Comey be trolling. Pretty good goof.
Comey be trolling. Pretty good goof.
agip wrote:
Silly Willy wrote:
Moran- everyone that testified- Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker, and others- said there was ZERO evidence of collusion at the time of the Special Counsel.
And the next day, guess what? Yep- zero evidence.
And two days later? Yep- zero evidence.
A month later? Yep- zero evidence.
A year later? Yep- zero evidence.
Through today? Yep- zero evidence.
They could have done an investigation all they wanted, but it should have been done under wraps, like most of their other investigations. There was no reason to publicize it. Face it- they classified it as a counterintelligence investigation because a) they had no proof of a crime (remember, no one could articulate what the accusation even was), and b) it allowed them to maintain a broad scope, which of course is what resulted in the other indictments, to help create a guilty image..... which people like yourself ate up each day. You fool.
it would have stayed under wraps. It was under wraps.
UNTIL THE PRESIDENT FIRED THE HEAD OF THE INVESTIGATION AND SAID 'WHEW GLAD THE INVESTIGATION IS OVER NOW.
JFC.
Comey has even stated that the president CAN FIRE THE FBI DIRECTOR FOR "ANY REASON, OR NO REASON AT ALL."
Oh, and of course let's not lose sight of the FACT that THERE WAS NO COLLUSION OF ANY SORT! (Now proven.)
Trump correctly smelled a setup, and played the long game. He won. And he's going to win some more when the instigators of this national embarrassment are prosecuted for their undermining BS.
JFC is right.
WTF^n wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Free means you don't have to pay. Ordinary rate payers will not pay for electricity.
You want me to blow your mind again?
At times, power will be so plentiful that the electric company might even pay you to take electricity off the grid. You would get paid for turning on your oven.
I must admit that your ignorance makes for rather compelling theater.
So, "ordinary rate payers will not pay for electricity"? In other words, they will pay for it through their taxes rather than in a utility bill. What a bargain!
///
Now as far as power being so plentiful that it might make sense to pay folks to take up load, you do realize that the marginal cost of off-peak power is often negative, right? This is a common occurrence right now and has been for decades.
Finally, a substantive question.
I didn't say it would be paid through taxes. It might be. It might not be. The sunshine and wind are free, but somebody has to pay to maintain the system if we still have a grid. (But that's a big "if". Some people think the grid will go away.)
Ordinary rate payers might be exempt from any cost at all, including taxes. In a world with cheap, plentiful power, commercial and industrial customers might take the lion's share of the overall usage. It could be that residential customers use such a tiny fraction of cheap power that it's not worth bothering to bill them or tax them for it.
Yes, I'm aware of what happens during off-peak hours. Today, industrial customers are occasionally paid to spin up their machines to take load off the grid.
So in the future, when solar is plentiful, there is no reason that ordinary rate payers couldn't get in on that deal. Your oven might automatically turn on, for instance. Maybe you wouldn't get paid for it, but you agree to let them do that in exchange for free electricity.
We need a smart grid and we need a Green New Deal to make sure that benefits like that can go to ordinary Americans.
nontrumper wrote:
Hatter wrote:
Above post by "nontrumper" on December 14, 2017.
Well done! I'm impressed. As I've also posted many times, I do think conspiracy against the US will be very, very difficult to prove without a reasonable doubt. Even Judge Napolitano on Fox News stated he thinks there is evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. I'm still confident that there is much to Mueller's report that will be damning to Trump. I think Trumper's and the MSM jumped the gun with Barr's summary. Barr has already backtracked. I think many around Trump, including Jr. and Kush, are under sealed indictments. I naively thought this would wrap up much sooner than it has, but we haven't been to really rocky part of this ride. Buckle up!
Barr has not backtracked at all. Nice try.
No collusion.
No obstruction.
No further indictments.
Mueller NOPE.
Clownpole DOPE.
