Draining the swmp?

[bullypulpit]

No, the septuagenarian degenerate is not only NOT draining the swamp, he's filling it with poisonous, plutocratic reptiles. And y'all thought he was gonna help working folks. Be funny if the joke was just on everyone who voted for the grifter, but we're all going to be taking it in the shorts.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9517&stc=1

[Balu]

No, the septuagenarian degenerate is not only NOT draining the swamp, he's filling it with poisonous, plutocratic reptiles. And y'all thought he was gonna help working folks. Be funny if the joke was just on everyone who voted for the grifter, but we're all going to be taking it in the shorts.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9517&stc=1

I don't understand what's the reason to speak about anything beforehand?
May be it is much more reasonable let him make his steps and see the results since Americans elected him in strict accordance with the existing procedure?
Or Nostradamus' laurels deprive the quiet life?

[Elessar]

No, the septuagenarian degenerate is not only NOT draining the swamp, he's filling it with poisonous, plutocratic reptiles. And y'all thought he was gonna help working folks. Be funny if the joke was just on everyone who voted for the grifter, but we're all going to be taking it in the shorts.



So? What's the problem...that these people are successful and you wallow in 'gimme, gimme, gimme' dung?

Why not get out of your comfortable high chair and make an effort?

[NightTrain]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9519&stc=1

[Elessar]

I don't understand what's the reason to speak about anything beforehand?
May be it is much more reasonable let him make his steps and see the results since Americans elected him in strict accordance with the existing procedure?
Or Nostradamus' laurels deprive the quiet life?

It's just the "Whaaa...I Lost, so I have to shake my rattle and pound my high chair tray to get attention".:laugh:

Where was bully leading up to Election Day...? Nowhere in sight, but now that it is over,
SHAZAMM...the little twirp appears.:laugh:

[aboutime]

No, the septuagenarian degenerate is not only NOT draining the swamp, he's filling it with poisonous, plutocratic reptiles. And y'all thought he was gonna help working folks. Be funny if the joke was just on everyone who voted for the grifter, but we're all going to be taking it in the shorts.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9517&stc=1


http://icansayit.com/images/pampers.jpg
Bully. We can all join together here, and deliver your TRUCKLOAD of DNC, LIBERAL, ANTI-WHINE PROTECTION TO SAVE YOU FROM YOURSELF, and OTHERS FOR FREE!
Please accept this box as a token of our laughter, and pity for your lapse in humanity.

[revelarts]

Being a Millionaire is not the real problem, It's the all the people connected to Goldman and Sachs, and other Corporate types that he's taping that shows he's not that concerned about "daring the swamp he's just swapping ut alligators in some cases.

But Ben Carson is not a bought politician he's a Dr. and a few others are not part of the "usual suspect" but that the fact that he has ANY. looks fishy.
Heck Romney and Newt are part of the swamp as far as i'm concerned. I

But I suspect the True Trump Faithful will not have a problem is he Hillary Clinton in some post. They'd probably call it

"brilliant" cause 'he's a business man' and 'is makin' Amrika great again! woooo hoooo!'
'anyone that don't agree with Trump is just BUTTHURT.... did i say BUTTHURT!"
'your facts don't matter because "BUTTHURT!' chortle chortle
'I don't have to think rationally cause Trump is president and everyone else is BUTTHURT WOOOO!'
'i'll be back later with a new picture that has the word butthurt on it so i can respond to any butthurt facts that show my conservative views compromised or hypocritical and/or prove that Trump's not doing what he said... .'

[Balu]

I've got an idea!
But hat if Trump proposes to Clinton a position of his PR manager? She's so much succeeded in this field during the latest elections? http://s.rimg.info/94fe6aa7ed5fb0148ae2c95773529f4b.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-71344743.html)

[Elessar]

I've got an idea!
But hat if Trump proposes to Clinton a position of his PR manager? She's so much succeeded in this field during the latest elections? http://s.rimg.info/94fe6aa7ed5fb0148ae2c95773529f4b.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-71344743.html)

Good Gawd No!

She does not have any business in the White House - even as a guest! She can wait on the porch.

[aboutime]

Good Gawd No!

She does not have any business in the White House - even as a guest! She can wait on the porch.


Only way Hillary will ever get into the W/H ever again, will be with her water vacuum to SUCK OUT THE SEPTIC system leading to the Cesspool in the DNC building.

[gabosaurus]

Trump merely gentrified the swamp by bringing in wealthier gators. :cool:

[revelarts]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/59/5a/8b/595a8beaedb8baad22c561a9aa1dcc49.jpg

[BoogyMan]

No, the septuagenarian degenerate is not only NOT draining the swamp, he's filling it with poisonous, plutocratic reptiles. And y'all thought he was gonna help working folks. Be funny if the joke was just on everyone who voted for the grifter, but we're all going to be taking it in the shorts.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9517&stc=1

Your entire argument seems to be not about getting rid of corruption to drain the swamp, rather it is one of hate for those who are wealthy. Such angst based on accumulated wealth is a tenant of socialist ideology. Assumption that wealth = corruption is a childish and despotic view.

[jimnyc]

Hedge fund managers or what not... going to set someone aside just because of a title? If either side does that it's retarded. Base each individual on their track records and performances.

I've got no issue with any of the nominations.

[revelarts]

Hedge fund managers or what not... going to set someone aside just because of a title? If either side does that it's retarded. Base each individual on their track records and performances.
I've got no issue with any of the nominations.

"Base each individual on their track records and performances."
OK

Treasury Nominee Steve Mnuchin’s Bank Accused of “Widespread Misconduct”
in Leaked Memo...The memo obtained by The Intercept alleges that OneWest rushed delinquent homeowners out of their homes by violating notice and waiting period statutes, illegally backdated key documents, and effectively gamed foreclosure auctions.
In the memo (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3250383-OneWest-Package-Memo.html), the leaders of the state attorney general’s Consumer Law Section said they had “uncovered evidence suggestive of widespread misconduct” in a yearlong investigation. In a detailed 22-page request, they identified over a thousand legal violations in the small subsection of OneWest loans they were able to examine, and they recommended that Attorney General Kamala Harris file a civil enforcement action against the Pasadena-based bank. They even wrote up a sample legal complaint, seeking injunctive relief and millions of dollars in penalties.
But Harris’s office, without any explanation, declined to prosecute the case....
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/03/...n-leaked-memo/ (https://theintercept.com/2017/01/03/treasury-nominee-steve-mnuchins-bank-accused-of-widespread-misconduct-in-leaked-memo/)


Somehow i suspect you still don't care... but maybe i'm wrong.

[jimnyc]

Somehow i suspect you still don't care

This is why I stopped replying to some of your posts. Seems like tossing crap before one can even reply at all.

Post a bunch of articles from mainstream media backing up his illegal acts, then maybe I'll think about replying. But answering for me.... and using a conspiracy theory site? I'll wait for more legitimate sites to backup the accusations, which I'm sure you have prepared and will post for me.

[jimnyc]

The Dems have been questioning him, and have brought up some things - but not nearly close to such accusations. Are they in on this, and perhaps helping him I guess?

[revelarts]

This is why I stopped replying to some of your posts. Seems like tossing crap before one can even reply at all.

