patrick.net

Dan8267 says

If Hillary did anything remotely like this, they would call it treason and have articles of impeachment tattooed on their asses.

Impossible. Hillary will never be president.

"The MSM reaction was disgusting. An anonymously sourced hysterical article, copied/pasted into every other MSM outlet?"

Except that's not what happened. That is another of your lies. Each outlet fact checked it and got confirmation from their own sources before running with it.

"Undeniable the MSM got it wrong"

Great--please detail what they got wrong.

joeyjojojunior says

Except that's not what happened. That is another of your lies. Each outlet fact checked it and got confirmation from their own sources before running with it.

You are telling me the anonymous source spoke to every MSM outlet?

"You are telling me the anonymous source spoke to every MSM outlet?"

I have no idea how many different sources there are on this story, but it was fact checked by every outlet.

Obviously somebody is trying to send a message to Trump about his careless ways and wanted this story to get out as widely as possible.

The shame of their racist stupidity has forced them to take action.
Who was that Republican S.C. Governor that allowed the CONfederate flag to be taken down?
And the S.C. voters allowed her to get a OVERPOWERING Big Govt. Socialist Job,which I thought they didn't like.
States' Rights losers.

joeyjojojunior says

"Undeniable the MSM got it wrong"

Great--please detail what they got wrong.

I was quite clear. Read before responding.

The hysterical judgement of trump's decision w a bare minimum of facts, before they even ask the people in the room what happened, is absolute fake news.

"I was quite clear. Read before responding. The hysterical judgement of trump's decision w a bare minimum of facts, before they even ask the people in the room what happened, is absolute fake news."

OK, back to trolling I see. No use engaging.

joeyjojojunior says

OK, back to trolling I see. No use engaging.

Knowing less than all relevant facts is enough to make a hysterical judgement to you? Got it.

Some of us like to think critically.

"Knowing less than all relevant facts is enough to make a hysterical judgement to you? Got it"

OK--I'll ask again. What relevant facts were unknown?

Dan8267 says

"First statues go, next you liberals will be burning prohibited books like Nazis in the 30s. That never comes late."

No, it's always conservatives that ban and burn books. Always has been, always will be.

This is completely true. Liberals have never, ever burned books. Conservatives frequently do. Conservatives also frequently ban books.

In dan's mind antifa, Youtube/Google/FB, SJW's, ISIS, top universities banning offensive course content, and every western liberal democracy with anti-hate speech laws are all conservatives.

There is a major communication/messaging gap-which I am surprised. He needs some strong experienced calm people and needs to listen. This is not working. I feel sorry for the underlings who have to clean up the mess-I still generally like him.

But he needs more discipline and better communications people.

lostand confused says

There is a major communication/messaging gap-which I am surprised. He needs some strong experienced calm people and needs to listen. This is not working. I feel sorry for the underlings who have to clean up the mess-I still generally like him.

But he needs more discipline and better communications people.

See? Thats a rational response. No hysterics, judgment only where we know the relevant facts.

joeyjojojunior says

"Knowing less than all relevant facts is enough to make a hysterical judgement to you? Got it"

OK--I'll ask again. What relevant facts were unknown?

Are you really incapable of answering this yourself? Do you think you know all relevant facts now? How about 20 minutes after the story broke?

You still havent answered my question: Do you think the anonymous source spoke to every MSM outlet? Or did they all just copy/paste from WashPo? How exactly do you define this as source checking?

Has anyone worked in a news room? Please speak up and explain how an anonymous source can be quoted by 8 different outlets.

"Are you really incapable of answering this yourself?"

Whoa now. YOU said they didn't have all the facts. Any reasonable person would interpret that to mean that there are facts that you are aware of that the MSM didn't have.

So which facts did the MSM not know about? Please detail them. Otherwise it's just another in a long list of CBOE lies.

joeyjojojunior says

"Are you really incapable of answering this yourself?"

Whoa now. YOU said they didn't have all the facts. Any reasonable person would interpret that to mean that there are facts that you are aware of that the MSM didn't have.

So which facts did the MSM not know about? Please detail them. Otherwise it's just another in a long list of CBOE lies.

It's offical. JJ is a troll. GJ champ!

"Has anyone worked in a news room? Please speak up and explain how an anonymous source can be quoted by 8 different outlets."

Are you kidding me? The same source probably texted all the outlets and said here's the quote you can run with. Do you think this is rocket science?

"It's offical. JJ is a troll. GJ champ!"

lol--I see. Asking you to back up your BS is now considered trolling?

joeyjojojunior says

Are you kidding me? The same source probably texted all the outlets and said here's the quote you can run with. Do you think this is rocket science?

Umm ok.

CBOEtrader says

Do you think the anonymous source spoke to every MSM outlet?

http://theresurgent.com/i-know-one-of-the-sources/

This is the same old story. Trump does what he wants and doesn't listen to his advisers. The advisers leak to the press as a way of communicating how important something is to him.

joeyjojojunior says

"It's offical. JJ is a troll. GJ champ!"

lol--I see. Asking you to back up your BS is now considered trolling?

Do you think you know all the relevant facts? Do you think you knew all the relevant facts 20 minutes after this broke?

Only a handful of people in the world could say yes to either. So, for all of us, the answer is NO to both. We maybe know 10% of relevant facts now, and knew perhaps 2% when the story broke. Ofc, this itself is a judgement, so fill in your own numbers.

The question remains: do you think it is appropriate to judge a situation in which we know so few of the relevant facts? How about once we factor in the anonymous source as ONLY SPEAKING TO WashPo? At what point do you find totally ambiguous, anonymously sourced, copy-cat hysterics to be irrational?