Guys Trump is still president, I thought he was supposed to be impeached for collusion like 2 years ago? What happened?
Sally Vix wrote:
Flagpole, you said Don Jr. and Kusher would be indicted. They haven't been and will never be. STOP with you phony scenarios. Just a tip to someone I consider a friend, you are looking more and more foolish every time you make these ridiculous pronouncements especially considering your past record. NOTHING you have predicted in the past has come true. NOTHING. Dude, give it a rest. You are looking comical. Like a dullard who is way over his head. History repeats itself for those who are too foolish to learn from their past mistakes. Earth to Flagpole, just hang low for a bit. You really are not looking very sound.
1) Don Jr. and Kushner will be indicted over some financial crimes. Yes, they might not be indicted for conspiracy, but that's just one of a bunch of predictions I've made. Time will tell.
2) Um...a LOT of things I have predicted have come true. I predicted Manafort and Stone would be indicted. I said Manafort would be found guilty. I said the investigation would turn up a LOT of financial things and that Trump would indeed be investigated for those financial things even though he said it was a red line. I said Trump had ZERO chance to win in 2016 unless there was cheating or aliens made us vote for him, and THERE WAS CHEATING! FELONY cheating! TWO COUNTS of FELONY CHEATING! So, I was RIGHT about the 2016 election. I also have said the dumbest thing Trump ever did other than run for President was to fire Comey, and that is crystal clear true. All of the other predictions I've made are still up in the air, INCLUDING conspiracy (or collusion depending on what the House calls it). Once we see the Mueller Report, we will see what the House does. There doesn't NOT need to be a criminal prosecution of conspiracy for the House to decide there is enough to draw up an article of impeachment with that or a similar name. I'm not saying that for sure will happen now, but the book is not closed on that. Even more likely that they will draw up one for Obstruction of Justice.
3) What is comical is that when one of 18 investigations is over that we even know about (especially when we don't yet know the results of that one investigation) that you Trumpers declare victory. Ask yourself if you would like to be in Trump's shoes today with 17 investigations going on into his financial dealings including one where he has already been named as a co-conspirator to TWO FELONIES.
4) Mueller is still coming (via the investigations he pawned off), and the clown is still done. Unless he dies first or the aliens or crime thing, he WILL go to prison. The biggest threat to me being wrong is on the timing...it's just SOOO much to investigate that he might not be forced to leave office before his term is over. I still think there is time to get it done though.
He remains in BIG trouble, and but for the exceptions I have noted, he WILL go to prison.
Agree wrote:
Democrats lose again wrote:
How’s that Russian collusion working out for you?
When is mueller going to escort trump out of the White House in handcuffs?
Mueller?
Mueller??
Mueller???
Hahahahahaha!!!
Democrats lose again!!!
Nothing better than watching hillary lovers continue to have meltdowns!!!!
Where’s that Russian collusion, you democrat pieces of trash?
Can’t or won’t the quest, you disgusting pieces of trash?
Democrats lose again!!!!
Silly Willy wrote:
agip wrote:
Bottom line is that the FBI saw enough smoke coming out of the Trump campaign and later WH that a counter-intelligence investigation was deemed necessary.
You can't get around that other than to claim counter intelligence investigations are 'criminal' if there is no 'crime.'
Which is patently absurd of course. The whole point of counter-intelligence is to stop crimes (for example spying) from happening and figure out if any damage has been done.
Then when a person being investigated...FIRES THE GUY INVESTIGATING HIM...it's time for a special counsel.
Moran- everyone that testified- Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr, Baker, and others- said there was ZERO evidence of collusion at the time of the Special Counsel.
And the next day, guess what? Yep- zero evidence.
And two days later? Yep- zero evidence.
A month later? Yep- zero evidence.
A year later? Yep- zero evidence.
Through today? Yep- zero evidence.
