ADVERTISEMENT

The problem is Republicans

Every candidate I’ve heard speak, and I’ve been involved in a couple local campaigns, barely mentions Trump. Where are you hearing candidates talks about him and not policy?
Ridiculous, I've literally not heard a Democratic House member get through even five minutes without talking about Trump. It's as crazy to think they will not mention Trump in five minutes of political talk as it would be to think you could do it.
 
Last edited:
Ridiculous, I've literally not heard a Democratic House member get through even five minutes without talking about Trump. It's as crazy to think they not mention Trump in five minutes of political talk as it would be to think you could do it.
Probably depends where you are. Here in Indiana, I haven't heard Trump mentioned at all, even in ads. I mean, the GOP candidates talked about him all the time in the primary, but now, nothing. Of course, pretty much every ad has been for Senate, and I expect Joe is going to avoid attacking Trump. I'm not sure why Braun isn't talking about him.
 
I think I heard Dan Coats say yesterday that the Russian interference began as long ago as 1980 or 1981 and has been ongoing since.
I would say you go back earlier. Look up the story of Whitaker Chambers. He was an American who spied for the Russians because he was a committed communist. In 1938 when Stalin had his great purge ie killing people he wanted to kill saw communism a lot differently and became a conservative. Ronald Reagan read one of Whitaker's books and was turned from a Democrat to a Conservative Republican. Also google the term pumpkin papers. It's an interesting story when you look at the Alger Hiss trial, a man who was a Russian spy who worked in the government. So Russian interference in our country goes back a long way even back into the 20's at least since Chambers began working as a spy and was part of a spy ring then.
 
Probably depends where you are. Here in Indiana, I haven't heard Trump mentioned at all, even in ads. I mean, the GOP candidates talked about him all the time in the primary, but now, nothing. Of course, pretty much every ad has been for Senate, and I expect Joe is going to avoid attacking Trump. I'm not sure why Braun isn't talking about him.
I actually haven’t seen any ads. I was just thinking about the Democrats I’ve heard on the radio and TV over the past month.
 
Are you listening to actual live interviews, or are you listening to news shows playing sound bites? Obviously, the Trump sound bites are going to be selected at a much higher rate.
Mostly interviews. I listen to POTUS and NPR on satellite radio a lot.
 
Geeze Louise. Drawing comparisons with the credentials and experience of people is not an attack. Not every reference to the past is whataboutism.
No. It's whataboutism precisely when you resort to Obama (or Hillary or Attila or Caligula) when you can't think of anything whatsoever positive to say about Trump. You defended Trump's utter failures and goofiness by, what else, injecting something about Obama that you thought would excuse Trump's behavior.

Life is simple. If you don't like being called out about whataboutism, then defend Trump on his own merits without going back in history to attack someone else. Again, defend Trump on his own merits if you can.
 
I would say you go back earlier. Look up the story of Whitaker Chambers. He was an American who spied for the Russians because he was a committed communist. In 1938 when Stalin had his great purge ie killing people he wanted to kill saw communism a lot differently and became a conservative. Ronald Reagan read one of Whitaker's books and was turned from a Democrat to a Conservative Republican. Also google the term pumpkin papers. It's an interesting story when you look at the Alger Hiss trial, a man who was a Russian spy who worked in the government. So Russian interference in our country goes back a long way even back into the 20's at least since Chambers began working as a spy and was part of a spy ring then.
Wow. I don't know what to say. VanPastorMan agrees with me! Lucy said it happened under Obama's watch and VanPastorMan and I say it started much earlier than that. Lucy sucks it for sure.

By the way, am I the only one who knows how important the prothonotary warbler was to the investigation of Chambers and Hiss? (Bird identification is important to spycraft.). I hope Mueller finds a piece of evidence like that.
 
Wow. I don't know what to say. VanPastorMan agrees with me! Lucy said it happened under Obama's watch and VanPastorMan and I say it started much earlier than that. Lucy sucks it for sure.

By the way, am I the only one who knows how important the prothonotary warbler was to the investigation of Chambers and Hiss? (Bird identification is important to spycraft.). I hope Mueller finds a piece of evidence like that.
Let me guess. Identification of a bird allowed investigators to place the location of a recorded conversation?
 