Post a bunch of articles from mainstream media backing up his illegal acts, then maybe I'll think about replying. But answering for me.... and using a conspiracy theory site? I'll wait for more legitimate sites to backup the accusations, which I'm sure you have prepared and will post for me.

the Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/mnuchin-bank-misconduct/512228/

NY Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/03/widespread-misconduct-at-bank-run-by-mnuchin/

CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/steven-mnuchin-onewest-evidence-of-problematic-practices/

CNBC
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/04/trump-treasury-pick-steven-mnuchins-former-bank-accused-of-widespread-misconduct.html

vanity fair
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/steven-mnuchin-onewest-memo

Democracy Now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kemhHFVxShg

[Black Diamond]

Being a Millionaire is not the real problem, It's the all the people connected to Goldman and Sachs, and other Corporate types that he's taping that shows he's not that concerned about "daring the swamp he's just swapping ut alligators in some cases.

But Ben Carson is not a bought politician he's a Dr. and a few others are not part of the "usual suspect" but that the fact that he has ANY. looks fishy.
Heck Romney and Newt are part of the swamp as far as i'm concerned. I

But I suspect the True Trump Faithful will not have a problem is he Hillary Clinton in some post. They'd probably call it

"brilliant" cause 'he's a business man' and 'is makin' Amrika great again! woooo hoooo!'
'anyone that don't agree with Trump is just BUTTHURT.... did i say BUTTHURT!"
'your facts don't matter because "BUTTHURT!' chortle chortle
'I don't have to think rationally cause Trump is president and everyone else is BUTTHURT WOOOO!'
'i'll be back later with a new picture that has the word butthurt on it so i can respond to any butthurt facts that show my conservative views compromised or hypocritical and/or prove that Trump's not doing what he said... .'
I will have a huge problem m with Hillary having any U.S. government job ever again. I don't care if it's trump, warren, or anyone else who thinks of doing it.

[NightTrain]

"Base each individual on their track records and performances."
OK
Treasury Nominee Steve Mnuchin’s Bank Accused of “Widespread Misconduct”
in Leaked Memo...The memo obtained by The Intercept alleges that OneWest rushed delinquent homeowners out of their homes by violating notice and waiting period statutes, illegally backdated key documents, and effectively gamed foreclosure auctions.
In the memo (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3250383-OneWest-Package-Memo.html), the leaders of the state attorney general’s Consumer Law Section said they had “uncovered evidence suggestive of widespread misconduct” in a yearlong investigation. In a detailed 22-page request, they identified over a thousand legal violations in the small subsection of OneWest loans they were able to examine, and they recommended that Attorney General Kamala Harris file a civil enforcement action against the Pasadena-based bank. They even wrote up a sample legal complaint, seeking injunctive relief and millions of dollars in penalties.
But Harris’s office, without any explanation, declined to prosecute the case....
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/03/...n-leaked-memo/ (https://theintercept.com/2017/01/03/treasury-nominee-steve-mnuchins-bank-accused-of-widespread-misconduct-in-leaked-memo/)


Somehow i suspect you still don't care... but maybe i'm wrong.

Rev, have you been paying attention to the outright bullshit published lately by large media outlets with no regard to the truth that is rapidly debunked?

Even if the charge is true - which remains to be seen - does that automatically mean that Mnuchin was aware and abetting the evildoing?

You're kind of going on a lot of faith here in a conspiracy theory again, aren't you?

[jimnyc]

the Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/01/mnuchin-bank-misconduct/512228/

NY Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/03/widespread-misconduct-at-bank-run-by-mnuchin/

CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/steven-mnuchin-onewest-evidence-of-problematic-practices/

CNBC
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/04/trump-treasury-pick-steven-mnuchins-former-bank-accused-of-widespread-misconduct.html

vanity fair
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/steven-mnuchin-onewest-memo

Democracy Now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kemhHFVxShg

I'm curious if you believe both sides... example... the first article, claims the leaked things were "garbage". Considering no charges, and him still advancing - where is the PROOF? Seems like a lot of accusations, but nothing to back it up. If it were to be backed up properly, he would likely be charged/convicted. I don't see that happening. Seems like folks that aren't fond of the banking industry, and the hedge fund crap, sling a lot of mud but nothing sticks. You posted this whole thing a bit back if you recall, and I looked into it and found nothing that "stuck" to sway me away from him.

[jimnyc]

Rev, have you been paying attention to the outright bullshit published lately by large media outlets with no regard to the truth that is rapidly debunked?

Even if the charge is true - which remains to be seen - does that automatically mean that Mnuchin was aware and abetting the evildoing?

You're kind of going on a lot of faith here in a conspiracy theory again, aren't you?

Imagine if the Dems had proof that stuck, against a Trump appointment? This would be headlines on every MSM outlet. The fact that the majority back off, likely shows they have done their due diligence and didn't come up with enough.

[Black Diamond]

Rev, have you been paying attention to the outright bullshit published lately by large media outlets with no regard to the truth that is rapidly debunked?

Even if the charge is true - which remains to be seen - does that automatically mean that Mnuchin was aware and abetting the evildoing?

You're kind of going on a lot of faith here in a conspiracy theory again, aren't you?
no. But if there was wrongdoing, the ceo is generally held accountable. I don't remember how, but I thought this crap was debunked a week or so ago.

[NightTrain]

I can't think of one nominee of Trump's that wasn't met with a wave of bullshit accusations from the democrats and the media.

The old adage of "fling enough shit and something is bound to stick" seems to be the order of the day.

Remember the AP story a couple days ago saying Trump told Mexico that he was thinking about sending down our military to clean up? It finally took Mexico to set the record straight that it never happened before the moonbats stopped parroting that.

And the AP never did issue a retraction on it, credible as their "unnamed source" in the WH was that overheard that conversation. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

I can't think of one nominee of Trump's that wasn't met with a wave of bullshit accusations from the democrats and the media.

The old adage of "fling enough shit and something is bound to stick" seems to be the order of the day.

Remember the AP story a couple days ago saying Trump told Mexico that he was thinking about sending down our military to clean up? It finally took Mexico to set the record straight that it never happened before the moonbats stopped parroting that.

And the AP never did issue a retraction on it, credible as their "unnamed source" in the WH was that overheard that conversation. :rolleyes:

Yup, it was also ran with here that he threatened with troops, and then I saw the headlines and believed it at face value. But of course I should have known better. Similar to "leaking" of pieces of the call with Australia. Like I said, some want to run with the bad news, some WANT the bad news...

[revelarts]

I'm curious if you believe both sides... example... the first article, claims the leaked things were "garbage". Considering no charges, and him still advancing - where is the PROOF? Seems like a lot of accusations, but nothing to back it up. If it were to be backed up properly, he would likely be charged/convicted. I don't see that happening. Seems like folks that aren't fond of the banking industry, and the hedge fund crap, sling a lot of mud but nothing sticks. You posted this whole thing a bit back if you recall, and I looked into it and found nothing that "stuck" to sway me away from him.


no. But if there was wrongdoing, the ceo is generally held accountable. I don't remember how, but I thought this crap was debunked a week or so ago.

