan to continue the case indefinitely, rubbing salt in General Flynn’s open wound from the Government’s misconduct and threatening him with criminal contempt.”

The Justice Department on May 7 moved to toss out the guilty plea of the highest-ranking Trump adviser convicted in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation. The department concluded that Flynn should never have been interviewed by the FBI and therefore his lies concealing his Russian contacts were immaterial to any crime.

Critics dispute the department’s move, saying it distorted facts and appeared to serve the president’s personal political interests by giving an aide impunity to lie to government investigators.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying in an FBI interview on Jan. 24, 2017, to conceal conversations with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador at the time. The conversations involved talks before Trump took office about avoiding U.S. sanctions and other policies imposed late in Barack Obama’s administration after Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

In a declassified email released Tuesday by Senate Republicans, former national security adviser Susan E. Rice noted concern in Obama’s White House about the frequency of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak and that the then-FBI director said sharing classified information with him could “potentially” be an issue. Obama emphasized that the handling of the Russia investigation should be done by the book, Rice wrote in a note to herself on Jan. 20, 2017, which was Inauguration Day.

In their filing Tuesday, Flynn’s lawyers said prosecutors, not judges, have the authority to decide how to handle pending criminal charges. Judges, they said, may not “change the issues in the case by inviting or appointing” others to perform the executive branch’s duties to investigate or prosecute.

“A district court cannot deny the Government’s motion to dismiss because the judge has ‘a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority,’ they said. “Nor should a court second-guess the Government’s ‘conclusion that additional prosecution or punishment would not serve the public interest.’”

In asking that the case be reassigned, Flynn’s defense criticized Sullivan for suggesting at a December 2018 hearing that Flynn may have committed “treason,” before correcting himself, and for saying the former general had “sold [his] country out.”

“This is an umpire who has decided to steal public attention from the players and focus it on himself,” Powell wrote. “He wants to pitch, bat, run bases, and play shortstop. In truth, he is way out in left field.”

 

The filing also suggests that the retired judge Sullivan appointed is not impartial because of an opinion piece by Gleeson that appeared in The Washington Post. In the article, Gleeson questioned the Justice Department’s move to dismiss the case against Flynn and suggested that the court “assess the credibility of the department’s stated reasons for abruptly reversing course.”

Flynn’s attorneys petitioned the appeals court for a writ of mandamus, used when no other relief is available, that requires a party to show “clear and indisputable” right to reverse error by a court. Meeting that high bar may be difficult because the judge has not made a decision yet on the Justice Department’s request, but has appointed a retired judge to advise him now that the government has decided to drop the case.

In abandoning the nearly three-year-old case, the Justice Department cited recently uncovered FBI records showing that the bureau had decided to close a counterintelligence investigation of Flynn — dubbed Operation Razor — before learning of his December 2016 calls with Kislyak. The Justice Department also said the FBI knew from transcripts that the calls probably did not give rise to a crime by themselves and that FBI officials differed over how to handle or interpret his actions.

 

Legal analysts and those involved in the case vigorously dispute the Justice Department’s claims as an attempt to please the president and attack his adversaries.

Critics of Attorney General William P. Barr’s decision argued that the FBI had ample legitimate grounds to investigate Flynn’s lies, which went to the heart of the investigation into whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia’s interference in the election.

Flynn admitted under oath three times before two federal judges that he gave false statements to the FBI as well as to the White House. Federal law criminalizes lying in any matter under court, congressional or executive branch jurisdiction.

 

Seriously, critics notwithstanding - in what what court of law can a judge (after both the prosecutor and the defendant BOTH determine to drop a case brought before it) determine he/she can exact prosecution on the defendant?  Isn't a judge.....a judge?  IMHO - This guy needs to be thrown off the bench.

 

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/michael-flynns-attorneys-appeal-court-order-that-allows-outside-groups-retired-federal-judge-to-argue-against-tossing-guilty-plea/2020/05/19/9e8e014c-99dc-11ea-a282-386f56d579e6_story.html

Michael Flynn’s attorneys asked an appeals court on Tuesday to order a federal judge to dismiss the conviction of President Trump’s former national security adviser. Flynn’s lawyers also asked the appeals court in Washington to reverse the judge’s order allowing outside groups and a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department’s request to toss the case.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan last week paused Flynn’s case to hear from interested parties and appointed former New York federal judge John Gleeson to argue against the government request. Sullivan also asked Gleeson to examine whether the former three-star general may have committed perjury while pleading guilty to lying about his pre-inauguration contacts with Russia’s ambassador.

In a 44-page filing to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Flynn’s lawyers accused Sullivan of bias and acting at “loggerheads” with recent Supreme Court precedent. Sidney Powell and Flynn’s other attorneys also asked that the case be reassigned for any future proceedings.

