Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (71244)	5/12/2018 11:48:30 AM
From: Mannie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 365066

Nothing to lose in trying. Really? Can’t imagine any possible downside possibilities from this action?

To: i-node who wrote (71244)	5/12/2018 12:04:01 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By James Seagrove Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 365066

BRENNAN, STRZOK AND KERRY ALLEGEDLY SET “SPY TRAPS” FOR TRUMP TEAM; HUNT FOR FBI MOLE INTENSIFIES This U.S. citizen, according the WSJ report, is a spy that the FBI embedded in the Trump campaign Zero Hedge - MAY 12, 2018 143 Comments *Yesterday we reported on a disturbing op-ed in the Wall Street Journal* by Kimberly Strassel suggesting the FBI had a mole within the Trump campaign.** After a battle between House Intel Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein over the release of classified information that was so top-secret that the DOJ refused to show Nunes on the grounds that it “could risk lives by potentially exposing the source, a U.S. citizen who has provided intelligence to the CIA and FBI” – the agency finally relented on Wednesday, allowing Nunes and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to receive a classified briefing. This U.S. citizen, according the WSJ report, is a spy that the FBI embedded in the Trump campaign – and Strassel says she knows who it is but won’t say. “I believe I know the name of the informant, but my intelligence sources did not provide it to me and refuse to confirm it. It would therefore be irresponsible to publish it.” Mole hunt In February, The Last Refuge reported that Trump campaign advisor Carter Page was working as an “under-cover employee” (UCE) for the FBI – helping the agency build a case against “Evgeny Buryakov,” Then – seven months later, the FBI told a FISA court Page was a spy. In April 2017, writing a story about Carter Page (trying to enhance/affirm the Russian narrative), the New York Times outlined Page’s connections to the Trump campaign. However, New York Times also references Page’s prior connection to the Buryakov case. If you ignore the narrative, you discover the UCE1 description is Carter Page. READ [Notice how the story is shaped] LINK HERE – The Last Refuge When asked over Twitter by OANN‘s Jack Posobiec whether it was him, Page denied the charge – replying “But if what I’m hearing alleged is correct, it’s a guy I know who splits most his time between inside the Beltway and in one of the other Five Eyes countries,” adding “And if so, it’d be typical: swamp creatures putting themselves first.” Read more

To: i-node who wrote (71244)	5/12/2018 12:10:39 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 365066

Never mind that 2/3 of the American public and almost all American foreign policy experts thought the deal was stupid Just making shit up doesn't make it true. You keep repeating stuff like this and pretending as if it was factual.

To: i-node who wrote (71244)	5/12/2018 12:37:42 PM
From: one_less	2 Recommendations Recommended By i-node Thomas M. Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 365066

>>>"I understand you cannot stand Trump and no matter what he does you’ll feel the same. "<<< I can't stand him either. I like Obama, most people do. However, foreign affairs went down the toilet under Obama's watch. He called ISIS the Junior Varsity (well ok, 10,000 American troops could have crushed them at the border when they started crossing) and then ISIS kicked ass in the world like there was no defense against them. The Middle East literally was aflame and the world was cowed by their terrorist conduct. Still people liked Obama, harped on how nice we are for electing a black president, and the media was hesitant to do much less than gush over him. Now ISIS is defeated, the economy is booming and I see 5-10 troubling articles a day, every day, all year spelling doom for Trump. ... and that's the rest of the story.

To: i-node who wrote (71244)	5/12/2018 3:02:38 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 365066

You supported Ibama who... You keep saying that. Where did you get that idea? Is your world so binary to you that questioning the basis of Trump's decision on on this matter must mean Obama supporter? False dichotomy. And no, there is no false dichotomy. A nuclear Iran is the very issue at stake. You're just full of them. You posed that the alternative to questioning Trump's decision in this case is tolerating "a nuclear Iran." False dichotomy. Your implied argument is either that the Obama agreement would not lead to a nuclear Iran OR that Trump walking away won’t provide denuclearization assurance. You still have not demonstrated a rationale to contradict either of those "OR"s. I have not seen any reasoning for why the JCPA makes a nuclear Iran more likely let alone inevitably leads to it. Nor have I seen you argue any suggested approach that Trump might take that would provide denuclearization assurance. Without "showing your work," as they used to say on math tests, how is one supposed to consider someone's assertion more than a half-baked notion? There is a third option which likely would have prevented it, and that is a hard hitting war. Yes, you may recall that I brought that up way back. Message 31610992 You didn't; I did. Nor did you bite when I mentioned it. Yeah, if you absolutely want to stop Iran's becoming nuclear, enough that you don't care about repercussions, that would likely work. Yet, instead, you've been hinting at some vague new agreement, which is the closest you've come to explaining an how we might be better off out of the JCPA. But that is stupid when time is the crucial factor. I really don't get this. With JCPA we have seven more years without a nuclear Iran in the bag. Without the JCPA, Iran is free to begin to ratchet back up at any time. It is beyond my ken how you can call it stupid to continue to take advantage those nuclear-free years rather than just throwing them away, whatever may come afterwards. So, we have different views of what comprises leadership. I can deal with that. Not leadership. Rational decision making. I recognize his leadership skills. His base will obviously follow him anywhere. I don’t like him personally, either. I am able to differentiate between my distaste for him and his actions on any given decision. Sometimes it does take some effort, but I can and do. And I am doing so here. The status quo is always the default. I see no logical basis for dumping the JCPA. He hasn't shown me one and neither have you.