I believe the court docs .. which are linked (https://www.occ.gov/static/ots/misc-docs/consent-orders-97665.pdf) in the various stories are a solid basis for the story.. somehow you guys overlooked them i guess.
but that would show most honest people that the story is real and it's a valid issue to consider.

But Hey as far as it's not going further to prosecution i can't say But we might want to consider what one story mentions:

"...Kristin Ford, communications director at the attorney general’s office, did not respond to a detailed request for comment. Without an official explanation, we can only speculate why Harris passed up the opportunity. Perhaps she judged the case too difficult, or not a high enough priority, or not having enough of a human interest. Or maybe it was something else.
Harris has been criticized for a lack of vigor (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-strike-force-that-never-struck/Content?oid=3933743) in prosecuting foreclosure fraud before. She set up a Mortgage Fraud Strike Force (https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-announces-creation-mortgage-fraud-strike-force) in 2011, dedicated to “protect innocent homeowners and bring justice to those who defraud them.” But despite hundreds of complaints of loan modification fraud — a primary target identified by the office — it only prosecuted 10 cases in the first three years.
County district attorneys and even attorneys general in other states filed many more California-based cases, despite more limited resources. And some of the cases Harris did file began under her predecessor Jerry Brown or were organized by other local and federal law enforcement teams; Harris just gave her strike-force credit for them.
In fact, many of the cases Harris’s office is known for were part of multistate or prior investigations. The 2012 $25 billion National Mortgage Settlement (http://www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com/) with five large mortgage servicers (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Ally Bank) over allegations of illegal foreclosure practices, which Harris touted in campaign ads (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYKZOmthBwo), was a 49-state and federal matter, where she was not deeply involved with negotiations and was criticized as a grandstander (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/business/how-kamala-harris-finessed-a-foreclosure-deal-for-california.html)..."

it's also interesting that the AG in california got a several thousand dollars in campaign contributions from Mnuchin at a later date.

But of Course if folks want to play defense attorney rather try to look at all the possible options here, then of course there's a way to explain it ALL AWAY. Or to imagine that the track records and performances of running a bank and being a hedge fund manager has nothing to do with running the treasury.
I guess he'll be able to claim he didn't know if the Treasury does wrong as well too, he's just the boss.

[NightTrain]

Like I said, some want to run with the bad news, some WANT the bad news...

And there are those who invent the bad news and run it for all it's worth.

Honestly, I think the democrats and accomplices are doing us all a favor - every bullshit story they cook up and beat to death with hysterical headlines ultimately discredits themselves that much more.

I don't think John Q. Public is buying it anymore and that's a good thing. These factors do influence elections, and I firmly believe we're seeing the death throes of the democrat party.

[revelarts]

And there are those who invent the bad news and run it for all it's worth.

Honestly, I think the democrats and accomplices are doing us all a favor - every bullshit story they cook up and beat to death with hysterical headlines ultimately discredits themselves that much more.

I don't think John Q. Public is buying it anymore and that's a good thing. These factors do influence elections, and I firmly believe we're seeing the death throes of the democrat party.

Nothing invented here NT

[Black Diamond]

I believe the court docs .. which are linked (https://www.occ.gov/static/ots/misc-docs/consent-orders-97665.pdf) in the various stories are a solid basis for the story.. somehow you guys overlooked them i guess.
but that would show most honest people that the story is real and it's a valid issue to consider.

But Hey as far as it's not going further to prosecution i can't say But we might want to consider what one story mentions:

"...Kristin Ford, communications director at the attorney general’s office, did not respond to a detailed request for comment. Without an official explanation, we can only speculate why Harris passed up the opportunity. Perhaps she judged the case too difficult, or not a high enough priority, or not having enough of a human interest. Or maybe it was something else.
Harris has been criticized for a lack of vigor (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-strike-force-that-never-struck/Content?oid=3933743) in prosecuting foreclosure fraud before. She set up a Mortgage Fraud Strike Force (https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-announces-creation-mortgage-fraud-strike-force) in 2011, dedicated to “protect innocent homeowners and bring justice to those who defraud them.” But despite hundreds of complaints of loan modification fraud — a primary target identified by the office — it only prosecuted 10 cases in the first three years.
County district attorneys and even attorneys general in other states filed many more California-based cases, despite more limited resources. And some of the cases Harris did file began under her predecessor Jerry Brown or were organized by other local and federal law enforcement teams; Harris just gave her strike-force credit for them.
In fact, many of the cases Harris’s office is known for were part of multistate or prior investigations. The 2012 $25 billion National Mortgage Settlement (http://www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com/) with five large mortgage servicers (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Ally Bank) over allegations of illegal foreclosure practices, which Harris touted in campaign ads (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYKZOmthBwo), was a 49-state and federal matter, where she was not deeply involved with negotiations and was criticized as a grandstander (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/business/how-kamala-harris-finessed-a-foreclosure-deal-for-california.html)..."

it's also interesting that the AG in california got a several thousand dollars in campaign contributions from Mnuchin at a later date.

But of Course if folks want to play defense attorney rather try to look at all the possible options here, then of course there's a way to explain it ALL AWAY. Or to imagine that the track records and performances of running a bank and being a hedge fund manager has nothing to do with running the treasury.
I guess he'll be able to claim he didn't know if the Treasury does wrong as well too, he's just the boss.
And Marvin Bush......

www.911hardfacts.com/report_09.htm


:coffee:

[jimnyc]

I believe the court docs .. which are linked (https://www.occ.gov/static/ots/misc-docs/consent-orders-97665.pdf) in the various stories are a solid basis for the story.. somehow you guys overlooked them i guess.

Nope. I just see accusations is all I'm saying, and no "beef" aka proof. But should they have actual proof, then deny him the appointment and get him out of there. I've got NO reason to back this guy. I just don't believe in 86'ing folks without actual proof/conviction. If their is proof that he broke laws... then have him indicted and what not. I don't see that happening. I believe it makes for a story, but again, no proof that the individual did anything wrong.

[jimnyc]

And there are those who invent the bad news and run it for all it's worth.

Honestly, I think the democrats and accomplices are doing us all a favor - every bullshit story they cook up and beat to death with hysterical headlines ultimately discredits themselves that much more.

I don't think John Q. Public is buying it anymore and that's a good thing. These factors do influence elections, and I firmly believe we're seeing the death throes of the democrat party.

I have no problems with stories coming out, and then the law officials, dems and repubs jumping all over it to get to the bottom. But I simply don't see anything here other than the aforementioned accusations. Perhaps the dems will find more information and cook his goose, but for now they haven't added anything additional, and likely plan on confirming him.

[Black Diamond]

I have no problems with stories coming out, and then the law officials, dems and repubs jumping all over it to get to the bottom. But I simply don't see anything here other than the aforementioned accusations. Perhaps the dems will find more information and cook his goose, but for now they haven't added anything additional, and likely plan on confirming him.
I don't know that rev and the media are counting on mnuchin being denied the confirmation.

[jimnyc]

I don't know that rev and the media are counting on mnuchin being denied the confirmation.

Oh, I know that, I'm just pointing out an extra layer. :)

[NightTrain]

Nothing invented here NT

I didn't claim that you did!

