|
Post by debutante on May 22, 2019 12:16:05 GMT -5
Since a certain party likes to make snide remarks about "Q" and the "anons" -- I thought I'd post this little sequence of events.... --Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 14:41:05 GMT -5
Looks legit.
Who is "Joe M"? Is he a friend of yours? And who is the guy at the bottom of the page?
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 22, 2019 14:57:26 GMT -5
Joe M. is one of the Anons. He's the fellow who makes the elaborate and informative "Q" videos. I don't know him personally -- from what I gathered, he's also one of the decoders. To be honest, I don't really understand all the coding techniques the anons use. It's more that I don't have the patience to sit there and learn the system. I suppose if I sat down and tried to figure it out -- I probably could. But for my purposes, I'd just rather let the decoders handle it and accept the general consensus for a particular item.
He does have a twitter account which I check once a week. I don't have Twitter, or any of the well-known social media accounts.
I don't actually belong to any of the "Q" related boards. I just read them daily and follow the links out to all kinds of strange and informative places. I've seen enough to know that "Q" isn't a larp.
If you've never seen one of Joe M.'s videos -- Here's the first one. I know I posted it months ago, but perhaps you didn't see it then.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 5:41:37 GMT -5
Joe M. is one of the Anons. But if he's posting by name then he's not an "Anon", by definition.
I don't actually belong to any of the "Q" related boards. I just read them daily and follow the links out to all kinds of strange and informative places. I've seen enough to know that "Q" isn't a larp. Do you actually know what a LARP is?
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 23, 2019 7:39:58 GMT -5
Yes, I do. I just said "Larp" because a lot of the trolls accuse "Q" of being a larp.
Joe M. goes by the name of Joe M. I don't know if that's his real name or a pseudonym. I gathered he's one of the people most frequently followed, although I don't know if he's considered one of the "bakers" on the chans. I have not determined the exact duties assigned to the "bakers" (other than coding and I assume researching things) and since I just read the boards (and have never technically joined) I can't ask questions.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 23, 2019 8:37:07 GMT -5
Why would Comey want to blow up random people? There's simply no good reason. And why would he use such an idiotic way to communicate with his "followers"? Even beginner spies know how to create and use much better and unbreakable codes than this childish example. Why would Comey think that there were strangers out there willing to kill on his command? And why would any Comey fans believe that blowing up random people would be a good thing to do in support of their guy? (I've never heard of anyone who liked Comey enough to kill for him, let alone strangers.) None of this makes the least bit of sense. If Comey really wanted to kill someone, you'd think he'd go after his enemies in Washington, not some random folk in Nevada. There are lots of virtually untraceable methods of killing that would be available to someone with money and the right connections. The same goes for bombs. Why not get a professional to do it rather than some unpredictable yahoo in the rural part of Nevada?
Anyway, the fact that a woman in that area was found with bombs a few weeks later does not mean that ANY of the QAnon claim was true. She may have been collecting bombs for totally different plans of her own. Here in the Austin area we catch local bomb makers every few weeks, mostly right-wingers. And we catch gun-folk making plans of one sort or another just as often. One fool even stood in front of the main Austin police station shooting at windows one night until he was killed. Finding local bomb makers is so common these days as to be meaningless.
And, as with most conspiracy claims, this looks just like something a 10-year-old boy would make up, a kid who doesn't understand how the real world works, not a serious effort by adults who knew what they were doing. It's quite possible that someone from QAnon knew about the woman with the bombs, warned the event organizers, then turned her in with an "anonymous" tip. All just to make QAnon look good. That's much, much more believable than the Comey claim.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 23, 2019 9:42:48 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
If you look at the upper half of the jpeg I posted there's a line that says, "FF alert?" It seems that when the tweet was first decoded, the speculation was that it was a call for a "false flag".
There are a couple of sites which have a list of what the abbreviations stand for -- that's why I know ff is "false flag".
As to why -- the speculation (and this has been spoken of for the last few weeks) is that as the declassification of the FISA materials and the other investigative reports are released to the public -- the "deep state" will use "false flag" attacks to divert the public's attention to something other than what the declassification will expose.
As to all this decoding stuff -- it seems this coding stuff is based on some kind of quasi-mystical system that the deep state has been using for years. As near as I can determine, messages are sent in plain sight which mean something altogether different than they appear on the surface.
It seems that the Q anons know the system well enough to decode it and apparently send some coded messages of their own (presumably to freak out the deep state).
Why do they do it? Why do people do anything they do?
At this point, my understanding is that the deep state "business as usual" is disrupted. It no longer matters how they try to send messages to one another because apparently they can be intercepted no matter the method.
