Shadowgate

Ipso

And didn’t he deploy them so he could go read Corinthians 2?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Are you claiming Trump didn't send in these guys to guard the monuments, etc from protesters?

That the entire Trump administration has no idea who all these armed men are correct?

If so, they why did he order their withdrawal?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-national-guard-withdraw-washington-dc-perfect-control-george-floyd

Homeland security behind this move and Trump just allowing it to happen and signing off on it. Homeland security is the Bush administration police force. You now saw the consequences of this during the peaceful riots for the most part.

One journalist holds the right position and understands why both democrats and republicans are at fault here.

In a press conference on Tuesday, Chad Wolf, the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security, responded to media reports that unidentified federal agents using unmarked vehicles have been arresting protesters in Portland, Oregon. Since early July, men in military-style uniforms have waged battle against protesters there, using tear gas and nonlethal munitions; video and photographs coming out of Portland have shown scenes of urban warfare, with what looks like a regular army moving on unarmed protesters night after night. On behalf of the D.H.S. and its uniformed services, Wolf claimed responsibility for the armed presence in Portland. He asserted that his agency was doing exactly what it was created to do. He was right.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-dhs-was-destined-to-become-a-secret-police-force

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Homeland security behind this move and Trump just allowing it to happen and signing off on it.

No. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt requested the army secretary to send the National Guard to protect DC monuments.

Mr Bernhardt works for Mr Trump.

In the photo you posted, those are DC National Guard members. Why are you trying to insinuate they are some sort of "deep state" agents?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

No. Interior Secretary David Bernhardt requested the army secretary to send the National Guard to protect DC monuments.

Mr Bernhardt works for Mr Trump.

In the photo you posted, those are DC National Guard members. Why are you trying to insinuate they are some sort of "deep state" agents?

You really do have your own version of reality. The men guarding the monument have no names, no badges, or insignia and we have no proof their uniforms
are belonging to the national guard. Yes the news media printed stories the national guard was send to Washington on Trump orders, but were the proof
all these men are from same unit of the national guard. Men from other branches of the federal government could be standing there since noway to identify each person. Secret police remove badges and insignia, something you obviously you don't get here .

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You really do have your own version of reality. The men guarding the monument have no names, no badges, or insignia and we have no proof their uniforms
are belonging to the national guard.

They are DC National Guard. This can be verified with countless sources.

This isn't my opinion, so it's not "my own version of reality"

Yes the news media printed stories the national guard was send to Washington on Trump orders, but were the proof
all these men are from same unit of the national guard.

From their effing spokesman, from the giant "National Guard" written on the back of those with black jackets, from the confirmation from the secretary of the army


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/06/24/dc-guard-activation/

The Army activated about 400 unarmed members of the Washington, D.C., National Guard to “prevent any defacing or destruction” of monuments, defense officials said Wednesday, as protests over police violence continue alongside efforts to pull down statues in the capital.

Interior Secretary David Bernhardt requested the Guardsmen to bolster the National Park Police, said Air Force Senior Master Sgt. Craig Clapper, a D.C. Guard spokesman. The Guardsmen were posted at an armory awaiting directions for when and where they will be used, Clapper said.

You on the other hand use your incredulity and denial (as always) to insinuate they are special magic mysterious "deep state" troops just casually standing in the US and no one notices this, including the people who literally ordered them there

And you have to gall to accuse others of living in fantasy land

Men from other branches of the federal government could be standing there since noway to identify each person.

Yes, and there were officers from the prisons service in unmarked uniforms



For whatever reason, many of the federal agents/troops that Trump sent in turned up in largely unmarked uniforms, which was noted by literally everyone, including Pelosi, who demanded the info from the Trump administration

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They are DC National Guard. This can be verified with countless sources.

This isn't my opinion, so it's not "my own version of reality"



From their effing spokesman, from the giant "National Guard" written on the back of those with black jackets, from the confirmation from the secretary of the army


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/06/24/dc-guard-activation/



You on the other hand use your incredulity and denial (as always) to insinuate they are special magic mysterious "deep state" troops just casually standing in the US and no one notices this, including the people who literally ordered them there

And you have to gall to accuse others of living in fantasy land



Yes, and there were officers from the prisons service in unmarked uniforms



For whatever reason, many of the federal agents/troops that Trump sent in turned up in largely unmarked uniforms, which was noted by literally everyone, including Pelosi, who demanded the info from the Trump administration

Compare the official uniform of the national guard to the paramilitary style uniform worn by the men standing on the steps The men in the back of truck are easily identifiable to the public as you pointed out.