I'm not sure why you think I'm picking on you, Rev. I'm speaking directly and there's no insinuations that you're making anything up.

I do believe that you buy into conspiracy theories too easily, but that was established years ago when I stated that directly to you over the 9/11 truther thing - that doesn't mean I think you're a bad man or morally corrupt or anything else; in fact, I think the reverse is true.

I don't know why you have the defensive posture going. I still believe you're a good man that has a great moral base and I like you, believe it or not.

[revelarts]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by revelartshttp://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=855536#post855536)...
it's also interesting that the AG in california got a several thousand dollars in campaign contributions from Mnuchin at a later date.
And Marvin Bush......

:coffee:
OK so to you it's not even a little interesting that he donated to Former AG's Harris campaign which somehow failed to prosecute him when Her staff wanted to.


"Democratic Donor[/h]Mnuchin contributed thousands of dollars to the presidential campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the 2008 election cycle, to John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004, and to Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, as well as to numerous congressional Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political donations.
He also gave to several Republican candidates, including Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2012. But prior to 2012, donations to Democrats far outweighed those to Republicans.
Mnuchin told Bloomberg News (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-31/steven-mnuchin-businessweek) the Democratic donations were mostly favors to friends who were Democratic fundraisers.
He contributed $1,000 to Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign in New York in 2000. He also donated $1,000 to the presidential campaigns of Democrats Gore and Bill Bradley, who were competing against one another in the party’s primary that year. That same year, he also contributed $1,000 to Republican Steve Forbes’s presidential campaign.
Mnuchin contributed $2,000 to Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois in 2004, when he also gave $500 to Kerry’s presidential campaign.
Also in 2004, he contributed $10,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
In 2007, leading up to the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, Mnuchin contributed $2,300 to Obama’s campaign and another $2,300 to Clinton’s campaign.
But he also gave the maximum $2,300 to Romney’s campaign in the 2008 Republican presidential primary.
During the 2012 cycle, Mnuchin mostly contributed to Republicans. He donated $2,500 to Romney’s primary campaign and another $2,500 to his general election campaign. He donated $12,500 to the Republican National Committee in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
In the 2016 cycle, though Mnuchin gave $2,000 to the U.S. Senate campaign of Democrat Kamala Harris in California, (http://splash.kamalaharris.org/) he also gave $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. He gave $2,700 to Trump’s presidential campaign."

http://www.newsweek.com/five-things-know-about-treasury-pick-steven-mnuchin-526893

But newsweek is a conspiracy website so never mind.

[revelarts]

I didn't claim that you did!

I'm not sure why you think I'm picking on you, Rev. I'm speaking directly and there's no insinuations that you're making anything up.

I do believe that you buy into conspiracy theories too easily, but that was established years ago when I stated that directly to you over the 9/11 truther thing - that doesn't mean I think you're a bad man or morally corrupt or anything else; in fact, I think the reverse is true.

I don't know why you have the defensive posture going. I still believe you're a good man that has a great moral base and I like you, believe it or not.

the thing is the only person posting right now that you have problem with is me.
and it's funny to me that you guys ONLY bring up Conspriacy theories with me when you disagree and can't find any real facts to refute what i'm posting at the time.
when i post about about abortion and give facts there your'e not talking about 911 so why here?
it's a sleazy way to try and DISMISS without serious consideration the information that i've posted. Just ASSUME it must be conspiracy since you don't like the sound of it.
so sorry NT your not addressing this honestly.

If you guys DOn'T CARE what Mnuchin did Fine. but don't try to attack the messegeners ...the MSM, the Dems, me... then chortle, snort and dismiss it whenever you read something that puts your boys in a bad light.
Own it. or refute it. you did that with the email in the Trump admin story.
all this talk about manhood and stuff c'mon, you guys are sharp , be honest. you don't HAVE to like EVERYTHING Trump does or defend Everyone he choses blindly I think most of you are better than that.

[Black Diamond]

OK so to you it's not even a little interesting that he donated to Former AG's Harris campaign which somehow failed to prosecute him when Her staff wanted to.
"Democratic Donor[/h]Mnuchin contributed thousands of dollars to the presidential campaigns of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the 2008 election cycle, to John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004, and to Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, as well as to numerous congressional Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political donations.
He also gave to several Republican candidates, including Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign in 2012. But prior to 2012, donations to Democrats far outweighed those to Republicans.
Mnuchin told Bloomberg News (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-08-31/steven-mnuchin-businessweek) the Democratic donations were mostly favors to friends who were Democratic fundraisers.
He contributed $1,000 to Clinton’s U.S. Senate campaign in New York in 2000. He also donated $1,000 to the presidential campaigns of Democrats Gore and Bill Bradley, who were competing against one another in the party’s primary that year. That same year, he also contributed $1,000 to Republican Steve Forbes’s presidential campaign.
Mnuchin contributed $2,000 to Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois in 2004, when he also gave $500 to Kerry’s presidential campaign.
Also in 2004, he contributed $10,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
In 2007, leading up to the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, Mnuchin contributed $2,300 to Obama’s campaign and another $2,300 to Clinton’s campaign.
But he also gave the maximum $2,300 to Romney’s campaign in the 2008 Republican presidential primary.
During the 2012 cycle, Mnuchin mostly contributed to Republicans. He donated $2,500 to Romney’s primary campaign and another $2,500 to his general election campaign. He donated $12,500 to the Republican National Committee in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
In the 2016 cycle, though Mnuchin gave $2,000 to the U.S. Senate campaign of Democrat Kamala Harris in California, (http://splash.kamalaharris.org/) he also gave $100,000 to the Republican National Committee. He gave $2,700 to Trump’s presidential campaign."

http://www.newsweek.com/five-things-know-about-treasury-pick-steven-mnuchin-526893

But newsweek is a conspiracy website so never mind.
Newsweek is propagating a conspiracy theory in the bolded print . As are you.


Marvin Bush.

[Black Diamond]

the thing is the only person posting right now that you have problem with is me.
and it's funny to me that you guys ONLY bring up Conspriacy theories with me when you disagree and can't find any real facts to refute what i'm posting at the time.
when i post about about abortion and give facts there your'e not talking about 911 so why here?
it's a sleazy way to try and DISMISS without serious consideration the information that i've posted. Just ASSUME it must be conspiracy since you don't like the sound of it.
so sorry NT your not addressing this honestly.

If you guys DOn'T CARE what Mnuchin did Fine. but don't try to attack the messegeners ...the MSM, the Dems, me... then chortle, snort and dismiss it whenever you read something that puts your boys in a bad light.
Own it. or refute it. you did that with the email in the Trump admin story.
all this talk about manhood and stuff c'mon, you guys are sharp , be honest. you don't HAVE to like EVERYTHING Trump does or defend Everyone he choses blindly I think most of you are better than that.


Pretty sure you rank higher than Pete.

The "interesting stuff" you point out is as interesting as Obamas grandmother saying he was Kenyan born. Obama was born in Hawaii. End of story.

You and Newsweek are implying that mnuchin bought those politicians.