And weirdly, there is some kind of thing in their mystical system where they actually have to let people know what they are going to do before they do it. I can't say I understand the purpose of that myself -- but it seems to be a rule they have to keep. Since I've read that in innumerable places over the past year and half -- that is probably true. But just because I don't understand why this is done, doesn't mean that it isn't the rule of whatever system these people use.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 23, 2019 9:51:16 GMT -5
Almost forgot Fred:
It also doesn't mean that the bombs weren't related to the decoded target. I saw a map (this morning) of the distance between the two points. They were surprisingly close together. I will try to find where I saw it and if I can I'll post it for you. There are so many "Q" related sites -- I don't recall offhand which one had the map.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2019 12:11:00 GMT -5
Why would Comey want to blow up random people? There's simply no good reason. And why would he use such an idiotic way to communicate with his "followers"? Even beginner spies know how to create and use much better and unbreakable codes than this childish example. Why would Comey think that there were strangers out there willing to kill on his command? And why would any Comey fans believe that blowing up random people would be a good thing to do in support of their guy? (I've never heard of anyone who liked Comey enough to kill for him, let alone strangers.) None of this makes the least bit of sense. If Comey really wanted to kill someone, you'd think he'd go after his enemies in Washington, not some random folk in Nevada. There are lots of virtually untraceable methods of killing that would be available to someone with money and the right connections. The same goes for bombs. Why not get a professional to do it rather than some unpredictable yahoo in the rural part of Nevada? Anyway, the fact that a woman in that area was found with bombs a few weeks later does not mean that ANY of the QAnon claim was true. She may have been collecting bombs for totally different plans of her own. Here in the Austin area we catch local bomb makers every few weeks, mostly right-wingers. And we catch gun-folk making plans of one sort or another just as often. One fool even stood in front of the main Austin police station shooting at windows one night until he was killed. Finding local bomb makers is so common these days as to be meaningless. And, as with most conspiracy claims, this looks just like something a 10-year-old boy would make up, a kid who doesn't understand how the real world works, not a serious effort by adults who knew what they were doing. It's quite possible that someone from QAnon knew about the woman with the bombs, warned the event organizers, then turned her in with an "anonymous" tip. All just to make QAnon look good. That's much, much more believable than the Comey claim. Clearly Fred you do not see through the LIES of the DEEP STATE.
That is probably because your mind has been clouded by FAKE NEWS from PEDOPHILES.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 23, 2019 15:38:30 GMT -5
McCans:
Not quite.
Lies of the mainstream media.
The only thing I disagree with the "Q anons" is on the following point: I don't think the release of the FISA materials or any of the investigative reports will wake up the average Democrat.
No matter how much proof will be presented as to the deep state's treason, the average Democrats are still going to continue wearing blinders. These hopes for a "gradual awakening" of this segment of the population are a pipe dream.
I doubt that putting the major players in jail, or executing them (after trials in a military court) will make much of a difference either.
I wish it was simply a matter of stupidity. A person can, on some level, look at a brainless idiot and say, "he/she doesn't know any better". And if that is the case, it's far easier to have some degree of sympathy because the person truly is intellectually disadvantaged.
But it is impossible to muster up any sympathy for absolute evil. It pains me to think that there are so many people who simply have something wrong in their basic makeup. Up until a few months ago, I genuinely thought these people were just stupid. But it has become glaringly apparent that there is more than stupidity at work.
How anyone can remain a Democrat since infanticide is now "acceptable" in their party world view is beyond my comprehension.
The fact that they are willing to publically embrace the concept speaks volumes. If they find executing a living infant who survives an abortion attempt acceptable in public view -- it does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to speculate that "anything is possible" in their minds behind closed doors.
I am not in the business of saving souls. Nor, is it within my power to rescue the victims of organized crime. I can, however, add my prayers to those of countless others who await the day these criminals will be brought to justice. That is the best one can hope for in such situations.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 25, 2019 8:34:08 GMT -5
>There are a couple of sites which have a list of what the abbreviations stand for -- that's why I know ff is "false flag". ---“False Flag” is an old navel term for when a ship would raise the flag of a different nation to do something bad, and thus bring down negative reaction on others. The modern equivalent would be to bomb something and then try to blame it on “the other side”. A real example: back in the Vietnam days, the US would send strike teams into villages at night pretending to be Viet Cong. They would murder a village leader who wasn’t properly supportive of the RVN government, then come back the next day and say, “See what the VC are like. You can’t trust them. Support us instead.” False Flag – do something bad and blame your foes.