You seem to not get it still the men even are they are national guard are behaving like a secret police force. You can have lawless people dressed in uniforms acting out against innocent people here. People are not going to respect enforcement that's hidden and secretive.

Pelosi full of crap she only demanding answers now because Trump standing up to the protestors. If rioting was happening, with biden in power, similar
uniformed people be showing up there. Democrats are constantly renewing the patriot act in Congress, so there act doesn't wash with me.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The men in the back of truck are easily identifiable to the public as you pointed out.

Where is this magic "rule" coming from that every federal officer or agent or troop that is deployed in the US has to have markings on their uniforms?

Because that is the entire basis for this bonkers theory of yours. Has it ever occurred to you they were told to remove certain identifiers because, gee I don't know, they would be potentially beating the crap out of US citizens?

Why were they using unmarked cars? almost as if they didn't want to be identified when they were using force against Portland protesters

And how on earth did the Trump administration not know who these people were? they specifically ordered these people there

President Donald Trump announced that the White House will send more federal agents into Albuquerque, citing the city’s high violent crime rate.

Trump said the deployment of agents to cities “plagued by violent crime” is part of what he called Operation Legend. The federal government had already sent agents to Kansas City as part of the program.

He said state and local officials should accept the federal law enforcement officers.

“They should call, they should want it,” Trump said. “They’re too proud or they’re too political to want it.”

U.S. Attorney General William Barr said that they would send 35 agents to Albuquerque, with more going to Chicago and 200 already in Kansas City as part of the operation. The agents would come from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Marshals Service and the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Investigations team.

Both of New Mexico’s U.S. Senators, along with 25 other colleagues, asked Barr and Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf in a letter about the use of anonymous federal agents in U.S. cities.

“Critically, it remains unclear what legal authorities the federal government has invoked for its militarized interventions in American cities,” the letter read. “All of this is part of an alarming pattern by the Trump Administration in taking an aggressive and excessive response to protests catalyzed by the killing of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and many others.

Barr and Wolf work for the Trump administration. Uh oh, did they accidentally order "deep state" agents by mistake instead of normal unmarked ones? Oh man what a mixup

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Where is this magic "rule" coming from that every federal officer or agent or troop that is deployed in the US has to have markings on their uniforms?

Because that is the entire basis for this bonkers theory of yours. Has it ever occurred to you they were told to remove certain identifiers because, gee I don't know, they would be potentially beating the crap out of US citizens?

Why were they using unmarked cars? almost as if they didn't want to be identified when they were using force against Portland protesters

And how on earth did the Trump administration not know who these people were? they specifically ordered these people there



Barr and Wolf work for the Trump administration. Uh oh, did they accidentally order "deep state" agents by mistake instead of normal unmarked ones? Oh man what a mixup

What bonkers theory, you just admitted they hide their identity to beat up people. And you are now proving my theory here, thanks!

Either way this is not a Donald trump trained force, they are agents of the elite class trained to act this way under orders. This force had no problem beating up US citizens. Had the training for this scenario, and they got deployed to stop the peaceful protests.

Democrats magically think this riot force just sprung from nowhere. When Trump gone the same people with no insignia and badges will be in the same jobs and there ready to be used again.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

And how on earth did the Trump administration not know who these people were? they specifically ordered these people there

Barr and Wolf work for the Trump administration. Uh oh, did they accidentally order "deep state" agents by mistake instead of normal unmarked ones? Oh man what a mixup

I think the issue there is that according to the Qanon/deep state narrative, Trump is an innocent good guy who the shadowy deep state is trying to foil

So it's not possible for Trump to have ordered deep state troops to do anything. Otherwise then conspiracy theorists would have a contradiction they can't address. Which is why cheerful is ignoring it.

The other issue is that the protests are also apparently the result of a deep state plot as well, which adds further contradictions that need to be ignored.