[jimnyc]

the thing is the only person posting right now that you have problem with is me.
and it's funny to me that you guys ONLY bring up Conspriacy theories with me when you disagree and can't find any real facts to refute what i'm posting at the time.
when i post about about abortion and give facts there your'e not talking about 911 so why here?
it's a sleazy way to try and DISMISS without serious consideration the information that i've posted. Just ASSUME it must be conspiracy since you don't like the sound of it.
so sorry NT your not addressing this honestly.

If you guys DOn'T CARE what Mnuchin did Fine. but don't try to attack the messegeners ...the MSM, the Dems, me... then chortle, snort and dismiss it whenever you read something that puts your boys in a bad light.
Own it. or refute it. you did that with the email in the Trump admin story.
all this talk about manhood and stuff c'mon, you guys are sharp , be honest. you don't HAVE to like EVERYTHING Trump does or defend Everyone he choses blindly I think most of you are better than that.



We don't care what he did? How lame. I already stated that if true, get rid of him. FACT is, there a lack of facts when it comes to this conspiracy theory. And who is "attacking" you?

There is NOTHING to refute as NOTHING has been posted other than accusations that aren't holding up to scrutiny.

[NightTrain]

the thing is the only person posting right now that you have problem with is me.
and it's funny to me that you guys ONLY bring up Conspriacy theories with me when you disagree and can't find any real facts to refute what i'm posting at the time.
when i post about about abortion and give facts there your'e not talking about 911 so why here?

I brought up the 9/11 Truther thing because that's where I first told you that I believe you subscribe to conspiracy theories easily.

This was done to remind you that my view of you has not changed over the many years that we've known each other. I'm not telling you anything new, unless you forgot that, so that's why the reminder.

I think you can agree that I could have been extremely insulting and offensive like I know you've seen me do to others I disagree with, but I strive to be as respectful of you as I can and still get my point across. If you haven't noticed a massive difference in how I address you or someone I dislike, then I've misjudged your perceptiveness.


it's a sleazy way to try and DISMISS without serious consideration the information that i've posted. Just ASSUME it must be conspiracy since you don't like the sound of it.
so sorry NT your not addressing this honestly.

When presented with something - anything - I consider the source. My red flags erupt when I see things like "unnamed sources" or unreferenced stories making some pretty serious allegations, or youtube videos linked. Alex Jones is an immediate red flag, even though he's clearly very right-wing, but he's demonstrated he has no qualms with spinning a story that veers sharply from the truth. I don't believe that you treat some stories with enough skepticism; but that's just my opinion.

Where have I not been honest with you, Rev? Yeah, you've pissed me off a couple of times and I'm sure that I've pissed you off as well, but I can't think of one time I wasn't forthright with you.


If you guys DOn'T CARE what Mnuchin did Fine. but don't try to attack the messegeners ...the MSM, the Dems, me... then chortle, snort and dismiss it whenever you read something that puts your boys in a bad light.
Own it. or refute it. you did that with the email in the Trump admin story.
all this talk about manhood and stuff c'mon, you guys are sharp , be honest. you don't HAVE to like EVERYTHING Trump does or defend Everyone he choses blindly I think most of you are better than that.

You're missing the point that nothing has been proven AND no one here has declared that Mnuchin is clean.

He may even turn out to be dirty! No one knows, yet, and the prudent thing to do is wait until the inevitable investigations are concluded before leveling Corrupt Bastard charges.

With the rash of such allegations against Trump and every single one of Trump's appointees, don't you think it's reasonable to withhold judgement until all the facts are learned? Especially in light that there's an extremely active campaign to manufacture bogus charges?

[Abbey Marie]

the thing is the only person posting right now that you have problem with is me.
and it's funny to me that you guys ONLY bring up Conspriacy theories with me when you disagree and can't find any real facts to refute what i'm posting at the time.
when i post about about abortion and give facts there your'e not talking about 911 so why here?
it's a sleazy way to try and DISMISS without serious consideration the information that i've posted. Just ASSUME it must be conspiracy since you don't like the sound of it.
so sorry NT your not addressing this honestly.

If you guys DOn'T CARE what Mnuchin did Fine. but don't try to attack the messegeners ...the MSM, the Dems, me... then chortle, snort and dismiss it whenever you read something that puts your boys in a bad light.
Own it. or refute it. you did that with the email in the Trump admin story.
all this talk about manhood and stuff c'mon, you guys are sharp , be honest. you don't HAVE to like EVERYTHING Trump does or defend Everyone he choses blindly I think most of you are better than that.



I'll just speak for myself- As you know, attacks on every single thing Trump has done, and hasn't done, and anyone he associates with, are all over the media, FB, etc. And where I live, even whenever I get together with people. So, when people reply to a negative post about Trump, it is because we've pretty much had it with all the media lies and the crying wolf and the hatefulness and the protests before he was even sworn in, and the rioting and the filth. And the Hollywood hypocrites. And worth repeating, all the media lies.

It isn't personal to you, and it doesn't mean that we are fine with someone or something if it is truly wrong.

I look at just about every news report now with side eye. Come to think of it, maybe we are actually getting more like you, Rev!

[jimnyc]

When presented with something - anything - I consider the source. My red flags erupt when I see things like "unnamed sources" or unreferenced stories making some pretty serious allegations, or youtube videos linked. Alex Jones is an immediate red flag, even though he's clearly very right-wing, but he's demonstrated he has no qualms with spinning a story that veers sharply from the truth. I don't believe that you treat some stories with enough skepticism; but that's just my opinion.

Same here, similar opinion.

[revelarts]

Newsweek is propagating a conspiracy theory in the bolded print . As are you.
Newsweek is stating a fact . he contributed to Her campaign. But that's only ONE point and not the main one.
The rest of the story has to do with the documented over 1000 instances of misconduct found at his Bank by the AG's office that show fraud and the like.

There's no theory here just evidence the regulators found that wasn't acting upon. And NO good reason given why it wasn't prosecuted.

no one is calling it conspiracy except for you guys as far as i can tell.
But i have to ask, are you guys saying that we should never ever consider that campaign contributions to politicians might influence them? Or does that only apply to Trump nominees and their contributions and actions?

[Abbey Marie]

And to the OP:

http://www.lasplash.com/uploads//1/roto_rooter_jingle_001.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

Newsweek is stating a fact . he contributed to Her campaign. But that's only ONE point and not the main one.
The rest of the story has to do with the documented over 1000 instances of misconduct found at his Bank by the AG's office that show fraud and the like.

There's no theory here just evidence the regulators found that wasn't acting upon. And NO good reason given why it wasn't prosecuted.

no one is calling it conspiracy except for you guys as far as i can tell.
But i have to ask are you guys saying that we should never ever consider that campaign contributions to politicians might influence them?

Rev, given your strong feelings over potential influence, shouldn't you be praising to high heavens Trump's attempts to limit Lobbying by ex- admin folks?

[jimnyc]

Rev, given your strong feelings over potential influence, shouldn't you be praising to high heavens Trump's attempts to limit Lobbying by ex- admin folks?

So I wasn't the only one to notice a lack of attention to that one. :) It's almost as if the 'enemy' had made such attempts. :)

[revelarts]

I brought up the 9/11 Truther thing because that's where I first told you that I believe you subscribe to conspiracy theories easily.