>As to why….the "deep state" will use "false flag" attacks to divert the public's attention to something other than what the declassification will expose. ---This is actually a standard Trump tactic. When someone calls him on one of his many lies, he says or does something outrageous and the news folk spend all their time on that instead of looking at the lie. ---In any case, there is nothing for the declassification to expose. That info is now and has been available to Republican Congressional leaders for years. It didn’t freak them out then and it won’t freak them out now. It’s a political game by Trump. He’s trying to pretend that he didn’t do anything wrong and that he’s the victim of a conspiracy, when, in fact, much of what has come out about him came from his own staff and appointees. There’s a lot more dirt on Trump in those files than on anyone else, so the Reps will keep it covered up, at least until after the 2020 elections.
>At this point, my understanding is that the deep state "business as usual" is disrupted. It no longer matters how they try to send messages to one another because apparently they can be intercepted no matter the method. ---Intercepted, perhaps, but not decoded. Besides, if there really were a “deep state”, those people would have enough power that they wouldn’t need to be playing kid games. They could just do stuff. The premise of a “deep state’ is that they are the career paper-pushers and such who stay on regardless of which party is in power. Like sergeants in the military, they do the actual work while their political bosses come and go. As such, they would be impossible to disrupt. Plus, Trump has left a very large number of political appointee positions open, so the majority of “deep state” folk don’t even have political appointee bosses right now. If there really were a deep state”, rather than disrupting them, Trump has been letting them run their places unsupervised.
>And weirdly, there is some kind of thing in their mystical system where they actually have to let people know what they are going to do before they do it. I can't say I understand the purpose of that myself -- but it seems to be a rule they have to keep. ---Actually, this also sounds like something the conspiracy folk made up just to explain why a super-powerful secret organization would be doing really stupid stuff, like sending open messages in easily broken codes. “Yeah, we know that it doesn’t make any sense, but that’s they way it works, so trust us.” Or more likely, taint’ no such beastie to begin with. LOL
>No matter how much proof will be presented as to the deep state's treason, the average Democrats are still going to continue wearing blinders. ---Maybe I’m just an optimist, but I like to think people are better than that. Still, two things to keep in mind. (1) there hasn’t been any real evidence presented about the “deep state” treason, so reasonable people, Dems of Reps, have had no reason to accept any wild claims from the extreme right. (2) There has been quite a bit of treason and criminal activity exposed among Trump’s people, which the Reps have mostly ignored. Many Reps lock themselves in the Fox News echo chamber and only accept what they see there. And Fox News is a branch of the Rep party, so they almost never see any real stories about Rep crimes. So why should the Dems be any better? ---The real question that we all face is: how do we share power among a sharply divided nation. Also remember that the Reps are a minority and Trump supporters are even a smaller minority. In a democracy, shouldn’t the majority have at least some say in how things are run instead of being dictated to?
>The fact that [Dems] are willing to publically embrace the concept speaks volumes. If they find executing a living infant who survives an abortion attempt acceptable in public view -- it does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to speculate that "anything is possible" in their minds behind closed doors. ---Good news. That is not actually part of the Democratic platform or any party proposal. So even if the Dems win Congress and the pres in 2020, this will not be something they push. You’d be a lot happier if you stopped reading the posts from crazy-land, 8->
---And, of course, you also get things like Alabama, which is trying to ban all abortions, but is kicking kids off gov aid so that they will slowly starve to death living in the streets. Killing babies? Bad. Killing toddles? Perfectly OK.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 25, 2019 10:32:04 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
There is (according to those who have seen the documents) plenty of evidence of FISA abuse.
Let's wait and see what the declassification reveals.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 26, 2019 8:39:36 GMT -5
If there had been something bad, it would have already come out long ago. The Reps were in total power for 2 years - House, Senate, Pres, and Supreme. No one to stop them, yet only crickets.
Here's what's going to happen. Barr will cherry-pick from millions of documents, chopping and redacting, looking for anything that might possibly make the Dems look bad. Then he'll make a big announcement along the lines of, "See, we told you so." Then the Dems will get hold of the originals and point out that he's lying (again). There will be the usual shouting matches and nothing will happen to anyone.
Barr was hired to cover Trump's ass and attack Dems. He has no interest in justice or the truth, only PR. Look what he did with the Mueller report. Mueller said that Trump had obstructed justice and that if he were not the pres, there was enough evidence to charge and prosecute him. Barr chopped up the report and said that Trump had been totally vindicated. Barr should have been charged with lying to Congress and fired for lying to the US public. Instead, he's been given another hit job pretty much like the last one.
Yes, there are Trump loyalists who say all sorts of things. And there are groups like QAnon who just make crap up. I think most of them honestly believe that they are being good patriots by making up fake claims and fake sources, because they believe that Trump is the only thing saving the nation from who-knows-what, and so anything they do, regardless of how dishonest, is justified.