“The egregious Government misconduct, and the three-year abuse of General Flynn and his family, cry out for ending this ordeal immediately and permanently,” Powell wrote. “The district judge’s orders reveal his plan to continue the case indefinitely, rubbing salt in General Flynn’s open wound from the Government’s misconduct and threatening him with criminal contempt.”

The Justice Department on May 7 moved to toss out the guilty plea of the highest-ranking Trump adviser convicted in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation. The department concluded that Flynn should never have been interviewed by the FBI and therefore his lies concealing his Russian contacts were immaterial to any crime.

Critics dispute the department’s move, saying it distorted facts and appeared to serve the president’s personal political interests by giving an aide impunity to lie to government investigators.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying in an FBI interview on Jan. 24, 2017, to conceal conversations with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador at the time. The conversations involved talks before Trump took office about avoiding U.S. sanctions and other policies imposed late in Barack Obama’s administration after Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

In a declassified email released Tuesday by Senate Republicans, former national security adviser Susan E. Rice noted concern in Obama’s White House about the frequency of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak and that the then-FBI director said sharing classified information with him could “potentially” be an issue. Obama emphasized that the handling of the Russia investigation should be done by the book, Rice wrote in a note to herself on Jan. 20, 2017, which was Inauguration Day.

In their filing Tuesday, Flynn’s lawyers said prosecutors, not judges, have the authority to decide how to handle pending criminal charges. Judges, they said, may not “change the issues in the case by inviting or appointing” others to perform the executive branch’s duties to investigate or prosecute.

“A district court cannot deny the Government’s motion to dismiss because the judge has ‘a disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority,’ they said. “Nor should a court second-guess the Government’s ‘conclusion that additional prosecution or punishment would not serve the public interest.’”

In asking that the case be reassigned, Flynn’s defense criticized Sullivan for suggesting at a December 2018 hearing that Flynn may have committed “treason,” before correcting himself, and for saying the former general had “sold [his] country out.”

“This is an umpire who has decided to steal public attention from the players and focus it on himself,” Powell wrote. “He wants to pitch, bat, run bases, and play shortstop. In truth, he is way out in left field.”

 

The filing also suggests that the retired judge Sullivan appointed is not impartial because of an opinion piece by Gleeson that appeared in The Washington Post. In the article, Gleeson questioned the Justice Department’s move to dismiss the case against Flynn and suggested that the court “assess the credibility of the department’s stated reasons for abruptly reversing course.”

Flynn’s attorneys petitioned the appeals court for a writ of mandamus, used when no other relief is available, that requires a party to show “clear and indisputable” right to reverse error by a court. Meeting that high bar may be difficult because the judge has not made a decision yet on the Justice Department’s request, but has appointed a retired judge to advise him now that the government has decided to drop the case.

In abandoning the nearly three-year-old case, the Justice Department cited recently uncovered FBI records showing that the bureau had decided to close a counterintelligence investigation of Flynn — dubbed Operation Razor — before learning of his December 2016 calls with Kislyak. The Justice Department also said the FBI knew from transcripts that the calls probably did not give rise to a crime by themselves and that FBI officials differed over how to handle or interpret his actions.

 

Legal analysts and those involved in the case vigorously dispute the Justice Department’s claims as an attempt to please the president and attack his adversaries.

Critics of Attorney General William P. Barr’s decision argued that the FBI had ample legitimate grounds to investigate Flynn’s lies, which went to the heart of the investigation into whether Trump’s campaign coordinated with Russia’s interference in the election.

Flynn admitted under oath three times before two federal judges that he gave false statements to the FBI as well as to the White House. Federal law criminalizes lying in any matter under court, congressional or executive branch jurisdiction.

 

Seriously, critics notwithstanding - in what what court of law can a judge (after both the prosecutor and the defendant BOTH determine to drop a case brought before it) determine he/she can exact prosecution on the defendant?  Isn't a judge.....a judge?  IMHO - This guy needs to be thrown off the bench.

 

The most ridiculous part is there are lunatics who are cheering for the renegade judge. 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Howe said:

The most ridiculous part is there are lunatics who are cheering for the renegade judge. 

Ahh yes. A judge is a renegade cause Flynn broke the law and Barr didn't care. 

Flynn and Barr will eventually end up in jail. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

you came to the right place it would seem........and throw reasoning and logic right out the door.

Will be interesting to see if people accept your new "L" word......

Trump and his followers have never used reasoning or logic and its hilarious yall think you do. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

Ahh yes. A judge is a renegade cause Flynn broke the law and Barr didn't care. 

Flynn and Barr will eventually end up in jail. 

Last week, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for as unanimous Supreme Court decision eviscerating and reversing  the 9th District Circuit Court for inviting outside council to brief on an issue not before them. 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...