This was done to remind you that my view of you has not changed over the many years that we've known each other. I'm not telling you anything new, unless you forgot that, so that's why the reminder.

I think you can agree that I could have been extremely insulting and offensive like I know you've seen me do to others I disagree with, but I strive to be as respectful of you as I can and still get my point across. If you haven't noticed a massive difference in how I address you or someone I dislike, then I've misjudged your perceptiveness.



When presented with something - anything - I consider the source. My red flags erupt when I see things like "unnamed sources" or unreferenced stories making some pretty serious allegations, or youtube videos linked. Alex Jones is an immediate red flag, even though he's clearly very right-wing, but he's demonstrated he has no qualms with spinning a story that veers sharply from the truth. I don't believe that you treat some stories with enough skepticism; but that's just my opinion.

Where have I not been honest with you, Rev? Yeah, you've pissed me off a couple of times and I'm sure that I've pissed you off as well, but I can't think of one time I wasn't forthright with you.

You're missing the point that nothing has been proven AND no one here has declared that Mnuchin is clean.

He may even turn out to be dirty! No one knows, yet, and the prudent thing to do is wait until the inevitable investigations are concluded before leveling Corrupt Bastard charges.

With the rash of such allegations against Trump and every single one of Trump's appointees, don't you think it's reasonable to withhold judgement until all the facts are learned? Especially in light that there's an extremely active campaign to manufacture bogus charges?

NT I think I've return your respect, That's not an issue for me with you. It's not even on the table, your a solid soul in my book NT. We don't always agree but we have no problem talking.

So to me it just seems that In this case there's ZERO reason to bring up my past comments on 911.
or to be OVERLY Skeptical about this story.
The story STARTS with courts docs and memos from the Attorney Generals office of CA's real investigations.
So there is "proof" of wrong doing just no prosecution. BTW Hillary has been investigated but has never been prosecuted however I think their may be proof she's committed various crimes. Do you and others here give her the same benny of the doubt?

It just seems that several here have simply ASSUMED it's all Conspiracy without even checking the ORIGINAL sources within the many stories that outline the problems. It's not hearsay or unnamed sources or random youtube or alex jones etc etc.

but nope, you bring up 911. completely out of the blue. BDimond brings up 911 and conspiracy, Jim brings up conspiracy, abby brings up face book and the whole world against trump. Sorry all smoke and BS. Each story on it's own merits.
Look You guys may not always agree with me but i think you know I usually have a few facts ...often MORE than few to back up what i post.

Look I just bring this issue up with Mnuchin because it appears to be a REAL problem. After the real initial investigation of his bank it appears there IS in fact wrongdoing. There's been no subsequent investigations for us to "wait for". NO one seems interested. It seems to me that at the least ANOTHER should be done BEFORE he's placed in a cabinet seat, not after.

Don't you think it's reasonable to withhold a cabinet post until all the facts are learned?

[jimnyc]

Don't you think it's reasonable to withhold a cabinet post until all the facts are learned?

I would have no issue with this.

But do the issues outlined go back to him personally? Did he personally break any laws? Is it more about him being in charge, and he's responsible for others? (<--- serious questions so that I don't have to read as much as you have)

Why is it that YOU think there has been no charges or prosecution? SHOULD he personally have charges against him? Who committed the actual crimes themselves? Who did they get the orders or authority from?

[Black Diamond]

Newsweek is stating a fact . he contributed to Her campaign. But that's only ONE point and not the main one.
The rest of the story has to do with the documented over 1000 instances of misconduct found at his Bank by the AG's office that show fraud and the like.

There's no theory here just evidence the regulators found that wasn't acting upon. And NO good reason given why it wasn't prosecuted.

no one is calling it conspiracy except for you guys as far as i can tell.
But i have to ask, are you guys saying that we should never ever consider that campaign contributions to politicians might influence them? Or does that only apply to Trump nominees and their contributions and actions?
Like facts re Marvin Bush and his connections to Dulles airport, airlines, twin towers. Should we not consider those facts???

[jimnyc]

Like facts re Marvin Bush and his connections to Dulles airport, airlines, twin towers. Should we not consider those facts???

:laugh2:

----


If the hypothesis of controlled demolition is considered, there inevitably arises one serious obstacle to its plausibility. And that is the fact that thousands of pounds of explosives would have had to have been planted in and around the buildings' core columns and throughout its clearly restricted internal framework. So how, the skeptical questioning goes, did anyone planting these explosives have such ready access to such intimate parts of the building? As with so many of the essential questions raised by 9/11, what often appear at first to be strong arguments against any kind of 'conspiracy theory' that 9/11 was an inside job turn, suddenly, into stunning revelations about heretofore uncovered information that ultimately serve to confirm and strengthen the suspicions about 9/11 being, indeed, a well-orchestrated conspiracy theory.

Take, as an example, this question of how the explosives were planted. How could the security apparatus of the World Trade Center Complex, which was presumably highly sophisticated after the 1993 bombing, allow or not notice the laying of the explosives that supposedly felled the buildings? Well, upon investigating this security apparatus at the WTC, we quickly stumble into the fact that Marvin Bush, George W.'s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom (now Stratesec), the very company in charge of security at the WTC in 2001. Again, it is important to note that the author is not making this up. "Marvin P. Bush, the president's younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport." And not to be outdone by this fact, we also learn that "from 1999 to January of 2002 (Marvin and George W.'s cousin) Wirt Walker III was the company's CEO."

That this stunning, remarkable fact is not front-page news in every newspaper in the country is a mystery I cannot answer, nor solve. That there were well documented power outages and swaths of whole floor shutdowns and evacuations in the weeks leading up to 9/11, perfect opportunities to carry up and plant necessary explosives under the guise of 'maintenance' and/or 'retrofitting' work, only fuels well-placed suspicions. In a People magazine article, Ben Fountain, 42, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund who worked on the 47th floor of the South Tower, confirmed these evacuations by saying, "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on."

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_09.htm

[Black Diamond]

How about the fact that Obama's grandmother said he was Kenyan born.

[NightTrain]

NT I think I've return your respect, That's not an issue for me with you. It's not even on the table, your a solid soul in my book NT. We don't always agree but we have no problem talking.

Thank you, we at least have that commonalty.


So to me it just seems that In this case there's ZERO reason to bring up my past comments on 911.
or to be OVERLY Skeptical about this story.
The story STARTS with courts docs and memos from the Attorney Generals office of CA's real investigations.
So there is "proof" of wrong doing just no prosecution. BTW Hillary has been investigated but has never been prosecuted however I think their may be proof she's committed various crimes. Do you and others here give her the same benny of the doubt?

I think that given the entire State of California's anti-Trump hysteria, if there were anything solid to proceed with that it would be rocketing along at record pace. Democrats are frantic to get something to sink their teeth into and so far have come up empty. I'm not seeing anything mainstream that supports a legit case or it would be headlines from coast to coast every single day.


It just seems that several here have simply ASSUMED it's all Conspiracy without even checking the ORIGINAL sources within the many stories that outline the problems. It's not hearsay or unnamed sources or random youtube or alex jones etc etc.