Some of us like to think critically, which means admitting we cant possibly know enough to judge this situation properly.

lostand confused says

joeyjojojunior says

Are you kidding me? The same source probably texted all the outlets and said here's the quote you can run with. Do you think this is rocket science?

Umm ok.

R u fucking kidding? The source committed a felony, or at the very least would lose his career if caught... and the NSA knows everything.

No way this guy is stupid enough to send a mass text. LOLZ

Well! I...uh,who are you? Where am I?
Who lives in this big white house?

Everyone that owns an equity at closing bell on the date it goes ex-div, are paid the dividend, regardless how long they hold the stock. You can sell at open the next day and you're still going to get paid. AFAIK this applies to all dividend paying equities, the same way. Edit: close

https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answers-dividenhtm.html

"R u fucking kidding? The source committed a felony, or at the very least would lose his career if caught... and the NSA knows everything. No way this guy is stupid enough to send a mass text. LOLZ"

Depends on what he said. What felony did he commit exactly? Trump declassified all the info already, right?

joeyjojojunior says

Trump declassified all the info already, right?

If its not illegal, he would certainly be fired. Regardless, this source needs to stay anonymous.

Do you really think he texted the MSM outlets? Does anyone know how this went down?

You guys have an idea in your head-that Hilalry hatched-and tie everything to it. The craziness is just bizarre-have fun.

The only thing Trump mentioned was the Laptop Threat, something the TSA announced to the public, banning laptops for MENA flights back 2 months ago.
https://www.wired.com/2017/03/tsas-new-ban-laptops-cabins-may-not-worst-thing/

Rumor is the info in the leak to Wapo includes far, far, more detail than Trump ever discussed with Lavrov . The leaker is disseminating OTHER national security secrets that were not even discussed at the meeting.

"If its not illegal, he would certainly be fired. Regardless, this source needs to stay anonymous. Do you really think he texted the MSM outlets? Does anyone know how this went down?"

The point is it is VERY easy to give the same quote to multiple media outlets.

"The info in the leak to Wapo includes far, far, more detail than Trump discussed with Lavrov. The leaker is disseminating OTHER national security secrets that were not even discussed at the meeting."

Bullshit. You have no idea in hell.

"Nope, but apparently there is a rumor this is the case. If so, an investigation must begin immediately; obviously the WaPo did not vet their anonymous source."

Sounds great. It was a member of Trump's inner circle. Let's appoint a special counsel and he/she can investigate Trump's ties to Russia as well as which member of Trump's inner circle is leaking.

joeyjojojunior says

Bullshit. You have no idea in hell.

Kind of like the evidence linking Trump and Russia, ie a complete and total lack, even the weakest circumstantial pieces, like the Trump Servers communicating with Russian Banks that turned out to be Marketing Spam sent to Wealthy Russians

However, the evidence Hillary mishandled classified emails, that Huma left classified emails on the personal computer (strike 1) of a suspected sex offender (strike 2), is firm. The fact Podesta Group filed 5 years late about being paid to lobby by pro-Russian Ukrainian Group, the same one that paid Manafort who was investigated, is also firmly evidenced by their own filings. That needs an investigation.

The Podesta email about getting all leakers and the daytime, robbery-free murder of Rich is also deserving of an investigation.

Here's the official explanation from The White House:

Last Wednesday, President Donald J. Trump met with the Russian Foreign Minister and discussed counterterrorism and the common civil aviation security threats to the United States and Russia. Senior cabinet and national security advisors were present at the exchange between the President and Foreign Minister and agree that the conversations were appropriate, legitimate, and an important part of America’s efforts to combat the global terrorist threat. At no time during the meeting were any sources, methods, or military operations jeopardized. Civil aviation threats are real and there is nothing more important to President Trump than the safety and security of the American people.

"Kind of like the evidence linking Trump and Russia, ie a complete and total lack, even the weakest circumstantial pieces, like the Trump Servers communicating with Russian Banks that turned out to be Marketing Spam sent to Wealthy Russians"

No, nothing like that.

1. We don't know what the evidence is as the FBI hasn't disclosed what they have found.
2. The Trump Servers didn't turn out to be Marketing Spam. That is one possible explanation, albeit an explanation that doesn't seem to fit the facts. Again. Another reason for a special counsel to investigate and get to the bottom of it. Why are the Republicans fighting it?

What do they have to hide?

Dan8267 says

bob2356 says

You have to be at war with a country to commit treason.

The United States is in a constant state of war with everyone else.

A declared war. The kind where congress votes on a formal declaration of war not a resolution for the use of military force. Article 1 section 8 of the constitution.

"Nope. There's been no evidence since investigations began into Trump and his Associates in July of last year, about 300 days ago. At this point, there is no evidence, and all circumstantial leads have been shown to be fruitless."

And you know this how? Have you seen what the FBI has found?

So Trump gave one enemies information to another, who cares.

Nothing secret here. TSA announced laptop restrictions on aviation from the MENA months ago.

CBOEtrader says

we can NOT definitively judge Trump's decision w hysterics.

I don't see hysterics. I see another data point.

People such as David Brooks reacting so strongly (with his piece about Trumps childishness) are showing a pent up disappointment. It's not just this, it's not just Comey firing and this. It's Not just the crazy tweets, the Comey firing and this. It accumulates and unfortunately will continue to accumulate. It's the trend that people are reacting to so strongly. Not one thing.

But it's true that his supporters aren't there yet. But more and more you're going to be hearing from all the conservatives that were reluctant supporters in the first place.

CBOEtrader says

Knowing less than all relevant facts is enough to make a hysterical judgement to you? Got it.

Some of us like to think critically.

So where was all this critical thinking and waiting for relevant facts when Obama was president? It's different now some how?