^ excellent argument MereMitchell.

@LL - what? There's no contradiction there... Russia lost the cold war and became a vassal....why is that hard to understand?

Maybe not flipping the burgers, maybe just getting them from the freezer is ambitious enough right now. Aim for a degree in Small Kitchen Logistics. Make us proud.

Did Jeff Sessions get his instructions from "alternative Russians" who work out of the "alternative Russian Embassy" ?

Well fiedler, when Lethologica and I visit your business Empire, just make sure you put a good shine on our shoes if you expect a tip

"My sarcasm is placed like a made in USA cruise missile." Friendly fire?

@fiedler, I found something I agree with you on! I too believe that the top 1% around the world are tooling around the rest of us. Also, I agree that certain elites are committed to opposition to Russia. However, you conclude that Russia is a vassal state. It ain't. Think of it this way. Putin needs America as a boogeyman to keep Russia in line. Likewise, the military-industrialcomplex needs Russia/ISIS/etc as an enemy to keep spending high.

Russia didn't think they would tip the election (and arguably the didn't, Comey and Hillary's mistakes, but mostly Comey). They thought they would only hobble a Clinton administration. Now they got any number of Trump operatives subject to blackmail. Republicans' party-first mentality is to circle the wagons and deny everything.

@Exxon, and it's CEO. Exxon was the biggest oil company in the world until Putin's Russia took control of and amalgamated several of the Russian oil companies, Rosneft is now the biggest in the world.

Exxon agreed a deal with Russia's Rosneft which wpuld have been the largest deal ever (i would presume this was for oil discovery in Russia).

Then Putin's Russia got into a little scuffle with Ukraine over EU and trade and took control of Crimea. So Obama put in place some economic sanctions against Russia, preventing Exxon from going ahead with the deal.

Now we have a US CEO Rex Tillerson having a clear conflict of interest being appointed to Trumps administration.

And the acqusation that Trump and Co have been allowed to purchase 19% of the Russian national oil company (which was sold in December to parties unknown, traced back to Cayman Island accounts)

Trumps rhetoric regarding Russia is circumstantial evidence that would support this conspiracy theory. And i'm sure the CIA or FBI would be interested...

Roses are red
Violets are blue
If Sessions/Flynn/Manafort have ties to Russia
Trump does too

Flynn contacted Russia
Sessions did too
Trump's a Russian puppet
Steele's dossier is true

Roses Are Red
The AG is lying
Does he have ties to Russia?
What are you hiding?

Roses are red,
So are the Soviets,
I'm bad at rhyming,
Fuck Donald Trump.

@orathaic, in defense of Tillerson, didn't he do the right thing and put all of his assets into a blind trust -- thus eliminating his conflict of interest? (At least for purposes of being able to serve. I get that his friends at Exxon can benefit or that he might be rewarded in the future for favors now, etc)

@fiedler What kind of "vassal state" annexes Crimea, props up Assad, and meddles in our elections? If nearly every major foreign policy decision Putin makes is in direct opposition to US interests, how can they be a "vassal state?" Controlled opposition yeah right, more like the Trump administration is opposition controlled.

We need a special prosecutor. The Republicans are more interested in the park service getting a heads up while ignoring that our government seems to be operating at the instructions of a foreign government. We need a special prosecutor and that person needs to not be a republican hack or even a republican at all (see, Comey, James for what happens when you trait a Repuboucan to be a professional at the expense of the party)

@Hauta : i don't know, the suggestion is that russia explicitally made a deal to get sanctions lifted, and that both Exxon and the russia state oil company pushed for this.

At present Putin is under extreme pressure, a massive drop in oil prices, an aging population, and EU trade sanctions of Ukraine, all combined means that Putin has had to prop up his popularity by invading a number of neighbours (starting with georgia in 2008, followed by the situation in Ukraine/Crimea, and continuing with russian actions in Syria - each time flexing his military muscle, which has increased his popularity at home while opposing Nato countries)

Orathaic, you may have forgotten, but Putin launched his career with a brutal assault on Chechnya, along with a series of terror attacks around Russia, some of which have credibly been tied not to Chechen terorrists, but to FSB by some western sources. Starting wars to boost popularity isn't a game just for people named Bush, you know. Now, having a U.S. president over which he has apparently both kompromat, a possible $19 billion bribe, and the addtional blackmail leverage that comes from that, he is in a far better position to attack neighbors while the U.S. sits by helplessly paralyzed by a trapped president and a quiescent Congress.

Ogion. you lie when you say you support democracy. Your support of Hillary having won the election because of her popular vote is in opposition to your commentary. If you truly believed in democracy you would support Props 13, 8 and 187. Those were approved by the direct democratic process of California. The proposition process was to opposed the corrupt California Legislature which is just as corrupt as the one the process was meant to override.

On June 6th, 1978, nearly two-thirds of California's voters passed Proposition 13, reducing property tax rates on homes, businesses and farms by about 57%. The Environment Prior to Proposition 13. Prior to Proposition 13, the property tax rate throughout California averaged a little less than 3% of market value.