In summary, Trump ordered deep state troops to stop a deep state protest movement, but he also didn't know either of those were controlled by the deep state.

Cheerful Spring2

Qanon nonsense. There entire plot involves around someone in the White house leaking secrets and Donald Trump draining the swamp and fighting the deep state.

His entire cabinet staff is deep state. Pompeo, Haspel, Munchin, David Bernhardt, Barr, Wolf, majority are neocon some left over from the bush era. There no Trump deep state fight back. Trump is screwing the country because of them.

Trump promised full transparency with the JFK files, and soon as the CIA and FBI (deep state officials) told him he can't do that, all promises were forgotten.

Water John

Still don't see any justification for a woman and her brother assaulting their mother.

Cheerful Spring2

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Qanon nonsense.

Yes it is. Yet you are promoting the same stuff and defending the people and organisations who make a mint out of promoting the same stuff.

You're still ignoring the issue that your boy Trump ordered those guys to suppress the protests.
But this isn't in line with your conspiracy, so you just dodge the point dishonestly.
And then this is all a dodge from the initial point that some hacks from Info Wars are marketing their **** documentary.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Well given that it seems to be based on Qanon stuff and is connected to Alex Jones' Info Wars and given how Russia Today is spinning the story, it's very unlikely that the documentary is very good or factual.

What about the documentary was convincing to you?
Why should other people ignore the massive red flags about the documentary?

It seems to be based on

Hehehe you seem to have got your panties in a bunch about Qanaon


https://www.axios.com/qanon-nominees-congress-gop-8086ed21-b7d3-46af-9016-d132e65ba801.html

11 GOP congressional nominees support QAnon conspiracy

LOL A lot of push back for a CT on the internet

What are ye afraid of

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

Hehehe you seem to have got your panties in a bunch about Qanaon

11 GOP congressional nominees support QAnon conspiracy

LOL A lot of push back for a CT on the internet

What are ye afraid of

I'm afraid that so many politicians would believe in something so obviously ridiculous.

It would be like them supporting the notion of flat earth.

It's also weird that you guya seem so supportive of it.
I thought that it was a given that it was complete nonsense even to most conspiracy theorists.
Guess I was wrong.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

I'm afraid that so many politicians would believe in something so obviously ridiculous.

It would be like them supporting the notion of flat earth.

It's also weird that you guya seem so supportive of it.
I thought that it was a given that it was complete nonsense even to most conspiracy theorists.
Guess I was wrong.

Trump asked about Qanon at press conference today
Maybe they will ask him about flat earth tomorrow
LOL

enno99

enno99 wrote: »

Trump asked about Qanon at press conference today
Maybe they will ask him about flat earth tomorrow
LOL

I'm not sure what your loling about.

Is it because you think that this lends Qanon some credibility somehow?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not sure what your loling about.

Is it because you think that this lends Qanon some credibility somehow?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SAyd3A_0G4

This

Ipso

There's a current conspiracy in the news; Bannon and some Trump lackey are facing fraud charges relating to the privately build border wall. I'm sure d'deep state made them do it.

Dohnjoe

Ipso wrote: »

There's a current conspiracy in the news; Bannon and some Trump lackey are facing fraud charges relating to the privately build border wall. I'm sure d'deep state made them do it.

Which is really just a small diversion from allegations that the current President of the United States is conspiring with his own party and the head of the US postal service to sabotage the next election. But apparently these types of conspiracies just aren't sexy enough.

Cheerful Spring2

Apparently Alex Jones has cut ties with her. Roger Stone was accused in this documentary and Alex got upset about it, that's what i am reading online. This event made Millie lot of money so i doubt she's that pissed off losing the Alex gig.

https://twitter.com/Millie__Weaver/status/1296140195604168714

Ipso

Great stuff

ohnonotgmail

Ipso wrote: »

There's a current conspiracy in the news; Bannon and some Trump lackey are facing fraud charges relating to the privately build border wall. I'm sure d'deep state made them do it.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which is really just a small diversion from allegations that the current President of the United States is conspiring with his own party and the head of the US postal service to sabotage the next election. But apparently these types of conspiracies just aren't sexy enough.

