This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.

You are not connected. Please login or register

National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Go down  Message [Page 3 of 3]

2seaoat wrote:What don't you understand about the fact that the investigation into Flynn's conversations is still ongoing,

The over reaction to this story makes the birth certificate of president Obama pale in comparison.  Turn off the propaganda and think for yourself.

Thud! ...

... blood in the water.

View user profile
2seaoat wrote:These actions, by the way, are the sanctions and moves Flynn told the Russians not to react to -- because Trump would reverse everything once he was in office.

That is a legal conversation.  There is no violation of the law in that fact pattern.

It is understandable that President Trump is offended by the suggestion that the Russians helped him.   If there is a smoking gun transcript which shows a quid pro quo deal, I would agree that act would be in violation of the law, and might meet the criteria for a very serious charge of treason.   There is not one fact disclosed to date which suggests that there was treason or an active quid pro quo.  This is just the flip side of the Hillary Clinton lock her up propaganda campaign where innuendo alone attempted to make the American public think she was facing indictment.  She was not.  She will not successfully be prosecuted based on the law.  The General is not facing any criminal or legal action based on the same innuendo that SOS Clinton faced.  I cannot believe folks are doing exactly what the crazies did to President Obama and to SOS Clinton, all the while MSNBC is getting ratings like Fox.   This chit has to stop.

You're not getting it Oatie. Why would Flynn call up the Russians and talk about lifting sanctions when they were imposed for wrongdoing on their part? To have a better relationship w/ Russia? Are you kidding me? That's like saying it's ok you hacked our election and we'll lift the sanctions so you won't be mad at us. You'd have to be a moron to believe Flynn did that for that reason.

View user profile

“”The Daily Mail leads with the headline "Everything Is Fine: Fear It, Fear It."
—That Mitchell And Webb Look

The Daily Mail (aka, Hate Mail, Daily Fail, Daily Heil, Daily Moan, Crazy Mail and so on) is a reactionary, neo-fascist tabloid rag masquerading as a "traditional values," middle-class newspaper that is, in many ways, the second-worst of the British gutter press (only Rupert Murdoch's Sun is worse). Its weighty Sunday counterpart is the Mail on Sunday.

The Daily Mail is to the U.K. what the New York Post is to the United States, and what the Drudge Report is to the Internet: to wit, gossipy tabloid "journalism" for those who cannot digest serious news, with a flippantly wingnut editorial stance. Like the Daily Express, the Daily Mail tries to appear more upmarket and respectable than the red-top British tabloids though it does sometimes go in for the full front-page picture or headline characteristic of the populist rags. It is also notorious for its frequent harassment of individuals, campaigns of hate directed at various minorities (lately focusing on Muslims), and willfully deceiving and lying to its readers.

The Mail is usually considered the furthest right of all UK newspapers/tabloids; it competes for this spot with the Daily Express. Although some of the red-top tabloids might throw about more extreme rhetoric, their laddish attitude often means they're not taken too seriously - the Mail, however, is entirely Serious Business. Their primary editorial stances are:

Anti-welfare and poor people in general
Health sensationalism (particularly with respect to cancer)
Anti-human rights because human rights only protect the obviously guilty and/or paedophiles or darkies.
Anti-politics because the Mail's views are not politics, but just common sense.
Anti-internet and other modern technology ('Facebook kills our children')
Anti-taxes (mainly for those who can afford to pay them)
Anti-intellectualism ('what do they know?) including academics, experts (including doctors); indeed anyone with an "-ology."
Anti-lawyers, especially those who defend the enemies of the Daily Mail State.
Anti-liberal (not realising that the opposite of liberalism - (with a small 'l') is not Conservatism but totalitarianism/fascism)
Pro-objectification of women
Declinism about UK life, the economy, etc.
Pro-complaining about anything and everything they don't like
Claiming that political changes were because of their campaigns

A traditionally conservative tabloid (by UK standards), the Mail is currently blaming the European Union and European immigration to Britain for the economic crisis in Britain. It likes to incite its readers against minorities with sensationalist headlines about the benefits immigrants receive and the threat they pose to British culture and security (almost always entirely founded on lies). It frequently reports that the country is "going to the dogs" and we're all going to die, while at the same time wondering why people are voting for the British National Party. Some British people find this amusing, as the Mail's editorial stances are indistinguishable from BNP policies. It is exceptionally rare for the main headline to be unlinked to asylum seekers or "dangerous" foreigners in some way or another, regardless of the context of the story. Such is the case with Mahira Rustam Al-Azawi, who would otherwise just be another case of long-term fraud if it wasn't for the Mail slanting it toward her being an Iraqi asylum seeker.[8][9]


View user profile
TRUMP KNEW FOR WEEKS and did nothing about it until the press got a hold of it! What does that tell ya!

View user profile

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 3 of 3]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum