Clapper Must Be 'Sniffing Glue' to Compare Russia Probe to Watergate

anatta said:
If it was limited to the original "intelligence investigation" the FBI had going -OK

But it's not..and all the leaks damage a presidency. The Deep State and the media are more concerned with that.
Click to expand...

When has there not been a group that has tried to damage a sitting President? Deal w/ it, snowflake. That's been the m.o. since at least Clinton, and possibly Bush Sr. Reagan was the last time I remember an opposition party actually working in good faith w/ a President, and that was more how politics was w/ him & prior.

This isn't a "deep state" thing. Obama spent 8 years fending off those who wanted to obstruct & "damage" him. If you want to argue that CNN & MSNBC weren't on board, fine - but what difference does it make that it was Fox & talk radio?
 
Thing1 said:
When has there not been a group that has tried to damage a sitting President? Deal w/ it, snowflake. That's been the m.o. since at least Clinton, and possibly Bush Sr. Reagan was the last time I remember an opposition party actually working in good faith w/ a President, and that was more how politics was w/ him & prior.

This isn't a "deep state" thing. Obama spent 8 years fending off those who wanted to obstruct & "damage" him. If you want to argue that CNN & MSNBC weren't on board, fine - but what difference does it make that it was Fox & talk radio?
Click to expand...

I can't believe you honestly think what Obama fended off is the same as what Trump is fending off. Now pay close attention - as I've said before, I think Trump has brought on much of it due to his offensive remarks about the media and other politicians, however, there is no comparison to what Obama fended off.

Now stop lying that I claim Obama didn't fend anything off.
 
Thing1 said:
You don't think there is a difference between someone who lies for expedience, and someone who lies pathologically?

Think it through. If you don't see a different there, than you really can't make an argument that you see any difference between anyone who has ever lied, and someone like Hillary, or someone like Trump. Your only differentiator is "lying."
Click to expand...

LMAO

So it is okay for you to claim 'it is different', but when others do it, you bash it.

Good job Zappas.
 
Yaya said:
I can't believe you honestly think what Obama fended off is the same as what Trump is fending off. Now pay close attention - as I've said before, I think Trump has brought on much of it due to his offensive remarks about the media and other politicians, however, there is no comparison to what Obama fended off.

Now stop lying that I claim Obama didn't fend anything off.
Click to expand...

Just shows your hackery, quite honestly.

There is nothing inherent in either the right or left that makes them "worse" on this. Both sides tend to have their very vocal and rabid group. The fact that you see it as "less" with Obama just shows your partisan bias, more than anything.

I mean, I'll go back to it: I see them as equal. You actually think there is something more "off" with partisans on the left. That's desh stuff.
 
Thing1 said:
When has there not been a group that has tried to damage a sitting President? Deal w/ it, snowflake. That's been the m.o. since at least Clinton, and possibly Bush Sr. Reagan was the last time I remember an opposition party actually working in good faith w/ a President, and that was more how politics was w/ him & prior.

This isn't a "deep state" thing. Obama spent 8 years fending off those who wanted to obstruct & "damage" him. If you want to argue that CNN & MSNBC weren't on board, fine - but what difference does it make that it was Fox & talk radio?
Click to expand...
Partisan opposition is one thing.
The Deep State leaks or careerist WH leaks by Obamatrons- all facilitated by a servile liberal media- is quite another.
If you can't see this, then you aren't looking
 
anatta said:
Partisan opposition is one thing.
The Deep State leaks or careerist WH leaks by Obamatrons- all facilitated by a servile liberal media- is quite another.
If you can't see this, then you aren't looking
Click to expand...

The deep state thing is the height of paranoia.

I wish politics was NOT this way - but it has been for most of just about anyone's lifetime. What we're seeing now is not different from what we've always seen - it's just because it's "your guy" that it looks all different.

Snowflake city. Welcome to the big leagues. If Trump was remotely competent, didn't go on twitter rages every other day & didn't throw his staff under the bus regularly, the coverage would be better.
 
Thing1 said:
The deep state thing is the height of paranoia.

I wish politics was NOT this way - but it has been for most of just about anyone's lifetime. What we're seeing now is not different from what we've always seen - it's just because it's "your guy" that it looks all different.

Snowflake city. Welcome to the big leagues. If Trump was remotely competent, didn't go on twitter rages every other day & didn't throw his staff under the bus regularly, the coverage would be better.
Click to expand...
you idiot.
Leaking classified information, along with generating excess "reports" based on raw intelligence and record request at unmasking is indeed the Deep State.
If you don't understand it - too bad. If you can't see the difference then under Obama -you're partisan blind.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...vening-in-election-across-government-n2292984
As Inauguration Day approached, Obama White House officials grew convinced that the intelligence was damning and that they needed to ensure that as many people as possible inside government could see it, even if people without security clearances could not. Some officials began asking specific questions at intelligence briefings, knowing the answers would be archived and could be easily unearthed by investigators — including the Senate Intelligence Committee, which in early January announced an inquiry into Russian efforts to influence the election.

At intelligence agencies, there was a push to process as much raw intelligence as possible into analyses, and to keep the reports at a relatively low classification level to ensure as wide a readership as possible across the government — and, in some cases, among European allies. This allowed the upload of as much intelligence as possible to Intellipedia, a secret wiki used by American analysts to share information.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/...ne-share&_r=0&referer=https://t.co/UTX6wBVfID
 
Thing1 said:
Oh, forgive me - it was strongly implied. I mean, I don't think you think that about him - but your posts sure seem like you do.

LOL

You havin' fun?
Click to expand...

How was it even mildly implied?

I like how you obsessively use my arguments, you can't come up with one of your own. You're welcome. :)
 
Thing1 said:
And you think PMP is Mr. Objectivity.
.
Click to expand...

lol......you are incredibly stupid if you believe that......and incredibly dishonest if you said that without believing it........why would you pretend anyone thinks the poster who says "demmycrats are fucking idiots" is objective.......

what's amusing is you think you are.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top