They could have done an investigation all they wanted, but it should have been done under wraps, like most of their other investigations. There was no reason to publicize it. Face it- they classified it as a counterintelligence investigation because a) they had no proof of a crime (remember, no one could articulate what the accusation even was), and b) it allowed them to maintain a broad scope, which of course is what resulted in the other indictments, to help create a guilty image..... which people like yourself ate up each day. You fool.
Methinks you don't know the difference between evidence and enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.
Fat hurts wrote:
WTF^n wrote:
I must admit that your ignorance makes for rather compelling theater.
So, "ordinary rate payers will not pay for electricity"? In other words, they will pay for it through their taxes rather than in a utility bill. What a bargain!
///
Now as far as power being so plentiful that it might make sense to pay folks to take up load, you do realize that the marginal cost of off-peak power is often negative, right? This is a common occurrence right now and has been for decades.
Finally, a substantive question.
I didn't say it would be paid through taxes. It might be. It might not be. The sunshine and wind are free, but somebody has to pay to maintain the system if we still have a grid. (But that's a big "if". Some people think the grid will go away.)
Ordinary rate payers might be exempt from any cost at all, including taxes. In a world with cheap, plentiful power, commercial and industrial customers might take the lion's share of the overall usage. It could be that residential customers use such a tiny fraction of cheap power that it's not worth bothering to bill them or tax them for it.
Yes, I'm aware of what happens during off-peak hours. Today, industrial customers are occasionally paid to spin up their machines to take load off the grid.
So in the future, when solar is plentiful, there is no reason that ordinary rate payers couldn't get in on that deal. Your oven might automatically turn on, for instance. Maybe you wouldn't get paid for it, but you agree to let them do that in exchange for free electricity.
We need a smart grid and we need a Green New Deal to make sure that benefits like that can go to ordinary Americans.
I see. So "free" means somebody else pays for it.
Sorry, but free means no cost. And shifting the cost to someone else does not qualify as free.
agip wrote:
Trumpers. It's not party over nation - it's Trump over nation and party. Putting the nation's secrets at risk because no one will say no to the porn star president without fear of getting fired.
Indefensible and yeah I'm still able to be shocked by the awfulness of trumpers.
"WASHINGTON — A whistle-blower working inside the White House has told a House committee that senior Trump administration officials granted security clearances to at least 25 individuals whose applications had been denied by career employees, the committee’s Democratic staff said Monday.
The whistle-blower, Tricia Newbold, a manager in the White House’s Personnel Security Office, told the House Oversight and Reform Committee in a private interview last month that the 25 individuals included two current senior White House officials, in addition to contractors and other employees working for the office of the president, the staff said in a memo it released publicly.
The memo does not identify any of 25 individuals referenced by Ms. Newbold."
Jared, Ivanka and John Bolton are three. The disqualifying issues involved foreign influence, conflicts of interest, concerning personal conduct, financial problems, drug use, and criminal conduct.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/security-clearances-house-oversight-committee-tricia-newbold/index.htmlhttps://theweek.com/speedreads/832547/john-bolton-may-have-been-denied-white-house-security-clearanceJvanaka Bolton wrote:
agip wrote:
Trumpers. It's not party over nation - it's Trump over nation and party. Putting the nation's secrets at risk because no one will say no to the porn star president without fear of getting fired.
Indefensible and yeah I'm still able to be shocked by the awfulness of trumpers.
"WASHINGTON — A whistle-blower working inside the White House has told a House committee that senior Trump administration officials granted security clearances to at least 25 individuals whose applications had been denied by career employees, the committee’s Democratic staff said Monday.
The whistle-blower, Tricia Newbold, a manager in the White House’s Personnel Security Office, told the House Oversight and Reform Committee in a private interview last month that the 25 individuals included two current senior White House officials, in addition to contractors and other employees working for the office of the president, the staff said in a memo it released publicly.
The memo does not identify any of 25 individuals referenced by Ms. Newbold."