Prop 8, officially titled Proposition 8 - Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry, was a statewide ballot proposition in California. On November 4, 2008, voters approved the measure and made same-sex marriage illegal in California.

California Proposition 187 was on the November 8, 1994 general election ballot in California as an initiated state statute, where it was approved. However, it has never been enforced. The goal of Proposition 187 was to make illegal aliens ineligible for public benefits.

So how does this explain how Bernie Sanders nomination was stolen by the DNC and the Clinton campaign?
So this is their attempt to steal the general election from the Republicans?

And why is Valerie Jarrett moving in with the Obama's in Washington?

@Brad, please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Calif property tax get capped based on the value of the property when you acquired it? Doesn't that discourage real estate transactions?

2. No need for another prop on same-sex marriage due to SCOTUS, but even in absence of SCOTUS decision, 9 years has passed since then and people's opinion on the matter has changed.

3. I'm confused, 187 was never enforced to deny benefits to illegals. Kind of a triple negative here! So illegals get public benefits I think. What's the alternative, have the die right outside the hospital?

Do public benefits include the right to use public roads, or other public infrastructure?

Ok, ignoring that Tangent. I assume the 19% was in exchange for an agreement to lift economic sanctions so the Exxon deal could go through, and since it involved the same russian national oil company, that means whoever bought it now has a vested interest in that company profiting, and perhaps in the US sanctions being lifted.

I see it more as an alliance than necessarily a bribery situation. But it is putting personal interest (and profits) above national interest. Just about the last thing i'd want in a politician.

You're kidding. If I give a politician a $19 billion sweetheart deal that isn't a bribe? If that's the standard of corruption, we are fucked

Hauta i will answer:
discourage real estate transactions? Hey this is paradise, the demcontrolnotwithstanding, buying and selling like mad. and those who say it has hurt schools by declining revenue-there is vastly more money now than there was pre-prop 13.

My big complaint was that the state officials didn't try to defend the prop led by the communist senator kamila harris when she was attorney general. her personal politics was opposed to the will of the people; but communists don't care about the people.

no one 'dies' outside hospitals. they don't ask in the ER. of course that is one reason the system is in trouble. services that are not paid for. but why should doctors and nurses eat, eh? the prohibition was against eligibility to public assistance and schools. of course you would say that isn't fair. but again the system is in trouble. services that are not paid for. but why should taxpayers and citizens eat, eh?

@ orathaic putting personal interest (and profits) above national interest. Just about the last thing i'd want in a politician.

like speeches to banks and corporations or a phony global initiative? pay-to-play. but ethics don't apply to democrats, right?

LoL, yes Hillary is allowed to sell the US to Saudi Arabia with not a whisper of protest from Ogion and pals. Hillarious.

No there is a rule in the universe: democrats are immune from hypocracy and blameless because they care. Just ask Rep Rangel of NY when he was caught living in subsidized housing meant for the poor and low income

"My big complaint was that the state officials didn't try to defend the prop led by the communist senator kamila harris when she was attorney general. her personal politics was opposed to the will of the people; but communists don't care about the people."

What happened to the law of the land as a restraint on the tyranny of the majority? Prop 8 clearly violated the law of the land, which was the reasoning given by CA officials for not defending the prop. This reasoning was upheld at every level of the judiciary. Your complaint is unfounded and your characterization of the former AG is similarly baseless.

The same applies to your complaint about Prop 187 (violating federal jurisdiction over immigration).

Meanwhile, Prop 13 is on the books and has been for nigh-on 40 years. I don't know what you're even complaining about here.

He is a conservative. Don't expect him to make any sense. This is a guy who is complaining he doesn't et to discriminate against enough people. That tells you everything you need to know

Funny how people who scream the loudest about "upholding the Constitution" always seem the most pissed when it actually gets applied. Harris didn't defend Prop 8, because it was pretty clearly illegal on the rulings by the trial court. Why waste time on a sure fire losing appeal that would hurt California citizens if you win. Makes no sense

Prop 8 was not the law of the land when it was passed. the law was never defended. the basis of its dismissal was the lack of standing from the petitioners as california did not defend it. you put the cart before the horse and mislead and then call me names as a response. You too Ogion.

Doing your job makes no sense? It is the job of the attorney general to defend the state. the state constitution was amended in a legal process. you are attacking the new attorney general. suppose he decided not to defend a law he was politically opposed to? and harm? what of those harmed when the law was changed?

oh and tyranny of the majority. so then it doesn't matter then that the popular vote was overridden by the electoral college, eh?

violating federal jurisdiction over immigration

so what about 'sanctuary cities'? are they not violating federal jurisdiction over immigration?

you can't have it both ways. You make no sense.

the trial court does not make laws, the legislature does. the supreme court determines constitutionality. the ruling by the supreme court did not establish the right on prop 8. it claimed the plaintiffs had no standing.

# alternatelegalrulings