I simply said that it would be prudent to await the outcome of any investigations - I think that is entirely reasonable. Rounding up the Pitchfork Mob prematurely is to be avoided.


but nope, you bring up 911. completely out of the blue. BDimond brings up 911 and conspiracy, Jim brings up conspiracy, abby brings up face book and the whole world against trump. Sorry all smoke and BS. Each story on it's own merits.
Look You guys may not always agree with me but i think you know I usually have a few facts ...often MORE than few to back up what i post.

Look I just bring this issue up with Mnuchin because it appears to be a REAL problem. After the real initial investigation of his bank it appears there IS in fact wrongdoing. There's been no subsequent investigations for us to "wait for". NO one seems interested. It seems to me that at the least ANOTHER should be done BEFORE he's placed in a cabinet seat, not after.

Don't you think it's reasonable to withhold a cabinet post until all the facts are learned?

No.

It's been said thousands of times by butthurt democrats that their goal is to obstruct and delay Trump wherever possible. They've done it at every turn.

The fact that the investigation didn't go anywhere tells me this was just another attempt to create a story to whip up the mob, obstruct, delay, resist.

If, in fact, there IS wrongdoing on the part of Mnuchin and he's a corrupt SOB, then I'll be the first to call for his head - but only when the facts are in. Not a moment before.


As a side note, because you are a Constitutional guy - I'm kind of surprised that you would deny him his day in court before pronouncing him guilty. Indeed, he hasn't even been charged with a crime and you're advocating for a preemptive guilty verdict.

That's inconsistent of you, Rev.

[revelarts]

Rev, given your strong feelings over potential influence, shouldn't you be praising to high heavens Trump's attempts to limit Lobbying by ex- admin folks?

I saw that the other day, and that is a Great move. I haven't read the details on it yet so i haven't mentioned it.
But it doesn't erase the problems here with Mnuchin either.

And i think i've started about 3 threads in the past 2 weeks already with things that Trump has done that i've liked Abbey.
so yeah, theres on need to assume everything i say is Anti-Trump just because it's Trump.

But can you point to 3 positive threads over the past 8 years about Obama actions by other posters here that show they weren't just anti-Obama by default?

[Abbey Marie]

I saw that the other day, and that is a Great move. I haven't read the details on it yet so i haven't mentioned it.
But it doesn't erase the problems here with Mnuchin either.

And i think i've started about 3 threads in the past 2 weeks already with things that Trump has done that i've liked Abbey.
so yeah, theres on need to assume everything i say is Anti-Trump just because it's Trump.

But can you point to 3 positive threads over the past 8 years about Obama actions by other posters here that show they weren't just anti-Obama by default?

I will cop to probably never writing a positive post about him. But I also doubt I made anywhere near the amount that people negatively made about Trump or Bush.

I generally tried to delude myself into believing that Obama didn't exist. And was prepared to do the same if Hillary had won [gag].

[NightTrain]

I've just spent the last 5 minutes thinking about it... and I can't come up with even one thing 0bama did that I liked.

Can anyone offer something positive that he did other than leaving the WH?

[Abbey Marie]

I've just spent the last 5 minutes thinking about it... and I can't come up with even one thing 0bama did that I liked.

Can anyone offer something positive that he did other than leaving the WH?

:laugh2: Ooh, I thought of one! He gave us the opportunity for The Onion to write about Biden for 8 years. ;)

[NightTrain]

:laugh2: Ooh, I thought of one! He gave us the opportunity for The Onion to write about Biden for 8 years. ;)

I admit that Joe's creepy antics and gaffes were awesome to behold... but the pain overrode that entertainment. Remember the pic of him grabbing that old cop's thigh at a press conference and the old cop shooting him an indignant "WTF you doin', boy??" look? All the other cops in the background had a look of disbelief on their faces, too. :thumb:


Seriously, though... I can always find the good in almost anyone, especially someone as intensely scrutinized as he was. I can't think of anything.

[NightTrain]

Oh, I've got one.

He did allow the SEALs to go in and kill Bin Laden.

Got to hand it to him there. He could have just lobbed a few Tomahawks and we'd never know for sure if that bastard was really dead.

[revelarts]

Thank you, we at least have that commonalty.
:thumbsup:



I think that given the entire State of California's anti-Trump hysteria, if there were anything solid to proceed with that it would be rocketing along at record pace. Democrats are frantic to get something to sink their teeth into and so far have come up empty. I'm not seeing anything mainstream that supports a legit case or it would be headlines from coast to coast every single day.

I don't buy that , i could list several times where that logic has failed, instance #1 one is the Nancy Pelosi and the dem congress NOT impeaching or taking other actions against Bush and crew because "we want to move forward". and Obama not prosecuting any Bush admin or torturing people pr other crimes noted in the campaign,... again "to move forward". There a MANY other instances with OTHER excuses why they won't move on the opposite party's monster of the week. seems in several cases, if you dig deeper, you find that the other party is just as or nearly as complicit, or it's a don't touch me here and i won't touch you there situation.

Do you think Obama or Hillary or anyone related to the various scandals will be prosecuted by Sessoms when he gets in? don't hold your breath.



I simply said that it would be prudent to await the outcome of any investigations - I think that is entirely reasonable. Rounding up the Pitchfork Mob prematurely is to be avoided.

It's not a pitchfork mob and we ALREADY have evidence on the table from ONE investigation.
It shows he presided over wrongdoing.
with no other investigations in the works I'm not sure WHY he should be given the benny of the doubt.




No.
It's been said thousands of times by butthurt democrats that their goal is to obstruct and delay Trump wherever possible. They've done it at every turn.
The fact that the investigation didn't go anywhere tells me this was just another attempt to create a story to whip up the mob, obstruct, delay, resist.
If, in fact, there IS wrongdoing on the part of Mnuchin and he's a corrupt SOB, then I'll be the first to call for his head - but only when the facts are in. Not a moment before.
the information form one investigation is ALREADY on the table and public.
Butthurt or not, other bogus reasons for others or Not, it doesn't ERASE that assessment that was done BEFORE he ever became a cabinet nominee.
At this point the burden of proof is on him to deny it.



As a side note, because you are a Constitutional guy - I'm kind of surprised that you would deny him his day in court before pronouncing him guilty. Indeed, he hasn't even been charged with a crime and you're advocating for a preemptive guilty verdict.

That's inconsistent of you, Rev.
that's really not a side note that's a good point.
Here's the thing, I'm not saying he's guilty and needs to go to prison today. I'm saying he doesn't need to be put in a cabinet seat UNTIL he's had his day in court.

Seems to me many people on the right thought that Hillary ... just being under investigation... made her an unacceptable choice for a presidential candidate. The exact same concept applies here. If you're under investigation or there's an OPEN investigation for wrongdoing then until your cleared you should NOT be the TOP choice for the head of a U.S. cabinet post. There has GOT to be other people NOT under a cloud of investigation, and NOT a former hedge fund manager ..who Trump rightly condemned... that he can pick.

that doesn't seem unreasonable or unconstitutional to me AT ALL.

[revelarts]

I will cop to probably never writing a positive post about him. But I also doubt I made anywhere near the amount that people negatively made about Trump or Bush.

I generally tried to delude myself into believing that Obama didn't exist. And was prepared to do the same if Hillary had won [gag].