And, sure, there are some bad Dems out there. You can't become a professional politician without selling your soul at least a little. But if you check the current count these days, there are 4-5 crooked Reps caught for every Dem. Why? Because people with money prefer to bribe those in power. Why bribe someone who can't help you? So because the Reps got in power the last couple of years of Obama and the first couple of Trump, they've have power now for about 4 years. Which means they got first shot at the best bribes. Trump himself has been scarfing up "investments" in his various businesses from rich individual Russians since 2016. Which in normal times would be considered collusion, but these days hardly makes a blip on the radar of corruption in Washington.
So, yeah, I could be wrong. But what I see right now is the Trump PR machine at work. When attacked, hit back as hard as you can with insults, lies, etc. That's the way he's always conducted his businesses and he doesn't seem to think that being pres is any different than running local scams in NY.
Just my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2019 11:41:28 GMT -5
If there had been something bad, it would have already come out long ago. The Reps were in total power for 2 years - House, Senate, Pres, and Supreme. No one to stop them, yet only crickets. Clearly you didn't SEE correctly for yourself. All the PEDOPHILES have SHACKLES if you look at them THE RIGHT WAY. The DEEP STATE and the FAKE NEWS MEDIA doesn't want you to KNOW this.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 27, 2019 1:59:44 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
There's a "Q" meme that's been circulating for quite some time. It's a photo of a chessboard with two players. The caption reads, "This is not a game."
This entire sequence of events (since the election of 2016) hasn't been "business" as usual. It's been (by my observation) a very long and well planned endeavor.
Some of it is "real". Some of it is "optics".
It truly is, as "Q" stated, "like watching a movie." Some people (I am fairly sure) have been specifically utilized for "disinformation". Others, have specific roles, and they disappear from the scene when their part is complete. I expect some of these people to reappear as witnesses in the upcoming months.
The president has used the word "treason", and therefore, it can be assumed that whatever charges filed will relate to that concept.
That means military tribunals where judges can't be bought off. That's why there is such frantic activity in the Democratic party to find anything to stop Trump.
But at this point, I think everything is in place because the "Q" clock lines up. That this predicted to the day (how events would play out) indicates that the "Q" team are over the target.
As to why it hasn't happened yet; from what I've read -- certain conditions had to be met. Rather like planning a battle -- I remember when my frat brother (who were Rangers) would make elaborate plans with sub plan contingencies. This takes an enormous amount of time. From what "Q" said, this will be a massive undertaking. The "Q" team claims to be our military intelligence, by the way.
Nadler supposedly had a "dehydration" episode this week -- it looked more like a TIA --probably due to stress. Pelosi is barely coherent these days, stumbling over words.
The Democratic house is so frightened they are attempting to force AG Barr to break the law by issuing a subpoena for a document he legally can not give them. He has made it available to them (to read) if they walk over to see it.
But then, there would be a record of who went. There could be no anonymous leaks. So the Democrats won't go look at the document. If they can't leak and spin it; this available to read unredacted report serves no use for them.
The Democrats know that this investigation is serious trouble for them. Unlike the Russia hoax, "Q" has made it very clear that "they have it all" (meaning evidence).
Many Democrat supporters won't believe it until the perpetrators are hanging from a rope (assuming the evidence warrants the maximum penalty for treason.)
I do not think these trials and the subsequent administration of justice will be highly publicized. It would be a bit too gruesome for public consumption. And unlike civil courts, I don't believe the military will put with grandstanding from attornies -- so nobody's going to make little rhymes and get away with playing games. We won't be seeing Bronco chases down the freeway either. The military is very efficient. They are under no obligation to provide "court entertainment". I expect this to be incredibly professional.
I am not worried. Anybody who is high up in rank would have to be the same age (round about) as my frat brothers. So I expect arrests will go smoothly when things do begin. I saw how these guys get trained. If guys like my frat brothers are in charge, everyone will be as safe as they can possibly make things. (Another reason why planning something of this nature takes so long.)
So now comes the declasifications, reports, et.al. -- and we will have to wait to see how much information the military is willing to release to the public. I don't expect a lot. Most of it will probably be on a need to know basis.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 27, 2019 2:34:11 GMT -5
If there had been something bad, it would have already come out long ago. The Reps were in total power for 2 years - House, Senate, Pres, and Supreme. No one to stop them, yet only crickets. Clearly you didn't SEE correctly for yourself. All the PEDOPHILES have SHACKLES if you look at them THE RIGHT WAY. The DEEP STATE and the FAKE NEWS MEDIA doesn't want you to KNOW this. Clearly, you UNDERSTAND nothing. Until the Mueller report was released, any attempt to investigate the "investigators" would be spun as "obstruction". This is why Mueller kept the "special counsel" dragging on. He would have kept it up until the next election to prevent an investigation of himself and his cronies in the Democratic party. Too bad. So sad. Boo hoo, for you. Game over. Now it's boomerang time! -- Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2019 12:34:15 GMT -5
TICK TOCK. For your eyes only Watch this space
OPERATION SCREAMING EAGLE underway
TRUST but VERIFY
The Eagle with Fly Again
27N33W
Q
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 28, 2019 8:30:55 GMT -5
>That means military tribunals where judges can't be bought off. ---Military judges can be bought just as easily as elected or appointed judges. Hey, Judge Bob, you want a promotion or two? How about an off-shore account for your retirement?