Bannon was arrested by US Postal Service agents which i thought was a nice touch.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Apparently Alex Jones has cut ties with her. Roger Stone was accused in this documentary and Alex got upset about it, that's what i am reading online. This event made Millie lot of money so i doubt she's that pissed off losing the Alex gig.

You don't mess with Roger Stone.

Cheerful Spring2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Bannon was arrested by US Postal Service agents which i thought was a nice touch.

Nancy Pelosi net worth is 120 million to 140 million, do people honestly believe she made that kind of money from her salary? They're all corrupt but Bannon an easy target because he allied with Trump a few years ago.

The Nal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nancy Pelosi net worth is 120 million to 140 million, do people honestly believe she made that kind of money from her salary? They're all corrupt but Bannon an easy target because he allied with Trump a few years ago.

Bannon is shameless scum. A horrid human.

Well worth a watch.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nancy Pelosi net worth is 120 million to 140 million, do people honestly believe she made that kind of money from her salary?

She didn't make her fortune from her salary, which is around $220,000 per year, most of it comes from real estate investment with her husband
https://moneyinc.com/nancy-pelosi-net-worth/

They're all corrupt but Bannon an easy target because he allied with Trump a few years ago.

They aren't "all corrupt", there are plenty of politicians on all sides who have legitimately made their money. This type of comment is just another example of your lazy thinking and generalisations connected to your world views.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

She didn't make her fortune from her salary, which is around $220,000 per year, most of it comes from real estate investment with her husband
https://moneyinc.com/nancy-pelosi-net-worth/



They aren't "all corrupt", there are plenty of politicians on all sides who have legitimately made their money. This type of comment is just another example of your lazy thinking and generalisations connected to your world views.

Dohnjoe is defending corruption when it's the side he supports. That's her wealth not her husbands fortune. How did she accumulate 140 million from a salary of 200,000 a year? Dohnjoe will not look further into this beyond what he reads on website supporting her.

Cheerful Spring2

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Dohnjoe is defending corruption when it's the side he supports. That's her wealth not her husbands fortune. How did she accumulate 140 million from a salary of 200,000 a year? Dohnjoe will not look further into this beyond what he reads on website supporting her.

Lol.

Also have people given up trying to defend this bull**** artist and her bull**** documentary now?

ohnonotgmail

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.

Also have people given up trying to defend this bull**** artist and her bull**** documentary now?

all quietly forgotten about. still, raising $170,000 to pay for your legal fees when you rob and assault your mother is a nice grift.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nancy Pelosi net worth is 120 million to 140 million, do people honestly believe she made that kind of money from her salary? They're all corrupt but Bannon an easy target because he allied with Trump a few years ago.

what does that have to do with bannon being arrested?

Cheerful Spring2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

all quietly forgotten about. still, raising $170,000 to pay for your legal fees when you rob and assault your mother is a nice grift.

The mother claims she dropped the charges against her daughter in May. For whatever reason, the State of Ohio decided to still prosecute a family matter case by secret indictment in July and only arrest her in August (the week her video got released) There some unusual things happening here no matter how much you want to downplay it.

Yes there was enough suckers to pay her legal fees

Yes Millie according to the story tackled her mother to the ground, but the state still has not revealed why they decided to pursue a familiy matter case after the mother had dropped all charges?

I only watched 20 minutes of the video, before it got taken down for Hate Speech on Youtube. What said in the rest of the video was hateful?

Cheerful Spring2

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

The mother claims she dropped the charges against her daughter in May. For whatever reason, the State of Ohio decided to still prosecute a family matter case by secret indictment in July and only arrest her in August (the week her video got released) There some unusual things happening here no matter how much you want to downplay it.

Yes there was enough suckers to pay her legal fees

Yes Millie according to the story tackled her mother to the ground, but the state still has not revealed why they decided to pursue a familiy matter case after the mother had dropped all charges?

I only watched 20 minutes of the video, before it got taken down for Hate Speech on Youtube. What said in the rest of the video was hateful?

Or maybe it's bull**** and you just don't understand the details of the case and of law in a different country.
But then:
Cheerspring will not look further into this beyond what he reads on website supporting her

Cheerful Spring2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what does that have to do with bannon being arrested?

