posted September 28, 2019 07:38 PM            

The behind the scenes seriously concerns me.
Theres a reason for all the worlds showmanship and the mass's are going to be on the brown end.

Opinion garden: i suspect its military and financial.

posted September 28, 2019 11:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:
Come on , i thought you had his ear

The behind the scenes seriously concerns me.
Theres a reason for all the worlds showmanship and the mass's are going to be on the brown end.

Opinion garden: i suspect its military and financial.

---

No, both of Trump's ears are still firmly attached.

posted September 29, 2019 08:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
It isn't, but you would know all about that, when it comes to your gleeful hatred of the Democrats.

---

posted September 29, 2019 11:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by StubbornVirgo:
I have to disagree. Randall gets along well with Democrats on here, as long as they're rational.

---

I'm rational, but thanks SV. He's the one that lied about me, years ago, and encouraged a lot of crap, before finally making excuses.

The hatred he supports in Trump, and fellow conservatives, as well as what he spreads re: Clinton and others... yeah. Funny how you don't recognize that.

It is possible to dislike trump, and be rational. Why Randall can't see and admit that, I don't know. Apparently, it's only visible if you agree with him 100%. I also don't see his support of trump as rational - just as doesn't see my support of democrats that way. We get along well enough, considering.

posted September 30, 2019 01:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
I'm rational, but thanks SV. He's the one that lied about me, years ago, and encouraged a lot of crap, before finally making excuses.

The hatred he supports in Trump, and fellow conservatives, as well as what he spreads re: Clinton and others... yeah. Funny how you don't recognize that.

It is possible to dislike trump, and be rational. Why Randall can't see and admit that, I don't know. Apparently, it's only visible if you agree with him 100%. I also don't see his support of trump as rational - just as doesn't see my support of democrats that way. We get along well enough, considering.

And why you felt the need to say this? I can only guess.

---

Because you've been indiscriminately hating on Republicans, and anyone who agrees with them on even one point (including myself) all across this board.

The definition of rational does not include interjecting your personal feelings about a member onto an objective topic, such as impeachment hearings. I'm just saying. You totally skipped the topic and went straight to attacking someone's character. That's not rational. If you want to debate, debate. But leave the hate elsewhere. You'll have a lot more credibility if you do.

posted September 30, 2019 01:38 AM            

Thanks for jumping on me in another thread, by the way. When I just responded to someone. I edited in the second part, after seeing your response here. I hadn't been feeling defensive, I hadn't even been gleeful over anything happening with trump, but I was joking around, because I was trying to keep my own mood lighter than it's been for the last few days.

And trump? What is rational about supporting him? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump -this guy who has implied that whistleblowers should be "dealt with", is talking about civil war, should the democrats try to impeach him - he doesn't want this country united (although with the constant hatred towards democrats on this board alone, I see that it never will be).

I heard that they're opening yet another investigation into Hillary's emails. Is that rational, or a waste of tax payer money? Does anybody care if it's either?

Just once, I would like to see something from them, some questioning of their grand leader, rather than blind support, and worship - because it is disturbing. I know a few trump supporters who aren't happy with him anymore. We get along just fine, and did before, because they didn't blindly support him, or attack me and call me delusional, because I don't like him. I have a republican friend who doesn't like trump, and we disagree on certain things, but we love each other - she's like a sister to me.

If you think my questioning blind worship of trump, is hating on them, then I can't do anything about that. I don't hate anyone here, but I do question their support of everything this man has done.

I wasn't feeling defensive, until I saw your one comment. This forum has been full of actual hatred, since its inception, but you focused on me.

posted September 30, 2019 02:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
I've been hating? No, I've been disagreeing.
But this forum has been full of gleeful hatred from the republicans. Why don't you comment on that? I have no idea.

Thanks for jumping on me in another thread, by the way. When I just responded to someone. I edited in the second part, after seeing your response here. I hadn't been feeling defensive, I hadn't even been gleeful over anything happening with trump, but I was joking around, because I was trying to keep my own mood lighter than it's been for the last few days.

