tntrn 25,158 Views
Joined: Nov 18, '99;
Posts: 9,721 (56% Liked)
; Likes: 11,868
34 year(s) of experience
L & D; Postpartum
It's nice that you popped in to ask a question. Maybe you have time to visit the other threads and answer the questions that were asked of you.
I think the current crop of politicians are a reflection of what society demands. They are elected officials because you have an uneducated, gullible public who appears to be unable to differentiate real people from television personalities. When the masses have been conditioned by television and cannot distinguish between reality and entertainment, it becomes quite easy to manipulate them. Parents are unable to think for themselves and subscribe to the rubbish spouted by academics who have never lived outside of sterile academia or even lived lives. Psychiatrists and psychologists who are so obviously inadequate can dispense advice for payment and society not only allows this but it's a social distinction. How many politicians are lawyers and exactly how stupid are they. Ben Carson, a neuro surgeon and just how much of on imbecile? Michelle Bachman, a lawyer, Rick Perry a governor, Chris Christie a whale, when you allow these caliber of people to be successful role models, then the lunatics have taken over the asylum and the resultant ethics follows. This is a country where money is the benchmark for success despite how acquired. Boasting and self aggrandisement is an acceptable norm and selfies celebrated. Neither of my kids would dare practice any such behaviors without serious consequences. You are either considerate and respectful of others around me or I will quickly let you know regardless of whomever you are. My Dad is not my friend and I am not my children's. I am a parent and that's where you start learning ethics and morality, from your parents. Draw your own conclusions as to why our politicians are so bereft of ethics. We have a very broken society because we allow morons in Hollywood to teach us behaviors.
I'm not as interested as to why you think he is defending Trump. I'm more interested in your opinion on his arguments.
Why don't you consider the Washington Post or NYT to be news organizations? Why do you think that they are "trying to take him down" rather than trying to unravel a political story that is potentially MUCH bigger than Watergate?
Here is but one reason why: New York Times Omits Clinton State Department Link to Trump Jr. Meeting
[QUOTE=margin261;9510363]If that's what you choose to focus on, I shall answer it for you. In June 2016 Homeland Security granted her a B status nonimmigrant work visa to complete her legal representation of her client. So, she apparently was here legally.
She was admitted legally, with some kind of special deal, but it is reported from several sources (sorry, I am off to church soon and cannot research them all now) that she overstayed the visa and was not here legally when the meeting occurred, when she sat in on that televised bit with the Russian Ambassador and other activities. That was my original question: why was she allowed to overstay her special visa time? If that did indeed happen, and bear in mind the Obama administration was in charge when it was granted and supposedly expired in January, who indeed allowed her to stay and why?
(I know this is Fox news, so ignore it if you choose.....or find it on one of the MSM reports, if they bothered to report it.
Obama administration let Russian lawyer who met Trump Jr. into US after visa block | Fox News
tntrn- I need to add to my post above. That case Ms Veselnitskaya was helping to defend? It didn't even go to trial. The DOJ led by AG sessions settled what was a $225M case for $6M. Oh, and Preet Bahara was working on that case just before trump fired him.
Fired him before sessions approved settlement, I mean
So ... is that why you skipped macawake's questions?
Please clarify what must happen in order for you to feel that your opinions are respected.
So sorry this took me all of an afternoon to reply. I don't seem to have the time or frankly, to care enough as others to constantly monitor the comments of strangers who I suspect that many of have a genuine hate for me.
CBS This Morning - Obama: "After my election, I have more flexibility" - YouTube
at 00:40 if you don't want to watch the CBS reporter.
Do you imagine that many candidates that you have supported have gotten opposition "dirt" from Russia?
Why was Trump Jr anxious to meet with her and obtain Russian government information about an American political opponent?
Macawake: Natalia Veselnitskaya entered the US in late 2015 under “extraordinary circumstances,” The Hill reported.
The news site said she was granted a “special immigration parole” by the feds to help defend a client under criminal investigation.
At the time, Veselnitskaya was representing a Russian businessman, Denis Katsyv, who was being investigated by the Justice Department for alleged money laundering.
That is from the NYPost, which took it from The Hill. The original poster, of course, gave no context for the comment. I am sure it was just a tidbit they picked up on Fox News. Just like Trump. He made a similar comment during the press conference with Macron. But there you go, CONTEXT! And again, what we know about this Russian National is that she had deep ties to the Kremlin.
Does anybody think that this kind of information-seeking on opposing candidates hasn't been going on for, like, ever?
And this woman was allowed to enter the US without a proper visa, under the Obama administration, and was seen a week after she met with DJJ, at some thing that was definitely a Democratic deal.
Why isn't any of this being brought into the discussion? Because it looks like the collusion, to trap DJJ and thus his dad, was done way before they Russian gal and DJJ met.
This just occurred to me as I was reading about the shooting at the NY hospital, and it was reported that the gun used an AR15, and there was a picture of the rifle in the article.
Doctor Opens Fire at Bronx Hospital, Killing a Doctor and Wounding 6 - The New York Times
I really know very little about guns; most of what I do know I have learned from PFMB-RN.
He reportedly snuck it in under his white MD coat, and after shooting several and killing one, he turned it on himself. Why is this the weapon of choice for these mass shootings? Wouldn't it be easier to conceal and bring in a pistol? Is this rifle that much easier to use? And it is that easy to use on oneself?
Advertise With Us