You licking lips Bannon was arrested ok be happy your side won a victory today. Just pointing out you could arrest many others beside Bannon for fraud and insider trading.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You licking lips Bannon was arrested ok be happy your side won a victory today.
.

are you not happy that a man that defrauded people will face consequences for what he did? presumably you are inplying that you are on Bannons side.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Just pointing out you could arrest many others beside Bannon for fraud and insider trading.

i presume you have some actual evidence that pelosi is involved in fraud and insider trading?

Cheerful Spring2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are you not happy that a man that defrauded people will face consequences for what he did? presumably you are inplying that you are on Bannons side.



i presume you have some actual evidence that pelosi is involved in fraud and insider trading?

I have no skin in the game. Bannon arrest doesn't surprise me. Difference between me and you, i know both parties are at it. Do you honestly believe democrats don't cheat and steal like Republicans?

The biggest fraud occurring right now with trillions being handed out to investors who trade the stock markets.

1.1 million signed on for unemployment benefits, this week, despite 7 trillion or more got printed by the FED. Why are the democrats and republicans not asking where the money gone?

Cheerful Spring2

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have no skin in the game. Bannon arrest doesn't surprise me. Difference between me and you, i know both parties are at it. Do you honestly believe democrats don't cheat and steal like Republicans?

The biggest fraud occurring right now with trillions being handed out to investors who trade the stock markets.

1.1 million signed on for unemployment benefits despite 7 trillion or more got printed by the FED. Why are the democrats and republicans not asking where the money gone?

So no evidence.
Just your own personal incredulity and expertise.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have no skin in the game. Bannon arrest doesn't surprise me. Difference between me and you, i know both parties are at it. Do you honestly believe democrats don't cheat and steal like Republicans?

The biggest fraud occurring right now with trillions being handed out to investors who trade the stock markets.

1.1 million signed on for unemployment benefits, this week, despite 7 trillion or more got printed by the FED. Why are the democrats and republicans not asking where the money gone?

where is your evidence of fraud by pelosi? you named her specifically so you must have had a reason for mentioning her.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Dohnjoe is defending corruption when it's the side he supports. That's her wealth not her husbands fortune. How did she accumulate 140 million from a salary of 200,000 a year? Dohnjoe will not look further into this beyond what he reads on website supporting her.

To explain your thought process and the faults here..

You discovered that Pelosi has a lot of money, it's quite a lot more than what she would make from a career in politics, however you don't bother to find out the reason why (ignorance), so you jumped straight to the suspicion that she is corrupt. This is faulty thinking.

That faulty thinking is based on this underlying false notion you have that "all politicians are corrupt". Which is a personal world view you hold, a false one.

It's a crystal clear example of how faulty world views combined with ignorance quickly leads to faulty thinking

(and knowing you, now this faulty suspicion has cemented as a "fact" in your mind)

Likewise Donald Trump has a lot of wealth, Bernie Sanders, the Obama's - it doesn't automatically mean they are all corrupt. Each is a case-by-case basis.

Cheerful Spring2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i presume you have some actual evidence that pelosi is involved in fraud and insider trading?

Too powerful a lady to bring down. From time to time some journalists will ask hard questions about things they find.

Love CNN saying "soft corruption" they are so transparent in their downplay.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi fired back Sunday at a CBS News' "60 Minutes" report that highlighted several instances of what it suggested could be "soft corruption."
The show looked at the investments of various lawmakers -- including Pelosi, House Speaker John Boehner and Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama -- who reportedly bought stocks around the same time legislation involving those investments was being discussed.

https://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/13/politics/60-minutes-pelosi/index.html

ohnonotgmail

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To explain your thought process and the faults here..

You discovered that Pelosi has a lot of money, it's quite a lot more than what she would make from a career in politics, however you don't bother to find out the reason why (ignorance), so you jumped straight to the suspicion that she is corrupt. This is faulty thinking.

That faulty thinking is based on this underlying false notion you have that "all politicians are corrupt". Which is a personal world view you hold, a false one.

It's a crystal clear example of how faulty world views combined with ignorance quickly leads to faulty thinking

(and knowing you, now this faulty suspicion has cemented as a "fact" in your mind)

Likewise Donald Trump has a lot of wealth, Bernie Sanders, the Obama's - it doesn't automatically mean they are all corrupt. Each is a case-by-case basis.

and it was bizarrely just thrown out in a response to a post about steve bannon.