And trump? What is rational about supporting him? https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump -this guy who has implied that whistleblowers should be "dealt with", is talking about civil war, should the democrats try to impeach him - he doesn't want this country united (although with the constant hatred towards democrats on this board alone, I see that it never will be).

I heard that they're opening yet another investigation into Hillary's emails. Is that rational, or a waste of tax payer money? Does anybody care if it's either?

Just once, I would like to see something from them, some questioning of their grand leader, rather than blind support, and worship - because it is disturbing. I know a few trump supporters who aren't happy with him anymore. We get along just fine, and did before, because they didn't blindly support him, or attack me and call me delusional, because I don't like him. I have a republican friend who doesn't like trump, and we disagree on certain things, but we love each other - she's like a sister to me.

If you think my questioning blind worship of trump, is hating on them, then I can't do anything about that. I don't hate anyone here, but I do question their support of everything this man has done.

I wasn't feeling defensive, until I saw your one comment. This forum has been full of actual hatred, since its inception, but you focused on me.

---

Well if you're going to add to me to your long list of people who have wronged you on here, feel free to do so. I'm happy to say that I don't filter my responses to make other people like me, and I don't agree with certain people just because they want me to. I also don't buy into this us vs. them mentality that you're propagating.

posted September 30, 2019 03:46 AM            

Why do they consider him to be brilliant, when he insults people in every way that he can? Why is that okay? Instead of holding him accountable, and saying that he should stop, it's seen as great politics, and wonderful handling of the media. Why is his total disrespect okay?

I will never stop questioning blind loyalty. I don't think I've been emotional here, for months. I was upset over Republicans voting to keep marital rape legal, in my State, and that depressed me. That was the last time I remember being emotional - because proper discussion doesn't happen. I drop in and post a link, maybe snark a bit, because people do that to me, and it's what I'm used to. I don't expect anything from impeachment, and the problem isn't just trump, it's the people he represents, and everything he stands for. I don't watch much of the news anymore. I don't much time on twitter, or facebook. I'm not frothing at the mouth, and making voodoo dolls, or losing sleep over whether or not *this* will be the thing to take trump down.

It's kind of amusing to me, that part of why trump is so popular with his people, is his ugliness, his attitude - but when anyone here argues against it, or has a sarcastic tone, we're haters. Juni's post was immediately referred to as "irrational hatred" because Randall doesn't question trump's actions or intentions at all, that I've seen. Jwhop implied that the rest of us are irrational, by stating that Trump has the support of rational Americans.

There is always an excuse for violence, when it's a republican dishing it out, and for sexual assault or harassment, if it involves trump kissing and touching a woman without permission - they either allowed it, because he's rich and famous, or it never happened. Why is this okay? Why isn't that attitude supposed to be questioned? How can he never, ever be wrong? How can the republicans here, never be wrong?

This is what I care about. I'm calm, and this is what I'm wondering.

Would it also be too hard for them to look at the Democratic candidates, without their trump glasses? To address good and bad points, rather than deeming them all losers, and laughing at them? Democrats seem to have no problem with this, instead of declaring them all to be perfect.

When a woman was arrested for the murder of her unborn baby, after another woman shot her, it would have been nice to hear someone admit, "Okay, that's going too far." Instead, excuses were made, and it was understandable. What? One time I expected some common ground, but no, as usual.

posted September 30, 2019 11:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
Your glee from your hatred is overriding your rationality. It's only an inquiry (and, as usual, with zero evidence of any wrongdoing). An actual impeachment has a lot of hurdles to overcome. The transcript of the call will be released tomorrow, as well as a live press conference with the leader of the Ukraine. Your happiness is misplaced. The best thing that could ever happen for the Republicans is an actual impeachment by the House where President Trump is vindicated by the Senate. That would virtually guarantee that the Dems lose the House in 2020.

