Forum for discussion and essays on a wide range of subjects including technology, politics, economics, philosophy, and partying.
I give up - what's wrong with the picture?It looks like a typical NY Times mishmash to me.
Vodaphone.da is apparently an Italian company, but have no idea if that makes the picture wrong? It's written as if it's been translated into English by a non-native English speaker and, the most obvious, Trump's hair isn't orange in the picture. The drawing by a James Steinberg who per Google may be a professor, opines that Trump is running a shell game on the Justice Department. Not a new flash that.The long tie covering up one of the cups? Speculation not for a family publication.IOW - I also give up.
The deal with China raises questions about Mr. Trump's ability to extract concessions in future negotiations, our columnist writes.Which is as close as it can possibly be to:China cuts tariffs on imported cars and car parts, the latest peace offering by Beijing to ease trade tensions with the USSeems like one or the other, not both.TDS is an amazing thing.
(Here I should admit to falling prey to different levels of meaning. What I posted was a picture, but it was a picture containing both words and pictures. What is wrong isn't with the pictures within the pictures, but the words within the picture. I'm sure that cleared things right up.)
Why can't it be both cars and car parts to repair same?
Wow. I can't believe I have managed to have used up the worlds supply of garble in so few sentences.Taken together, these two articles raise questions about Trumps ability to extract concessions because the Chinese have offered up the latest, but not the last, peace offering.Unfortunately, I have chosen a very trivial example to demonstrate something far larger. The MSM have completely taken leave of their senses, to the point where they can't see they are contradicting themselves. According to Trump, immigrants are animals.That wasn't a spy in the Trump campaign, that was an informant.I could go on.
I see. I guess that I'm so used to that sort of gobbledygook that I don't even notice anymore.
... not only that. They weren't trying to destroy Trump, they were trying to protect him. I've long said progs are master semanticists, but now they've totally gone over the edge.While waiting at a doctor's office with my ailing husband today, I got chatting with a black man in a wheel chair. Seems he was born in Harlem and so was I. Back in those days, Harlem was a thriving area full of all kinds of people and interesting things happening. Then the progs got involved and it went down hill. Now, like Williamsburg the area in Brooklyn my husband came from, it's been gentrified to the point, the old brownstones go for multiple millions of dollars.He also said, he took his grandchildren to Harlem to show them where he was born and they were disappointed because they expected to see street gangs, graffiti, drunks and druggies. Instead they saw Mercedes and Lexuses, coffee shops and wine bars.
They weren't trying to destroy Trump, they were trying to protect him.By inserting an informantnotaspy with nearly an explicit goal of entrapment, rather than informing Trump of the possibility of Russian intrusion. Right.
erp,I'm sorry to hear your husband is ailing. I hope he gets better soon!
Hey Skipper,It'll probably be pretty hard to prove a "nearly an explicit goal of entrapment" but the implications, if true, are EXTREMELY worrisome to me. I know I'm terribly biased against Hillary, but where I completely align with libertarians is concern about concentration of power and to have the government take an active role in trying to damage a candidate (who was simply a private citizen at that point) would (again, if true) easily be the largest (known) U.S. government scandal of my lifetime and by far.The evidence of there being an extensive "deep state" swamp is starting to convince me (I'm still not quite able to take it seriously). I'm still hoping it's just people spewing nonsense for political points (pretty much how I still view the whole alleged Russia-collusion thing), but I'm definitely starting to worry.
I have stopped worrying and learned to trust the Donald. Mainly because what's the alternative?
Bret,May I offer a couple of other perspectives?Given the underlying facts, any reasonable prosecutor would have ordered an investigation of the Trump Campaign.And the counterintelligence investigation of Donald Trump was kicked off by not one, not two, but multiple SIGINT reports.A wide conspiracy? I don't know, but it is not a totally fabricated one either.
Post a Comment