Let me guess. Identification of a bird allowed investigators to place the location of a recorded conversation?
Nope. And, no Googling permitted. Let this ride for a few hours and then research it. More fun that way. It's actually a great element to a real spy story.

Another one is the importance of either Sprite or Seven Up cans to the Walker spy ring. Can't remember which soft drink but I know the cans were green. Or, you can turn Republican and rejoinder with "But what about Dr. Pepper?
 
Nope. And, no Googling permitted. Let this ride for a few hours and then research it. More fun that way. It's actually a great element to a real spy story.

Another one is the importance of either Sprite or Seven Up cans to the Walker spy ring. Can't remember which soft drink but I know the cans were green. Or, you can turn Republican and rejoinder with "But what about Dr. Pepper?
Identity of a feather confirmed travel to a particular region?
 
Identity of a feather confirmed travel to a particular region?
Nope. When should I reveal? OK, I'll tell you.

Chambers testified he knew Hiss well and gave details about Hiss, including that Hiss was a birdwatcher and once claimed to have seen a rare bird known as a prothonotary warbler. Hiss denied that he knew Chambers. But, independently, out of the blue, Hiss was asked whether he had seen a prothonotary warbler and he confirmed that he had seen such a bird. Hiss's confirmation concerning his sighting of such a rare bird was taken as a sign that Chambers was telling the truth that he knew Hiss, because it didn't make sense for Chambers to claim Hiss had seen such a rare bird if he wasn't telling the truth. In other words, witness corroboration.
 
Nope. When should I reveal? OK, I'll tell you.

Chambers testified he knew Hiss well and gave details about Hiss, including that Hiss was a birdwatcher and once claimed to have seen a rare bird known as a prothonotary warbler. Hiss denied that he knew Chambers. But, independently, out of the blue, Hiss was asked whether he had seen a prothonotary warbler and he confirmed that he had seen such a bird. Hiss's confirmation concerning his sighting of such a rare bird was taken as a sign that Chambers was telling the truth that he knew Hiss, because it didn't make sense for Chambers to claim Hiss had seen such a rare bird if he wasn't telling the truth. In other words, witness corroboration.
That's much more subtle and awesome than anything I would have come up with.
 
Nope. When should I reveal? OK, I'll tell you.

Chambers testified he knew Hiss well and gave details about Hiss, including that Hiss was a birdwatcher and once claimed to have seen a rare bird known as a prothonotary warbler. Hiss denied that he knew Chambers. But, independently, out of the blue, Hiss was asked whether he had seen a prothonotary warbler and he confirmed that he had seen such a bird. Hiss's confirmation concerning his sighting of such a rare bird was taken as a sign that Chambers was telling the truth that he knew Hiss, because it didn't make sense for Chambers to claim Hiss had seen such a rare bird if he wasn't telling the truth. In other words, witness corroboration.
2eguoe.jpg
 
That's much more subtle and awesome than anything I would have come up with.
The green soft drink can (either Sprite or Seven Up) was a signal. If the other person was driving down a certain street and saw a green can along the curb, he would know there was something to pick up in the dead drop.

They used those cans because they were common enough not to attract attention from the public, and yet uncommon enough so as not to create as many false alarms as if they had used Coke or Pepsi cans or McDonalds wrappers.

I'm guessing Putin knows these techniques but Trump doesn't.
 
The green soft drink can (either Sprite or Seven Up) was a signal. If the other person was driving down a certain street and saw a green can along the curb, he would know there was something to pick up in the dead drop.

They used those cans because they were common enough not to attract attention from the public, and yet uncommon enough so as not to create as many false alarms as if they had used Coke or Pepsi cans or McDonalds wrappers.

I'm guessing Putin knows these techniques but Trump doesn't.
That sounds like it's straight out of The Americans.
 
You defended Trump's utter failures and goofiness by, what else, injecting something about Obama that you thought would excuse Trump's behavior.

Try again. I have never defended Trump’s behavior.

Again, defend Trump on his own merits if you can.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t think you do either. I have defended Trump's court picks, his views about border enforcement, his efforts at trimming and streamlining the government bureaucracies, and his economic actions without ever mentioning Obama, FDR, or Woodrow Wilson.
 