---

This is part of what a friend who voted for Trump, had to say:

"I hope they consider the crucial meta-fact here. For this crisis they can't just say that it is The Deep State out to Get Trump again, this time. What they are forgetting is that the IG, who deemed this an urgent matter, was not an Obama appointee. He was not appointed by Bush [either one], or Clinton, or Reagan. He was appointed by Trump himself."

This is someone I've had disagreements with over him, but he doesn't blindly worship trump, and I thanked him for that, this morning. I have a long post written in this thread, about health care - one thing that's important (since there was so much "concern" over something being wrong with me specifically - the only issue I've had, has been a health thing worrying me over the past week), but it doesn't matter, because it will just be dismissed as usual, if I post - that is what I expect here. Not just my concerns, but those of two friends, but they won't be taken seriously. I'll just be told that I'm stupid and irrational again.

posted September 30, 2019 12:23 PM            

But, even if your 'friend' said what you claim, your 'friend' sounds like a little thumb sucking sniveler.

The fact is, President Trump has an unmatched record of accomplishments...and delivering on promises made in the 2016 campaign...in spite of leftist lunatic Marxist/Communist/Socialist/Progressive, (same thing) obstruction from day one.

Trump is getting the job done. If demorat lunatics try to impeach Trump, he will win reelection in another landslide. If demorat lunatics don't vote to impeach Trump, he will win in a landslide election anyway. Demorats are screwed either way.

posted September 30, 2019 03:26 PM            

When I'm angry I find an
appropriate song to project
how I feel.

Our thoughts really do create
our reality..
So, you will get what you put
out, and say, SEE!?

posted September 30, 2019 06:57 PM            

Nothing to worry about, of course. It's all perfectly normal.

posted September 30, 2019 11:45 PM            

Clinton White House had its own security clearance backlog
Rowan Scarborough
The Washington Times
February 14, 2018

A backlog in security clearances for sensitive White House jobs is not new.

Just ask the Clinton administration.

More than a year into Bill Clinton’s first term, of 1,044 White Houser personnel, nearly 100 had no security clearance at all, according to press reports in 1994.

The scandal alarmed both Republicans and Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who wrote to CIA Director James Woolsey on March 17, 1994.

“…What specific steps…have [you] taken to ensure that information classified to protect intelligence sources and methods has not been made available to individuals on the White House staff who do not have appropriate clearances[?],” they asked.

And there was a problem with basic passes. Nearly one-third of all staff lacked permanent grounds and building passes.

The Washington Times reported that the blame lied with an associate White House counsel and former law partner to Hillary Clinton. The counsel chose to stop sending FBI background checks to the Secret Service for review after the office objected to passes for two staffers for security reasons.

The White House associate counsel himself did not get a permanent pass until nearly a year into the administration.

Mr. Clinton addressed the problem at a press conference.

“I learned, when I read about this, that apparently previous Administrations have had some of the same problems,” he said. That is they’d been lax, because of the cumbersome nature of the process. We, now, basically put in rules that say that anybody comes to work here now has to get all this done in 30 days or is immediately on leave without pay. They can’t get paid unless they do it.”

Mr. Clinton said he asked his chief of staff and White House counsel to “fix this and make sure it never happens again, so I feel confident that we have.”

At the time, The Washington Times reported that more than 500 of the 1,000 background checks of Clinton personnel “would have prevented the people [involved] from obtaining security clearances at the FBI, Defense Department or CIA.”

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats testified on Tuesday that government-wide there is a backlog of 700,000 security clearance approvals.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/14/bill-clinton-white-house-ha d-security-clearance-ba/

posted October 02, 2019 12:19 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
As I told you on LL so long ago, I have no clue what you're talking about with regard to lying about you. I tried to give you an explanation of how you may have come to that conclusion, which I guess you call "making excuses." I don't know you outside of LL. I don't know anything about you other than what you post at LL. And I certainly don't hold grudges for years. It's funny how you unquestioningly believe the lies others tell you about me, though. I feel no ill will against you for it, however.

---