>Pelosi is barely coherent these days, stumbling over words. ---Are you referring to that fake video that Trump and Fox passed along? Produced by right-wing folk. Expect to see much more of that sort of thing in the near future since there’s some free software out there called “DeepFake” that allows anyone to put someone else’s face on a person in a video. Want to see Pelosi in a porn video? Someone will probably make that sort of fake next spring, when the campaign heats up. Experts can spot DeepFakes, but that doesn’t help because millions will have already seen the fake and will not hear about its exposure. For example, neither Trump nor Fox has apologized for showing the mumbling Pelosi fake. Trump passed it on in a tweet and Fox ran it as news. Neither has admitted that they were fooled. So millions think it was real. And besides, Trump has been fumbling with words and misspelling words in his tweets for years and no one seems to care. 8->
>I do not think these trials and the subsequent administration of justice will be highly publicized. It would be a bit too gruesome for public consumption. ---OK, let’s assume that you missed the classes in school on basic American government. The US military is strictly forbidden from law enforcement duties dealing with US civilians except during a temporary declaration of martial law. Founding Fathers were very afraid of a strong, central government. Charges of treason would be handled by the FBI and tried by Federal judges, in open court. The Patriot Act allowed for foreign terrorists or US citizens caught fighting for terrorists overseas to not have the same rights as US citizens, so that’s why we keep such folk in Cuba or other foreign lands. If they were brought here, they would be tried here in open court, not by the military.
---Anyway, when you go into the military you take an oath to defend the Constitution, not the nation, not the people, not the nation, and certainly not the president. Just the Constitution. And you are taught that you don’t have to obey an illegal order from your superior officers. So if Trump (or anyone else) ordered the military to arrest and try US citizens in secret, that would be un-Constitutional and therefore illegal. And although some troops might do it, many (most?) would refuse. And if people began to disappear into military prisons, their families or someone would know about it and raise a ruckus. You would even have cases where local law enforcement would be facing off against military police to prevent them from arresting someone. Locals might even storm a military jail and spring arrestees. Big mess, possibility of shooting from both sides, maybe even a civil war.
---You say you doubt that Dems would see the truth even if the facts were presented to them, but arresting Dems and trying them in secret would for sure not change anyone’s viewpoint. IF there were any actual evidence of treason, that would have to come out BEFORE the arrests. And note that political attacks on a president or other politicians are not legally “treason”. Bill Clinton was impeached for purely political reasons and nothing happened to the Reps who set it up. He was sleazy and they were sleazy, but they all continued on as if nothing had happened.
---Also keep in mind that not everyone in the military supports Trump. There are limits as to what active-duty folk can say in public, but a great many veterans, from privates to generals, have openly disdained Trump and his antics. And many active-duty military are critical of him in private. He’s even been openly attacked by high-ranking conservative Republicans.