Try again. I have never defended Trump’s behavior.



I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t think you do either. I have defended Trump's court picks, his views about border enforcement, his efforts at trimming and streamlining the government bureaucracies, and his economic actions without ever mentioning Obama, FDR, or Woodrow Wilson.
"I've never defended Trump. I've only defended every single thing he's ever done."
 
Ridiculous, I've literally not heard a Democratic House member get through even five minutes without talking about Trump. It's as crazy to think they will not mention Trump in five minutes of political talk as it would be to think you could do it.
How many have you listened to on the campaign trail? My guess is zero. Ridiculous indeed to pretend you know what they will say, or the ones I've listened to have said.
 
How many have you listened to on the campaign trail? My guess is zero. Ridiculous indeed to pretend you know what they will say, or the ones I've listened to have said.
Uh, Zeke, they’re all on the campaign trail - except those retiring. The Democrats are incapable of speaking for five minutes without mentioning Trump. It’s silly to say he’s not a primary topic. Of course he is - on both sides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cajun54
Uh, Zeke, they’re all on the campaign trail - except those retiring. The Democrats are incapable of speaking for five minutes without mentioning Trump. It’s silly to say he’s not a primary topic. Of course he is - on both sides.

I am sure that is true, just as the word "Obama" was used in 2010-2014 by Republicans.
 
Wow. I don't know what to say. VanPastorMan agrees with me! Lucy said it happened under Obama's watch and VanPastorMan and I say it started much earlier than that. Lucy sucks it for sure.

By the way, am I the only one who knows how important the prothonotary warbler was to the investigation of Chambers and Hiss? (Bird identification is important to spycraft.). I hope Mueller finds a piece of evidence like that.
http://algerhiss.com/history/the-hi...ambers-relationship/the-prothonotary-warbler/
This article speaks about the issue concerning the bird. Lucy was not wrong in saying it happened under Obama's watch. It is true. But Russian meddling in our country as a whole started back in the 20s. Pretty amazing that they identified us as an enemy early on from their country's revolution in 1917.
 
Uh, Zeke, they’re all on the campaign trail - except those retiring. The Democrats are incapable of speaking for five minutes without mentioning Trump. It’s silly to say he’s not a primary topic. Of course he is - on both sides.
Uh Aloha, maybe you watch television occasionally. When the Dems are on, maybe you recall what they are asked about? Are they asked about policy or are they asked about Trump's latest fiasco? When they are actually at events and actually on the campaign trail, NOT doing a television interview, the ones I've heard have barely mentioned Trump. So you continue with your ridiculous assertion that all they do is talk about Trump, even though you admitted you haven't seen any ads or listened to any speeches. Sounds about right.
 
Uh Aloha, maybe you watch television occasionally. When the Dems are on, maybe you recall what they are asked about? Are they asked about policy or are they asked about Trump's latest fiasco? When they are actually at events and actually on the campaign trail, NOT doing a television interview, the ones I've heard have barely mentioned Trump. So you continue with your ridiculous assertion that all they do is talk about Trump, even though you admitted you haven't seen any ads or listened to any speeches. Sounds about right.

In a way you are correct. In the recent Colorado primary the Democrats ran against Trump surrogate issues. They weren’t afraid if the NRA. They were against fracking. They were against bigotry and hate of immigrants. They were for traditional Democratic platitudes like equal rights, welcoming communities (sanctuary cities) etc. no specifics in sight and nothing about commerce and jobs.
 
Uh Aloha, maybe you watch television occasionally. When the Dems are on, maybe you recall what they are asked about? Are they asked about policy or are they asked about Trump's latest fiasco? When they are actually at events and actually on the campaign trail, NOT doing a television interview, the ones I've heard have barely mentioned Trump. So you continue with your ridiculous assertion that all they do is talk about Trump, even though you admitted you haven't seen any ads or listened to any speeches. Sounds about right.
Typical. You didn’t mention ads in the post I responded to. Now you claim it’s all about ads and the fact that they can’t go five minutes without mentioning Trump otherwise means nothing. Hilariously ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cajun54
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT