The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

I wonder how many presidents have had to admit to giving state secrets to the Russians. Or how many presidents have hired someone like Mike Flynn after being warned that he was untrustworthy.How many presidents were treated like Obama?

After the shooting incident today during which a number of Republican congressmen were shot, I was pleasantly surprised at the bipartisan outpouring of unity against domestic terrorism. Paul Ryan made an impassioned speech saying, "When you attack one of us, you attack all of us". The Democrats huddled together to pray for both the police and their comrades across the aisle. Even this morning while watching a Christian TV program, the prayers and sentiment expressed were about prayers for the Congressman in a bipartisan expression of horror even while acknowledging the ill political feelings by some folks in this country.While marveling at this new found unity, I understood that such "Kumbaya" could not last forever; somebody would have to be the first asshole to make it all about them and their party. Imagine my surprise to find that person right here at EvC. Probably the stupidest attempt at reasoning I've seen in a while, and I have read all of Davidjay's posts.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I did not see that, no. I did hear a comment from one Congressman that claimed that the event could have been prevented if DC just had open carry reciprocity and that things would have turned out better if the incident had happened in Georgia. I ignored that stuff as being said in the heat of passion. I would hope that the politicians and officials would have been just as supportive of each other had a Democrat been shot even if before the incident they were printing pictures of Democrats with bulls eyes on them. In fact, I am sure that they would be supportive based on the reaction following the shooting of Ms. Gifford. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Who is inciting violence? I want a name or an example of the hate speech. Surely we cannot have a situation where calling Obama a Kenyan, or calling Trump an idiot, attacking his agenda or opposing him via the courts is considered hate speech.I agree that hate speech cannot be only applicable to a protected class, but if we are going to make accusations, I expect to hear about some speech that has not been either widely condemned or for which the speaker has not been punished.

Cat's eye, your video is ridiculous. Do you accept that proposition that speeches like Clinton's are what caused the shooting yesterday?This is exactly the kind of stuff I thought you meant. I couldn't ask for a better illustration of why your position is bogus.

That would be hate speech. How about some examples of folks in the media or politicians actually doing that. I'm not going to claim that nobody does that, but if you are going to tar "the Left" or "liberals" in that way, I expect you to show some mainstream calls for violence.

Except that Clinton's speech does not meet anyone's definition of hate speech. Just because the announcer claims that a speech incited violence does not mean that it did.Let's contrast that with Trump saying that he would pay the legal bills for someone who physically attacked a protester. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I said that I saw support from Republicans for Gifford just as I also saw support from Democrats for Scalise yesterday. The BS miss-statement you are trying to attribute to me is just plain idiotic. The problem with your statement is that you have a demonstrated track record of not remembering news stories correctly and then pretending that your flagging memory is of some import.Bernie made a point of getting his position on record. Sarah Palin is not some private citizen without any opportunity to get their story out. If she wanted to speak out about Gabby's shooting she would have no problem finding an audience. Whether or not Palin got on ABC, plenty of other Republicans including Governor Brewer had no problem getting in front of cameras.Do you have some evidence to back up your claim about ABC or about Palin having anything constructive to say but not getting any attention, or are you just blowing smoke? Again.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Great point, but I would take your reasoning a step further. What I've seen in this group is a desire that illegal immigrants be treated far more harshly than the law actually allows. Some posters here absolutely despise the fact that the Constitution, as interpreted nearly since the fourteenth amendment was written, grants non-citizens due-process rights. Marc9000 complains that illegal immigration ought to be a felony despite the fact that law has never been such. And here we have an expressed attitude that maybe immigrants could be enslaved.Quite frankly, the "jig is up" on the idea that these particular posters just hate law breakers and not brown folk in particular. Not that anyone ever believed that anyway. I can't follow there. I don't condone punching. I want these alt-dick-heads to express their opinions as loudly as possible. The light of day is the best bleach.But you've made a solid point about the legality farce/pretense/justification and you've also drawn a fairly damning admission. Nice work.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Why would it matter if it was a setup?

Sigh. At the very minimum, Kushner lied about the meeting on a document used to vet him for a security clearance and/or evaluate him for conflicts. There is a huge pattern of this behavior from any number of folks.Trump, Jr. continued to lie and obfuscate up until the point where the NY Times promised to release the email chain.Let's recall that the administration's position was that nobody from the campaign talked to Russia prior to the election. How many folks have been caught lying so far?Leave that punch bowl alone. That Kool-aid is not for you.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

From the instructions for completing an SF-86 form

quote:

---

Penalties for Inaccurate or False Statements

​

The U.S. Criminal Code (title 18, section 1001) provides that knowingly falsifying or concealing a material fact is a felony which may result in fines and/or up to 5 years of imprisonment. In addition, Federal agencies generally fire, do not grant a security clearance, or disqualify individuals who have
materially and deliberately falsified these forms, and this remains a part of the permanent record for future placements.

​

Your prospects of placement or security clearance are better if you answer all questions truthfully and completely. You will have adequate opportunity to explain any information you give to us on this form and to make your comments part of the record.

---

That's right, lying or concealing relevant facts on an SF-86 is a felony. Trump Jr. does not have a clearance, but Kushner does and he was at that meeting.

Not necessarily although it does border on such an offense. Remaining silent does not trigger the federal misprision of felony statute. What is required is active concealment, which would require something like removing the information from some place that the feds would have found it. Maybe erasing some computer records while you are under investigation.Further, there is the issue of whether the information is believed to be credible. Finally, is there any evidence that the information was actually used? Why wouldn't it get used?

Welcome to the side of the angels. Time to do some real work!