---Trump is a minority president. Numbers vary, but on any given day only about 40%, at best, think he’s doing a good job. How many of those would support military trials? Not many. Anyway, there are more Dems and Independents than Reps (about 75-80% v. 20-25%) and not even all Reps would support such trials. Maybe if they saw the evidence first, but you’re talking about a situation where Dems would be tried and executed without people even knowing why. Never happen. It’s a QAnon fantasy, with absolutely no basis in reality. ---Again, even if Trump could crank it up in the early days, it would be much more likely to end in a civil war than in trials. Liberals own guns, too. A guy I used to work with is a good example. War veteran, owns lots of guns, big dogs, and a pickup. Classic redneck, except that he hates Trump. He’d be perfectly happy to join a war to kick Trump out of office. I’d certainly be willing to help guard any locals, Dems or Reps, from a military arrest. Yeah, I’m old, but I’ve always been a good shot, and I’d rather die defending the Constitution than tubed up in a nursing home somewhere. ---One last reason these tribunals will never happen. Trump never really wanted the pres job. He’s lazy. He semi-abdicated a few days ago. Says he won’t do any work until the investigations stop. Which they won’t. So he’s given himself a pass to watch TV and play golf all day until next fall, with breaks to have election rallies. Doesn’t even have to pretend to work any more (he wasn't doing much work before, anyway). Military tribunals would mean extra effort on his part. Too much trouble. Might mess with his golfing. LOL
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 28, 2019 9:45:47 GMT -5
>That means military tribunals where judges can't be bought off. ---Military judges can be bought just as easily as elected or appointed judges. Hey, Judge Bob, you want a promotion or two? How about an off-shore account for your retirement? >Pelosi is barely coherent these days, stumbling over words. ---Are you referring to that fake video that Trump and Fox passed along? Produced by right-wing folk. Expect to see much more of that sort of thing in the near future since there’s some free software out there called “DeepFake” that allows anyone to put someone else’s face on a person in a video. Want to see Pelosi in a porn video? Someone will probably make that sort of fake next spring, when the campaign heats up. Experts can spot DeepFakes, but that doesn’t help because millions will have already seen the fake and will not hear about its exposure. For example, neither Trump nor Fox has apologized for showing the mumbling Pelosi fake. Trump passed it on in a tweet and Fox ran it as news. Neither has admitted that they were fooled. So millions think it was real. And besides, Trump has been fumbling with words and misspelling words in his tweets for years and no one seems to care. 8-> >I do not think these trials and the subsequent administration of justice will be highly publicized. It would be a bit too gruesome for public consumption. ---OK, let’s assume that you missed the classes in school on basic American government. The US military is strictly forbidden from law enforcement duties dealing with US civilians except during a temporary declaration of martial law. Founding Fathers were very afraid of a strong, central government. Charges of treason would be handled by the FBI and tried by Federal judges, in open court. The Patriot Act allowed for foreign terrorists or US citizens caught fighting for terrorists overseas to not have the same rights as US citizens, so that’s why we keep such folk in Cuba or other foreign lands. If they were brought here, they would be tried here in open court, not by the military. ---Anyway, when you go into the military you take an oath to defend the Constitution, not the nation, not the people, not the nation, and certainly not the president. Just the Constitution. And you are taught that you don’t have to obey an illegal order from your superior officers. So if Trump (or anyone else) ordered the military to arrest and try US citizens in secret, that would be un-Constitutional and therefore illegal. And although some troops might do it, many (most?) would refuse. And if people began to disappear into military prisons, their families or someone would know about it and raise a ruckus. You would even have cases where local law enforcement would be facing off against military police to prevent them from arresting someone. Locals might even storm a military jail and spring arrestees. Big mess, possibility of shooting from both sides, maybe even a civil war. ---You say you doubt that Dems would see the truth even if the facts were presented to them, but arresting Dems and trying them in secret would for sure not change anyone’s viewpoint. IF there were any actual evidence of treason, that would have to come out BEFORE the arrests. And note that political attacks on a president or other politicians are not legally “treason”. Bill Clinton was impeached for purely political reasons and nothing happened to the Reps who set it up. He was sleazy and they were sleazy, but they all continued on as if nothing had happened. ---Also keep in mind that not everyone in the military supports Trump. There are limits as to what active-duty folk can say in public, but a great many veterans, from privates to generals, have openly disdained Trump and his antics. And many active-duty military are critical of him in private. He’s even been openly attacked by high-ranking conservative Republicans. ---Trump is a minority president. Numbers vary, but on any given day only about 40%, at best, think he’s doing a good job. How many of those would support military trials? Not many. Anyway, there are more Dems and Independents than Reps (about 75-80% v. 20-25%) and not even all Reps would support such trials. Maybe if they saw the evidence first, but you’re talking about a situation where Dems would be tried and executed without people even knowing why. Never happen. It’s a QAnon fantasy, with absolutely no basis in reality. ---Again, even if Trump could crank it up in the early days, it would be much more likely to end in a civil war than in trials. Liberals own guns, too. A guy I used to work with is a good example. War veteran, owns lots of guns, big dogs, and a pickup. Classic redneck, except that he hates Trump. He’d be perfectly happy to join a war to kick Trump out of office. I’d certainly be willing to help guard any locals, Dems or Reps, from a military arrest. Yeah, I’m old, but I’ve always been a good shot, and I’d rather die defending the Constitution than tubed up in a nursing home somewhere. ---One last reason these tribunals will never happen. Trump never really wanted the pres job. He’s