Jared, Ivanka and John Bolton are three. The disqualifying issues involved foreign influence, conflicts of interest, concerning personal conduct, financial problems, drug use, and criminal conduct.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/01/politics/security-clearances-house-oversight-committee-tricia-newbold/index.htmlhttps://theweek.com/speedreads/832547/john-bolton-may-have-been-denied-white-house-security-clearance
Hey, as long as Trump does all he can to keep brown people out, all is well. Right Trumpers? Can I get an "Amen!?"
WTF^n wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Finally, a substantive question.
I didn't say it would be paid through taxes. It might be. It might not be. The sunshine and wind are free, but somebody has to pay to maintain the system if we still have a grid. (But that's a big "if". Some people think the grid will go away.)
Ordinary rate payers might be exempt from any cost at all, including taxes. In a world with cheap, plentiful power, commercial and industrial customers might take the lion's share of the overall usage. It could be that residential customers use such a tiny fraction of cheap power that it's not worth bothering to bill them or tax them for it.
Yes, I'm aware of what happens during off-peak hours. Today, industrial customers are occasionally paid to spin up their machines to take load off the grid.
So in the future, when solar is plentiful, there is no reason that ordinary rate payers couldn't get in on that deal. Your oven might automatically turn on, for instance. Maybe you wouldn't get paid for it, but you agree to let them do that in exchange for free electricity.
We need a smart grid and we need a Green New Deal to make sure that benefits like that can go to ordinary Americans.
I see. So "free" means somebody else pays for it.
Sorry, but free means no cost. And shifting the cost to someone else does not qualify as free.
Yes it does. As long as it is free to me, it's free.
I often charge my EV at a free public charger. Somebody, somewhere pays for it, but I don't care. It's a FREE public charger. It is free for me to use.
If you just want to keep making the argument that "nothing is really free", that's boring.
If you want to talk about what the future will be like when the cost of electricity plummets to nearly zero, that is interesting.
It's especially interesting when you consider that we need a Green New Deal to make this happen. It will be a huge boon to our economy.
Fat hurts wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You know, you could be a Trumpette if you keep going this way. Perhaps that appeals to you. Perhaps not.
I must admit that your ignorance makes for rather compelling theater.
So, "ordinary rate payers will not pay for electricity"? In other words, they will pay for it through their taxes rather than in a utility bill. What a bargain!
///
Now as far as power being so plentiful that it might make sense to pay folks to take up load, you do realize that the marginal cost of off-peak power is often negative, right? This is a common occurrence right now and has been for decades.
Finally, a substantive question.
I didn't say it would be paid through taxes. It might be. It might not be. The sunshine and wind are free, but somebody has to pay to maintain the system if we still have a grid. (But that's a big "if". Some people think the grid will go away.)
Ordinary rate payers might be exempt from any cost at all, including taxes. In a world with cheap, plentiful power, commercial and industrial customers might take the lion's share of the overall usage. It could be that residential customers use such a tiny fraction of cheap power that it's not worth bothering to bill them or tax them for it.
Yes, I'm aware of what happens during off-peak hours. Today, industrial customers are occasionally paid to spin up their machines to take load off the grid.
So in the future, when solar is plentiful, there is no reason that ordinary rate payers couldn't get in on that deal. Your oven might automatically turn on, for instance. Maybe you wouldn't get paid for it, but you agree to let them do that in exchange for free electricity.
We need a smart grid and we need a Green New Deal to make sure that benefits like that can go to ordinary Americans.
I see. So "free" means somebody else pays for it.
Sorry, but free means no cost. And shifting the cost to someone else does not qualify as free.[/quote]
Yes it does. As long as it is free to me, it's free.
I often charge my EV at a free public charger. Somebody, somewhere pays for it, but I don't care. It's a FREE public charger. It is free for me to use.
If you just want to keep making the argument that "nothing is really free", that's boring.
If you want to talk about what the future will be like when the cost of electricity plummets to nearly zero, that is interesting.
