Today in "so much winning"!

[Deleted User 62]

Oh no, it's crazy cool that you do that.

But, it is too bad that you are referencing an article that I wasn't commenting on.

That is the danger you run of constantly trying to prove that you are the smartest guy in the room.

So...when you wrote "Ivanka said it was ok...so....it's ok," you weren't commenting on the article about Ivanka?

Weird.

That is danger you run of being dipshit.

I was commenting on an answer that Ivanka herself gave when asked about her use of unsecure email servers. I witnessed it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears....so I can comment on it without clearing it with you.

You are definitely the superior douche on this site, something to hang your hat on.

[DCHawk1]

But, I see, you still haven't read the story...so...

There's that, at least.

[Deleted User 62]

But, I see, you still haven't read the story...so...

There's that, at least.

Thing is, numbnuts, I DID read the story.

You are assuming your ass off.

[DCHawk1]

Correct. I assumed that if you'd read the story you'd know that you OP was stoopid.

My bad.

[Deleted User 62]

It is what she fucking said, and I am stupid.

Got it

[ousdahl]

Isn’t this the same shit that DC wanted the FBI to lock up Cankles for?

link?

You brought it up as some deflection trying to derail some unrelated thread.

But I won’t go digging it up now, cuz I figure by now even you are finally starting to wonder what Robert Mueller is thinking.

[DCHawk1]

Isn’t this the same shit that DC wanted the FBI to lock up Cankles for?

link?

You brought it up as some deflection trying to derail some unrelated thread.

But I won’t go digging it up now, cuz I figure by now even you are finally starting to wonder what Robert Mueller is thinking.

Nah.

As often happens, you're projecting all negatives on to me. But my shoulders are broad.

I brought up the fact that we learned from Lisa Page's testimony that the Obama DoJ refused to let the FBI charge Hillary and then lied about it.

That's something different altogether.

[DCHawk1]

It is what she fucking said, and I am stupid.

Got it

Ivanka Trump, the president’s eldest daughter, a White House adviser and Kushner’s wife, also used a personal email account for official business, although she said it was primarily logistical and that she switched to a government account when ethics concerns were raised.

Huh. Looks here like she agreed that she shouldn't do that and also agreed not to. Butt...

[Deleted User 62]

Hey, thanks a bunch for clearing that up, and telling me that what I saw/heard her say when asked about her use of outside servers and how it was strikingly similar to what the GOP is demanding that Hillary be put on trial over.

Very refreshing that you, being light years smarter and more advanced than the rest of us, show up to tell me that I didn't actually see/hear what I did.

Your proof (?) is an article that I made no reference to....but you assumed I was.

You are a very bright guy DC, but sometimes, in your quest to make everyone else appear stupid, you wind up pantsed.

All the while, convinced that you have pants on.

[ousdahl]

^^^^

no fucking way DC is wearing pants right now!

[Deleted User 62]

^^^^

no fucking way DC is wearing pants right now!

Nightly fisting session?

That makes sense.

[DCHawk1]

lulz

so bitter...

[DCHawk1]

Hey, thanks a bunch for clearing that up, and telling me that what I saw/heard her say when asked about her use of outside servers and how it was strikingly similar to what the GOP is demanding that Hillary be put on trial over.

Very refreshing that you, being light years smarter and more advanced than the rest of us, show up to tell me that I didn't actually see/hear what I did.

Your proof (?) is an article that I made no reference to....but you assumed I was.

You are a very bright guy DC, but sometimes, in your quest to make everyone else appear stupid, you wind up pantsed.

All the while, convinced that you have pants on.

I already told you it was my mistake.

I mean there's an article. Trad links to it. People post about it. And you start quoting a conversation you're having with yourself.

I should have known better than to interrupt. I imagine it's like sleepwalking.

[ousdahl]

link?

You brought it up as some deflection trying to derail some unrelated thread.

But I won’t go digging it up now, cuz I figure by now even you are finally starting to wonder what Robert Mueller is thinking.

Nah.

As often happens, you're projecting all negatives on to me. But my shoulders are broad.

I brought up the fact that we learned from Lisa Page's testimony that the Obama DoJ refused to let the FBI charge Hillary and then lied about it.

That's something different altogether.

Yeah, in a thread about a special counsel’s investigation of a potus, you brought up dated allegations against a political foe that were completely unrelated to the topic at hand, thus echoing potus’s general sentiments and strategies.

That IS something different altogether.

You sure you aren’t the one projecting negatives onto Cankles?

But hey, if I read that post soon enough I would have given it a POTD, because those broad shoulders are 70s big.

[DCHawk1]

Not dated. Brand spanking new.

I'll try to keep it on track, though.

Thanks, Gutter.

[ousdahl]

To be fair, I was the one who brought ol’ Cankles up, when I jokingly mistook her for a bunch of crooks who the feds DID decide to indict, lulz.

[kubandalum]

Meanwhile, in other news, a Rolling Stone reporter, writing in The New Yorker, tells what his experience was like when he worked at the SPLC.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... law-center
(Hint: past history not a sign of what it had become.)

[Shirley]

This hasn't aged well:

[Shirley]

The op-ed that got Stephen Moore his Fed nomination is based on two major falsehoods

President Trump reportedly chose Stephen Moore for one of the vacancies at the Federal Reserve Board after reading a Wall Street Journal op-ed Moore wrote attacking the Fed. The piece, co-authored with Louis Woodhill, made two central claims: (1) we’re experiencing deflation, and (2) the way to address it is to follow a rule adopted by Paul Volcker in the 1980s.

Slight problem though: Both of those claims are flat-out false. There is no deflation, and Volcker never created the imaginary “rule” Moore is now attributing to him. I know, because I asked Volcker — as Moore once suggested I do...

When I first, shall we say, expressed skepticism about Moore’s claim in that CNN debate, he suggested I get things from the horse’s mouth.

MOORE: Do you know what the Volcker Rule was? You know how he killed inflation? He followed commodity prices. Every time commodity prices went up, he -- he raised interest rates, and every time --

RAMPELL: That’s not what the Volcker Rule is.

MOORE: Yes, it was. That's what he did, and that's how we conquered inflation, and that's why --

RAMPELL: Google the Volcker Rule, people. That’s not what the Volcker Rule is.

MOORE: Yes, it was. Ask him. Ask him.

So I figured, why not ask Volcker? I sent an inquiry through his book publicist, who passed it along to Volcker’s assistant. The assistant replied: “I showed this to Mr. Volcker and he says that he does not remember ever establishing a commodity-price rule.”

There you have it. Trump has nominated to the world’s most powerful central bank a guy who has trouble telling whether prices are going up or down, and struggles to remember how the most famous Fed chair in history successfully stamped out inflation. But hey, Republican senators still seem keen on him because “the establishment” keeps pointing out how inept he is.

[Shirley]

Well, maybe I've been a little too hard on Moore:

Steve Leishman on CNBC today: "...Stephen Moore would not be the dumbest, least intellectual, least experienced guy I've known to be on the bench... But as far as the Fed's credibility is concerned, the idea that the president has bypassed convention and appointed someone who was appointed strictly for political reasons, has the possibility of undermining the Fed."