I've just spent the last 5 minutes thinking about it... and I can't come up with even one thing 0bama did that I liked.

Can anyone offer something positive that he did other than leaving the WH?

Can think of a few I liked... but for you guys well
Yes Bin Laden,
is one.
the fact that he DID NOT make a full on war against Assad when many where pushing him to.
But He still supplied and trained "rebels"/AlNusra/Isis though.

I suspect the some here are happy that he didn't shut down Gitmo.
That's a negative in my list though.

I suspect that many here don't mind that he INCREASE domestic spying beyond what Bush did, so he could "stop the terrorist" and "not tie the hands " of our intel agencies.
That's a negative in my list though.

I suspect some here are glad they he ignored international laws drone stuck "terrorist" in 7 countries. even bombing Muslims funerals, weddings and hospitals.
That's a negative in my list though.

I suspect that some here like the fact that he oversaw the biggest military deal to Israel ever.
That's a negative in my list though.

I suspect that you're inclined to give Presidents the credit for gas prices that he presided over a constant drop in gas prices from $4+ a gallon to 2 or less.

there's probably more if you're willing to give him as much credit as blame.
IMO So far we haven't had any presidents that are complete monsters.

[NightTrain]

Can think of a few I liked... but for you guys well
Yes Bin Laden,
is one.


the fact that he DID NOT make a full on war against Assad when many where pushing him to.
But He still supplied and trained "rebels"/AlNusra/Isis though.

He drew a Red Line and then failed to enforce it, making us look weak to every country on the planet. And were summarily dismissed by every tinpot dictator after that. Even the president of the Philippines called 0bama a "son of a whore" publicly... and that doesn't sound like respect on any level to me.


I suspect the some here are happy that he didn't shut down Gitmo.
That's a negative in my list though.

It wasn't from lack of trying. He wanted Gitmo shut down badly, but couldn't pull it off. Still pissed about releasing terrorists that we'll have to fight again.

And we need Gitmo - there's a lot of real bad guys out there who have pertinent intel.


I suspect that many here don't mind that he INCREASE domestic spying beyond what Bush did, so he could "stop the terrorist" and "not tie the hands " of our intel agencies.
That's a negative in my list though.

He's by far and away the worst Prez when it comes to using alphabet agencies to further his schemes. There will be much more of that coming to light now that his people aren't there keeping a lid on things.


I suspect some here are glad they he ignored international laws drone stuck "terrorist" in 7 countries. even bombing Muslims funerals, weddings and hospitals.
That's a negative in my list though.

Didn't do it aggressively enough, in my book, further encouraging terrorists the world over.


I suspect that some here like the fact that he oversaw the biggest military deal to Israel ever.
That's a negative in my list though.

He Pearl Harbored Israel in the UN with the despicable John Kerry in the last days of his administration. He was no friend of Israel's.

Remember his administration calling Netanyahu a 'chickenshit'? It was in all the papers worldwide.


I suspect that you're inclined to give Presidents the credit for gas prices that he presided over a constant drop in gas prices from $4+ a gallon to 2 or less.

There is no way in hell you can credit 0bama with the fall in gas prices. That was due to the fracking technology maturing that took place in the US, and we're sitting on more oil than Saudi is now. You know and I know that he was no friend of traditional domestic energy.

Oil prices plummeted because OPEC saw that we were suddenly oil rich again, and they swamped the market in an effort to bankrupt all the new American oil companies producing shale oil.


there's probably more if you're willing to give him as much credit as blame.
IMO So far we haven't had any presidents that are complete monsters.

I can only agree with allowing the SEALs to kill OBL. And that's pretty sad for 8 years.

[Elessar]

I've just spent the last 5 minutes thinking about it... and I can't come up with even one thing 0bama did that I liked.

Can anyone offer something positive that he did other than leaving the WH?

He sure promoted golf and vacations in Hawaii.

[Elessar]

Oh, I've got one.

He did allow the SEALs to go in and kill Bin Laden.

Got to hand it to him there. He could have just lobbed a few Tomahawks and we'd never know for sure if that bastard was really dead.

Most of that credit goes to the prior administration that created that mechanism after 9/11.

[NightTrain]

Most of that credit goes to the prior administration that created that mechanism after 9/11.

I'll buy into that.

But he still gave the green light to send in our SEALs to take care of business so we'd have 100% certainty instead of paving the compound with missiles and having doubt.

I think it was very important to all of us to be sure that OBL was dead, and to know that the last thing he saw was an American about to double-tap him.

[aboutime]

He sure promoted golf and vacations in Hawaii.



Obama was POSITIVELY the best LIAR in Washington. That's the only positive I know about him.
And Hillary tried to outdo him, but failed since he Didn't PARDON her before leaving.:clap:

[Black Diamond]

Most of that credit goes to the prior administration that created that mechanism after 9/11.
That may be but McCain said he would never go into Pakistan to get bin laden. I have to give Obama credit there. Not because of making the world safer. It's because I wanted that fucker DEAD.

[Elessar]

Obama was POSITIVELY the best LIAR in Washington. That's the only positive I know about him.
And Hillary tried to outdo him, but failed since he Didn't PARDON her before leaving.:clap:

She does not deserve a pardon, except to maybe fade off into obscurity. I've said it before -
if I had done what she did with sensitive materials and systems, I would be in a Federal Lock-up.

F*** her and her supporters.

[Elessar]

That may be but McCain said he would never go into Pakistan to get bin laden. I have to give Obama credit there. Not because of making the world safer. It's because I wanted that fucker DEAD.

Now why would he have revealed an intention such as that? Throw a warning out to the target that
was so good at avoiding and hiding?

You are thinking on the wrong side of the domino. Never openly reveal your tactics. Even Obama
(much as I hate to admit) was smarter than that.

[Black Diamond]

She does not deserve a pardon, except to maybe fade off into obscurity. I've said it before -
if I had done what she did with sensitive materials and systems, I would be in a Federal Lock-up.

F*** her and her supporters.
She deserves to rot in prison followed by Hell. But she will not spend a day in prison no matter what.

[Black Diamond]

Now why would he have revealed an intention such as that? Throw a warning out to the target that
was so good at avoiding and hiding?

You are thinking on the wrong side of the domino. Never openly reveal your tactics. Even Obama
(much as I hate to admit) was smarter than that.
Hmmmmm.


Voted for McCain and Romney and don't regret it

[Black Diamond]

Now why would he have revealed an intention such as that? Throw a warning out to the target that
was so good at avoiding and hiding?

You are thinking on the wrong side of the domino. Never openly reveal your tactics. Even Obama
(much as I hate to admit) was smarter than that.
I would like to think McCain would have nailed him in the end.

[Black Diamond]

Now why would he have revealed an intention such as that? Throw a warning out to the target that
was so good at avoiding and hiding?

You are thinking on the wrong side of the domino. Never openly reveal your tactics. Even Obama
(much as I hate to admit) was smarter than that.
I shouldn't have had that last beer last night. But I think McCain said he would go into hell to get bin laden but not into Pakistan. Can you explain what you mean by "wrong side of the domino "? Could McCain have claimed he wasn't going into Pakistan only to go in there as president?