Turkey fans BOO during pre-match minute's silence for the victims of Paris attacks an

[Unregistered]

That's a depraved take.....consider readers the simplicity of this logic.

1) the GOP love minority rights [b] FACT: they successfully fillibustered ~70 Obama judicial nominees. They loved the fillibuster. When in the minority.

2) GOP fillibustered. Garland for a year because of claim a popular president in his last year does not have enough popular support doesn't get a nomination In last year. An invention of Mitch McConnell. Ok guess we have to play that's the system even though GOP abuses

3) unpopular president (LOST popular vote after all) under cloud of suspicion of foreign influence makes nomination. Dark money backs same candidate. Russia ? Illegally laundered? Sorry.

4) nuclear option gains you GOresuch ....awesome for you ....either way looks like GOresuch to me so what diff....

5) in a couple years when team D has 51 votes it's Medicare for all! HUGE hikes to minimum wage etc

Proceed guvnor .....

Trump is still more popular than Pelosi, Schumer and Clinton.

And the Democrat Party is going to be a lot less popular when one of their own heads off to prison over this.

Bwahahaha!

[Unregistered]

Trump is still more popular than Pelosi, Schumer and Clinton.

And the Democrat Party is going to be a lot less popular when one of their own heads off to prison over this.

Bwahahaha!

Problem is he drives a different bus so you console with that while his presidency burns.

[Unregistered]

I can see why the Ivan's want to focus on Dems

Civil war is here ....pass the popcorn !

After a series of high-level White House leaks portraying Steve Bannon as fed up with his job and ready to quit, Trump's chief strategist has told associates the stories are "100 percent nonsense" and he's playing for keeps.

I love a gunfight
— Bannon to associates in the past 24 hours.


Even for this leaky, rivalrous White House, the Bannon broadside was brutal. Numerous officials torched the senior adviser in media stories, did nothing to soften the Bannon-loses-power narrative and watched gleefully as Drudge and others trumpeted his fall. Truth is, the hatred between the two wings is intense and irreconcilable.

The two sides: The Bannonites believe the liberals staged a coup and will turn Trump into a conventional squish who betrays the very voters who brought him to power. The Jared wing thinks the Bannonites are clinically nuts.

Killing Bannon won't be easy: His staunchest ally is one of Trump's closest confidants — Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Kellyanne Conway will go to the mat for him, as will policy advisor Stephen Miller. He's also built strong relationships with other cabinet secretaries including Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. In the end, though, family matters most and all but dad are done with Bannon and his politics.

Bannon's allies on the outside include, as Trump might say, some "bad hombres."

"Steve has developed strong and important relationships with some of the most powerful right-leaning business leaders," said a close Bannon ally outside of the White House. "I see some bad press in [Jared's] future."

[Unregistered]

Whine when Bannon takes a role.

Whine when Bannon leaves a role.

See a common denominator?

[Unregistered]

Bwahahaha!

Keep making excuses for the demise of the Democrat Party.

"The intelligence reports at the center of the Susan Rice unmasking controversy were detailed, and almost resembled a private investigator’s file, according to a Republican congressman familiar with the documents.

"This is information about their everyday lives," Rep. Peter King of New York, a member of the House Intelligence committee said. "Sort of like in a divorce case where lawyers are hired, investigators are hired just to find out what the other person is doing from morning until night and then you try to piece it together later on.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...day-lives.html

This confirms what Nunes had said that it had nothing to do with Russia. They were monitoring a private citizen's every day life. BIG BROTHER (or in this case Big Sister) IS WATCHING YOU.

SUSAN RICE, April 4, 2017

"If I saw an intelligence report that looked potentially significant ... I can make that request."

"There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to — name not provided — just 'U.S. person.' And sometimes, in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out or request the information as to who the U.S. official was. The intelligence community made the determination as to whether or not the identity of that American individual could be provided to me."

SUSAN RICE, March 22, 2017

“I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today … So today, I really don’t know to what Chairman Nunes was referring. But he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was potentially incidental collection on American citizens.”

LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!

Since when does one's daily life become a security issue? Is that before or only after you win the election?

[Unregistered]

Whine when Bannon takes a role.

Whine when Bannon leaves a role.

See a common denominator?

What the TeeHeeMan and his kind don't get is that most of us could give a s hit. We did care that the left was trying to unfairly smear the guy, but could care less whether he's on the NS team or not.

[Unregistered]

What the TeeHeeMan and his kind don't get is that most of us could give a s hit. We did care that the left was trying to unfairly smear the guy, but could care less whether he's on the NS team or not.

Exactly. All the blubber about Bannon and I think "Who?" Barely heard of him before, never read anything from him, and don't intend to. But, since we're all racists we apparently all follow in line.

Free thought is foreign to the dems...

[Unregistered]

Problem is he drives a different bus so you console with that while his presidency burns.

Except his presidency isn't burning except in the eyes of the liberal media and those who actually have faith in what they report..... or don't report as in the case of Susan Rice.

Just heard a perfect summation of all of this coming from Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric. He spoke of the difference in attitude when he met with business leaders since Trump was elected. He mentioned the soaring consumer confidence. And then he mentioned going out to dinner with a bunch of well known media people and their attitudes reflected the complete opposite.

But the media people don't matter any more. Chris Hedges and Matt Tiabbi, both very left wing, drove home that point in those articles posted yesterday.