lazy. He semi-abdicated a few days ago. Says he won’t do any work until the investigations stop. Which they won’t. So he’s given himself a pass to watch TV and play golf all day until next fall, with breaks to have election rallies. Doesn’t even have to pretend to work any more (he wasn't doing much work before, anyway). Military tribunals would mean extra effort on his part. Too much trouble. Might mess with his golfing. LOL Hi Fred: I know you believe everything you wrote, but you are mistaken on almost every point. I have to locate the specific article explaining why military tribunals can and will be used. It's written by a legal expert and not a reporter for "fake news". In the meantime, (whilst I am combing through some hundred or so saved shortcuts on my desktop looking for that particular educational piece) -- I'm giving you a link to a rather long article which goes a bit deeper than the "tip of the iceberg" Russian collusion hoax investigation. By the time you finish reading it; you will have a glimmer of what is in store for the Dems... theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/05/27/joe-digenova-discusses-declassification-and-origin-of-obama-political-surveillance-operation/Insofar as Pelosi -- you're wrong. Let's go over the facts. Trump tweeted a compilation of Pelosi's actual verbal problems during a specific presser. The "fake news" media accused him of posting a slowed down version to make her appear drunk. Such a video does exist but it was not posted by Trump.Whether you believe such a compilation is "kind" or not, is beside the point. Someone who occupies the 3rd top position in government and is having difficulty expressing her ideas is something the public not only has a "need to know", but a "right to know". Perhaps it is a passing health issue. However,if it is something which affects her mental state on a more permanent basis -- then it needs to be assessed in the context of whether it interferes with her performance abilities. Please note: In Pelosi's case, there is a physical manifestation of a problem, unlike the fantasy ravings of "fake news" which projects amateur psychological "assessments" on Trump to sully his reputation. Pelosi stumbles with language frequently. It is only when the incidents are compiled together that the problem is apparent. But perhaps you believe this is a non-issue because she is a Democrat? --Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2019 12:19:33 GMT -5
To be fair, the US government did arrest """traitors""" like Chelsea Manning, for spilling evidence of US war crimes to foreign and domestic media.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 28, 2019 15:19:08 GMT -5
Deb I indeed do believe that what I wrote is true. And I understand that you also believe everything you write. We’ll just have to disagree. You accuse me of falling for “fake news” when your sources are notorious for spreading false disinformation for propaganda purposes. LOL OK, I looked at your references. But here are the real facts. Treason - Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, treason is specifically limited to levying war against the US, or helping our enemies, giving them aid and comfort. There is no treason law against attacking a president, making up false investigations of a president, etc. (If there were, then Trump could have been arrested for making up fake stories about Obama’s birthplace.) You may be gigged for slander or libel or any of several other charges, but investigating a president in hopes of removing him is not now and never has been illegal, even if you make stuff up to charge him with. And, again, it would be a Federal crime tried in open court, and nothing to do at all with the military. The military can only try members of the military or foreign enemies captured in combat. Period. Second, there was indeed a fake video of Pelosi. Really. Don’t know if she mumbled or stuttered or whatever at any other time, but that particular video was false. Trump didn’t make the video, he just passed it on. Fox ran it without checking to see whether it was real. It wasn’t. >Please note: In Pelosi's case, there is a physical manifestation of a problem, unlike the fantasy ravings of "fake news" which projects amateur psychological "assessments" on Trump to sully his reputation. ---Trump exhibits ALL the symptoms of Toxic Narcissistic Personality Disorder. True, that doesn’t mean anyone can accurately diagnosis him from his public appearances, but it does indicate at least the possibility that he may indeed have that problem and it really needs to be looked into. And that’s the nature of politics – foes look for things to pick on, real or not. Do you think that Trump’s attacks on Joe Biden as having a low IQ, his attacks on Pelosi as being feeble, his attacks on fellow Rep Ted Cruz as being a liar, etc., are any more accurate that Trump’s foes attacking him for NPD? They are all doing exactly the same thing, so if it’s bad for Trump’s foes to do, then it’s also bad for Trump, right? Make him stop or don’t complain about others doing the same thing that he does. 8->
>Pelosi stumbles with language frequently. ---And so does Trump. Any time he stops reading the teleprompter and starts ranting, he can barely put together a complete sentence. Here’s are some references from sources outside the US (not Dem).
Trump speaks at level of 8-year-old, new analysis finds Independent (UK)
His spelling and grammar are disastrous, he contradicts himself, trails into incoherence, never sounds dignified or recognisably presidential The Guardian (UK)
“Donald Trump is difficult to make sense of, even in English,” said Anshuman Tiwari, editor of IndiaToday, a Hindi magazine. “His speech is unclear, and sometimes he contradicts himself or rambles or goes off on a tangent.
I think that Tiwari has it right. In particular, the contradictions. He often contradicts himself in the same speech and there’s hardly a subject that he has talked about that he hasn’t had two or more opinions on. When he’s caught lying, he claims that he never said the first thing, even though it was carried on all the news networks, including Fox. Trump can’t complain about Pelosi’s speech when he himself can’t speak coherently. Is he physically sick or just ignorant? That’s what Trump would say about himself, if he were attacking himself. 8->
Mcans - the US gov does indeed arrest people as spies, etc., but it's the FBI who gets them, and the courts who try them, not the military. Manning was unusual because he was in the military when he committed his crimes.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 28, 2019 17:56:50 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
Quick response -- there are tornado warnings in the area and electric has gone out twice.