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Likewise Donald Trump has a lot of wealth, Bernie Sanders, the Obama's - it doesn't automatically mean they are all corrupt. Each is a case-by-case basis.

Same with Alex Jones and other conspiracy peddlers he subscribes to.
And now, after this grift, the bull**** artist behind this pretend documentary.

But that doesn't apply to those people, because he has to preserve belief in them as it's not possible they are wrong or corrupt. Because they are conspiracy theorists.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Too powerful a lady to bring down. From time to time some journalists will ask hard questions about things they find.

Love CNN saying "soft corruption" they are so transparent in their downplay.



https://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/13/politics/60-minutes-pelosi/index.html

that is it? that is all you have? pathetic even for you.

Cheerful Spring2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is it? that is all you have? pathetic even for you.

You know insider trading illegal right? pathetic you will downplay corruption by either side.

Obviously, the reason insider trading is illegal is because it gives the insider an unfair advantage in the market, puts the interests of the insider above those to whom he or she owes a fiduciary duty, and allows an insider to artificially influence the value of a company's stocks.

Why bother with laws then?
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-insider-trading-and-why-is-it-illegal-31598

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You know insider trading illegal right? pathetic you will downplay corruption by either side.



Why bother with laws then?
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-insider-trading-and-why-is-it-illegal-31598

there was nothing to suggest it was insider trading. nothing. It was an IPO. thousands of people probably bought shares in the same offering. for it to be insider trading pelosi would have to have some inside knowledge not available to the public. there is no suggestion of what that knowledge might be. I'd say you were googling furiously after mentioning pelosi in the hope of finding something, anything, some piece of dirt to throw around. sad.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'd say you were googling furiously after mentioning pelosi in the hope of finding something, anything, some piece of dirt to throw around. sad.

And also the definition of insider trading.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

To explain your thought process and the faults here..

You discovered that Pelosi has a lot of money, it's quite a lot more than what she would make from a career in politics, however you don't bother to find out the reason why (ignorance), so you jumped straight to the suspicion that she is corrupt. This is faulty thinking.

That faulty thinking is based on this underlying false notion you have that "all politicians are corrupt". Which is a personal world view you hold, a false one.

It's a crystal clear example of how faulty world views combined with ignorance quickly leads to faulty thinking

(and knowing you, now this faulty suspicion has cemented as a "fact" in your mind)

Likewise Donald Trump has a lot of wealth, Bernie Sanders, the Obama's - it doesn't automatically mean they are all corrupt. Each is a case-by-case basis.

Faulty thinking believing she could earn that wealth from earning only 200,000 a year. How does she earn 140 million.

10 years in the job, she still only would have earned 2 miliion + (not taxed income)

She's corrupt, and not that difficult to see why.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Faulty thinking believing she could earn that wealth from earning only 200,000 a year. How does she earn 140 million.

10 years in the job, she still only would have earned 2 miliion + (not taxed income)

She's corrupt, and not that difficult to see why.

she was nearly 50 before she entered politics. and the 140M (some sites say 120M) is shared with her husband.

Cheerful Spring2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there was nothing to suggest it was insider trading. nothing. It was an IPO. thousands of people probably bought shares in the same offering. for it to be insider trading pelosi would have to have some inside knowledge not available to the public. there is no suggestion of what that knowledge might be. I'd say you were googling furiously after mentioning pelosi in the hope of finding something, anything, some piece of dirt to throw around. sad.

Can you read

The show looked at the investments of various lawmakers -- including Pelosi, House Speaker John Boehner and Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama -- who reportedly bought stocks around the same time legislation involving those investments was being discussed.

Cheerful Spring2

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Can you read

Again Cheerful, you struggle to use correct grammar and language.
You shouldn't be questioning people's ability to read.

ohnonotgmail

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Can you read

i can read perfectly well thanks. and i presume you know what that legislation was and that it would be beneficial to the credit card companies? but of course the existence of that legislation was public knowledge. all legislation going through congress is public knowledge. so what private information did Pelosi have?