[Unregistered]

https://www.conservativereview.com/c...usan-rice-spin

His FB post was more down the middle than represented here, so go hunt that down if you wish. But, this snippet captures it:

It’s a shame to see the media in such a sorry state, but that’s the consequence of blind hyper-partisanship. Liberals on CNN would rather wage their crusade against President Trump than report on potential abuses by the Obama administration. Fox News, meanwhile, are on the defensive for the Trump administration, and both sides are talking past each other as the audience’s eyes glaze over.

[Unregistered]

Except his presidency isn't burning except in the eyes of the liberal media and those who actually have faith in what they report..... or don't report as in the case of Susan Rice.

Just heard a perfect summation of all of this coming from Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric. He spoke of the difference in attitude when he met with business leaders since Trump was elected. He mentioned the soaring consumer confidence. And then he mentioned going out to dinner with a bunch of well known media people and their attitudes reflected the complete opposite.

But the media people don't matter any more. Chris Hedges and Matt Tiabbi, both very left wing, drove home that point in those articles posted yesterday.

To drive home that point: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ol6m1.facebook

Why is mainstream media trying to cover up the Susan Rice story?

So why is this a big story that deserves attention? Simply put, one of the highest-ranking members of the previous administration unmasked names of members of the incoming administration via classified intelligence reports, prompting many questions that warrant dogged journalism:

Who leaked the information to newspapers like The Washington Post?

Who, if anyone, ordered Rice to unmask the names of private U.S. citizens in the first place?

Was the ultimate objective of spying and exposing Trump associates for political purposes or for national security reasons?

And why did Rice lie when originally asked about an announcement by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) that Trump and some transition team members were incidentally swept up in surveillance?

All good questions any reputable journalist might want to pursue, but the bigger point of the article is why did the mainstream media not only ignore the story, but in many cases (examples given) go to such lengths to squash it? As the author says: The bias of omission is the most dangerous kind of bias there is. It's also becoming the most prevalent.

[Unregistered]

To drive home that point: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ol6m1.facebook


Who leaked the information to newspapers like The Washington Post?

Who, if anyone, ordered Rice to unmask the names of private U.S. citizens in the first place?

Was the ultimate objective of spying and exposing Trump associates for political purposes or for national security reasons?

And why did Rice lie when originally asked about an announcement by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) that Trump and some transition team members were incidentally swept up in surveillance?

Hey TeeHeeMan, you want to tackle any of those questions? What has MoveOn.org told you to say?

Here's one of my own too: What's the bigger story? The Russians trying to spy on the US (like that hasn't been going on forever and the US wasn't doing the same)? Or our own government spying on private citizens (which we been warned about for years)?

[Unregistered]

https://www.conservativereview.com/c...usan-rice-spin

His FB post was more down the middle than represented here, so go hunt that down if you wish. But, this snippet captures it:

It’s a shame to see the media in such a sorry state, but that’s the consequence of blind hyper-partisanship. Liberals on CNN would rather wage their crusade against President Trump than report on potential abuses by the Obama administration. Fox News, meanwhile, are on the defensive for the Trump administration, and both sides are talking past each other as the audience’s eyes glaze over.

Not criticizing your post, just pointing out that Fox is the only media outlet that presents a conservative/Republican view point. They are the current leading cable news outlet with just shy of 2 million viewers according to March ratings reported in Variety. The Hill reported that their February ratings were more than CNN and MSNBC combined. Great for them. But The Hill also reported in the article posted above "Likely more than 27 million people watched the three network newscasts combined that evening" so far more people still get their news from liberal news outlets. So this brings up the question why liberals are so obsessed with Fox (Faux) News?

[Unregistered]

Exactly. All the blubber about Bannon and I think "Who?" Barely heard of him before, never read anything from him, and don't intend to. But, since we're all racists we apparently all follow in line.

Free thought is foreign to the dems...

If he was a Dem, he would be promoted , just like Susan Rice was after her lies.
Bravo to the Trump Administration for stepping up to the plate. Trump's future , and the future of the country are going to be highly influenced by Ivanka and her husband. The writing is on the wall. She'll be the one to keep an eye on.

[Unregistered]

Soooooo, the Dems have been criticizing Trump for his tweet in March accusing Obama of "wiretapping" Trump Tower. "Oh that ignoramous Trump, doesn't he know you can't wiretap anyone?" say the Dems.

Well, well, looky here.

From the 2010 MIT textbook called "Privacy on the Line: The Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption"

"Wiretapping is the traditional term for interception of telephone conversations. This should not be taken too literally. The word is no longer restricted to communications traveling by wire, and contemporary wiretaps are more commonly placed on radio links [ed. cell phones] or inside telephone offices. The meaning has also broadened in that the thing being tapped need no longer be a telephone call in the classic sense; it may be some other form of electronic communication, such as a fax or data.

Compared with the more precise but more general phrase "communications interception," the word "wiretapping" has two connotations. Much the stronger of these is that a wiretap is aimed at a particular target, in sharp contrast to the "vacuum cleaner" interception widely practiced by national intelligence agencies. The weaker connotation is that it is being done by the police."

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/privacy-line


Once again the ignorance of the smug liberal media exposed!

[Unregistered]

Just too caught up in the minutiae and looking for "gotchas" then to get past the real point.

Smugness is right.