Check Trump's Executive orders since assuming office. Also how they effect on existing military law. There are many online articles which explain the conditions under which this can be done. I am still looking for one particular article but the power keeps crashing.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 29, 2019 7:31:18 GMT -5
Good luck with the storms. Best guess now is that climate change means that the Midwest will be experiencing stronger storms and worse flooding from now on. Time to move somewhere else. 8->
Executive orders are weird beasts. There's nothing in the Constitution about them, and they depend on Congress and the courts to allow them. Trump has had several of his blocked by court rulings and will likely have many more before Nov 2020. And that's the trick. Trump might be able to make laws with his executive orders but Congress and the courts have to let him, and the next president can wipe them all out with the stroke of a pen. Trump chopped several Obama executive orders and the next pres will almost certainly chop Trump's. Personally, I think all presidents should be constrained from making new laws with executive orders, new treaties, tariffs, etc. Congress is supposed to make Federal laws and the pres's only job is to carry out what Congress orders. But Congress has been allowing presidents to grab more and more power ever since FDR in 1933, and these days Congress doesn't do much if it doesn't have to.
Anyway, executive orders by Trump that allowed civilians to be tried by military tribunals would be challenged in court if he began locking up Dems, and the legal battles would drag on for years. And trying to remove a president is not a crime, anyway, let alone treason. And there's at least a 50/50 chance that Trump won't be pres after 2020. (I still think he doesn't like the job and might resign if he can figure out a way to blame someone else. But maybe not.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2019 13:18:07 GMT -5
Hi Fred: Quick response -- there are tornado warnings in the area and electric has gone out twice. That's because you're too tolerant of the gays.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 29, 2019 13:46:26 GMT -5
Hi Fred: Quick response -- there are tornado warnings in the area and electric has gone out twice. That's because you're too tolerant of the gays. What's the matter? Do you feel neglected today? --Debutante
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 29, 2019 14:17:44 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
I'm not as upset about the FISA court abuse (although it is very serious)-- as I am about some other information that is floating around.
I can upon it about six months ago and tabled it at the back of my mind because I only saw it in one place. Yesterday, I saw it pop up somewhere else, and it is (in my estimation) a far more serious unforgivable act by the Dems ( if it proves to be true).
I don't know if the source is reliable. It was a tweet of six paragraphs of information supposedly by an "insider". It had to do with Davy Crocketts gone missing in the Obama years, where they ended up, how they got there, and the parties involved.
I am not a happy camper and neither will anyone else be if this turns out to be one of the things that will get revealed and backed up with documentation. As of the moment, it appears to be a tweet on the subject.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 30, 2019 11:31:22 GMT -5
> It had to do with Davy Crocketts gone missing in the Obama years, where they ended up, how they got there, and the parties involved.
---Are you talking about the weapons system that was deactivated in 1971 or so? The DC didn't work very well and it's only function was to loose a strong batch of radiation in a local area. We put them in Germany and S. Korea, but using them would have contaminated the lands we were trying to defend and likely provoked the Soviets into using their own nukes (or whatever), so we gave them up.
---Usually, we sell old stuff to various friendly nations (who then sometimes sell it to people we don't like, or have it taken away from them in combat by their enemies). Not sure whatever happened to the old DCs in 1971, except for a few that ended up in museums. Anyway, the DC was basically a tube (recoiless rifle) that fired a small radioactive projectile. Needed both parts to be a weapon. The shells are more dangerous (and valuable) than the tubes. I can't imagine either of them setting in a warehouse somewhere for 35 years or so and then Obama knowing that they were there and doing anything with them. Now if you said that the Pentagon lost track of them after 1971, that I'd believe. The Pentagon has lost hundreds of tanks, cannons, millions in cash, etc., over the decades. For being the largest bureaucracy in the nation, they're pretty bad at record keeping. 8->
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 30, 2019 11:46:44 GMT -5
Hi Fred:
No. The tweet talked about them going to a hostile foreign power and a large cash payment received in return. Supposedly six in total-- and the paragraphs implied they were still "capable". To say that that is a scary thought is an understatement. I really don't like the thought of anything with radioactive capability being where it supposedly went. But I don't know if this information is true. It is, however, the second time I came across this claim about this about six months apart.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2019 15:35:21 GMT -5
Well, if it was in a tweet then it must be true of course.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 30, 2019 21:40:10 GMT -5
Well, if it was in a tweet then it must be true of course. Wow! I haven't heard a retort so eloquent since I was in first grade! What's next? Are you going to tell me my mother wears galoshes? Lol! --Debutante
|
|