It's especially interesting when you consider that we need a Green New Deal to make this happen. It will be a huge boon to our economy.[/quote]
The Green New Deal will be a huge boon to our economy? Are you serious? It is projected to cost between $51 and $93 trillion over 10 years. That would cripple our economy. Come on!
"But Daddy, you SAID I'd get security clearance. Do you not even CARE about my handbag empire! Ugh, this is so unfair like, I DESERVE this. And Jared is too afraid to say anything because he respects you so much but like, it's so wrong that he doesn't have access to all of America's top secrets, either. Like, he's worked so hard and now you're making him look stupid in front of all of his business partners. Daddy PLEEEEEEEE-ZUH!"
Sally Vix wrote:
The Green New Deal will be a huge boon to our economy? Are you serious? It is projected to cost between $51 and $93 trillion over 10 years. That would cripple our economy. Come on!
You are referring to a bogus study that came up with numbers out of thin air. Seriously. That's what you were fed. Did you really believe it?
The Green New Deal as written today costs $0. There is no spending attached.
The Green New Deal I advocate will be a huge boon to the economy. We will get rid of fossil fuel and start using cleaner, super-cheap energy. Our homes and cars will eventually get free electricity.
And it won't cost much at all because making the switch will be paid for by polluters.
Fat hurts wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
The Green New Deal will be a huge boon to our economy? Are you serious? It is projected to cost between $51 and $93 trillion over 10 years. That would cripple our economy. Come on!
You are referring to a bogus study that came up with numbers out of thin air. Seriously. That's what you were fed. Did you really believe it?
The Green New Deal as written today costs $0. There is no spending attached.
The Green New Deal I advocate will be a huge boon to the economy. We will get rid of fossil fuel and start using cleaner, super-cheap energy. Our homes and cars will eventually get free electricity.
And it won't cost much at all because making the switch will be paid for by polluters.
I wasn't "fed" any numbers. You can live in your fantasy land but the New Green Deal is not going to be a boon to the economy. Do you really believe what you type? The one study from where I got those numbers is led by the former head of the non-partisan CBO. Another article by Forbes magazine offered similar numbers.
Sally Vix wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You are referring to a bogus study that came up with numbers out of thin air. Seriously. That's what you were fed. Did you really believe it?
The Green New Deal as written today costs $0. There is no spending attached.
The Green New Deal I advocate will be a huge boon to the economy. We will get rid of fossil fuel and start using cleaner, super-cheap energy. Our homes and cars will eventually get free electricity.
And it won't cost much at all because making the switch will be paid for by polluters.
I wasn't "fed" any numbers. You can live in your fantasy land but the New Green Deal is not going to be a boon to the economy. Do you really believe what you type? The one study from where I got those numbers is led by the former head of the non-partisan CBO. Another article by Forbes magazine offered similar numbers.
Yes, you were "fed" those numbers. And you were even fed the bogus part about the former head of the CBO.
The number originated with a report by a conservative think tank, American Action Forum, that made huge assumptions about how Democrats would implement their plan. But the $93 trillion figure does not appear anywhere in the think tank’s report — and AAF President Douglas Holtz-Eakin confessed he has no idea how much the Green New Deal would cost.
“Is it billions or trillions?” asked Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “Any precision past that is illusory."
Fat hurts wrote:
Btw, the quote below is from Politico, not me. Credit where credit is due.
The number originated with a report by a conservative think tank, American Action Forum, that made huge assumptions about how Democrats would implement their plan. But the $93 trillion figure does not appear anywhere in the think tank’s report — and AAF President Douglas Holtz-Eakin confessed he has no idea how much the Green New Deal would cost.
“Is it billions or trillions?” asked Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “Any precision past that is illusory."
Sally, you were fed some very, very fake news.
Here is another estimate which appeared in Forbes by a Wall Street veteran ...
Ha ha, that Sun, what an a_ss_hole! Giving away all that energy!