Ask Me Help Desk - The famous "whistleblower" is a cia analyst who has close ties to biden

Quote:

People don't realize they're being groomed. That's the whole point in the grooming, e.g., pedophiles grooming children toward perversive activity.

That is completely ridiculous. An internet definition for "groomed" is this. "prepare or train (someone) for a particular purpose or activity. "star pupils who are groomed for higher things."

So plainly the word "groomed" has no inherent idea of an unwitting participant. It CAN have that meaning, but as the example above clearly shows, it generally does not. Come on. You work in a library. Use a dictionary.

Quote:

It was done during the 2016 campaign.

So? Trump won in 2016. Does that "guarantee" he wins in 2016? How can she make such a guarantee? Does she have some confidential info that she's leaking?

And what, for that matter, is your evidence that Jill Stein was some kind of Russian asset? That's really a wild allegation. What proof is there other than the word of one of the two people on the earth that, to some on this board, can never be wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That is completely ridiculous. An internet definition for "groomed" is this. "prepare or train (someone) for a particular purpose or activity. "star pupils who are groomed for higher things."

So plainly the word "groomed" has no inherent idea of an unwitting participant. It CAN have that meaning, but as the example above clearly shows, it generally does not. Come on. You work in a library. Use a dictionary.

Thanks for the slap....That's why I rarely post here now.

I'm a retired librarian. I've been a psychotherapist since 1991, so watch it, buddy!

Wikipedia says: Child grooming is befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, and sometimes the family, to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse.^[1]^[2] Child grooming is also regularly used to lure minors into various illicit businesses such as child trafficking, child prostitution, or the production of child pornography.^[3]^[4]^[5]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming

Quote:

So? Trump won in 2016. Does that "guarantee" he wins in 2016? How can she make such a guarantee? Does she have some confidential info that she's leaking?

It worked well in the 2016 election. The sheep are still grazing in tRump's meadow.

Quote:

And what, for that matter, is your evidence that Jill Stein was some kind of Russian asset? That's really a wild allegation. What proof is there other than the word of one of the two people on the earth that, to some on this board, can never be wrong?

You must not be on Facebook, thus missed all the promo for Jill Stein. Hmmm, another slam. Do you do this in RL?

Quote:

I'm a retired librarian. I've been a psychotherapist since 1991, so watch it, buddy!

I consider myself duly warned!

Quote:

Wikipedia says: Child grooming is befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, and sometimes the family, to lower the child's inhibitions with the objective of sexual abuse.[1][2] Child grooming is also regularly used to lure minors into various illicit businesses such as child trafficking, child prostitution, or the production of child pornography.[3][4][5]

That's fine except, of course, for the fact that HC was not referring to child grooming or anything remotely resembling it. Why would you even refer to that? You might as well refer to the grooming of hair.

Quote:

It worked well in the 2016 election. The sheep are still grazing in tRump's meadow.

You don't know if "it" worked well or not. You have no evidence that the Russkies sponsored, in any way, Jill Stein's candidacy. Yes, I'm on FB just about every day. Evidently the Russians didn't want me to vote for her.

Now as for me giving you a "slap". When you try and suggest that HC's use of "grooming" was in the same vein that child predator's groom children, then you should have your wrist slapped. That's just a stretch that is not warranted, and I think you know that. I actually consider you to be quite intelligent, but when you make those kinds of suggestions then I'm going to call you on it. I expect you to do the same with me as you do when I said "agent" rather than "asset". Was that a slap???

Stay in the game, WG! Get a little tough. When you need to, call me down. I know I can get a little overly excited about this. I don't mind you knocking me on the side of the head when you need to.

Quote:

That's fine except, of course, for the fact that HC was not referring to child grooming or anything remotely resembling it. Why would you even refer to that? You might as well refer to the grooming of hair.

No HC was referring to insidious grooming as in criminals spies and espionage by foreign nations to achieve a political or economic end or advantage. WG was just giving an example of grooming with bad intent and most people can infer different scenarios of bad intent. Except you it seems. No wonder you slipped on the dufus poop!

I say that's the silliest post of the day. Do you really think HC meant the Russians were grooming someone's yard, or grooming someone's hair, or that they were grooming a horse??? No one on the earth thought she meant that, so why would I have included such an array of completely unrelated definitions?

As to WG's claim, do you really, really think that HC was suggesting that the Russians were preparing Jill Stein to be abused by a sexual predator? Not only that, but that definition was at the end of the list meaning it is the least used of the group.

Come on, guys. I know you love HC dearly, but you really need to stop defending her every move as though it is completely legitimate.

Quote:

No HC was referring to insidious grooming as in criminals spies and espionage by foreign nations to achieve a political or economic end or advantage. WG was just giving an example of grooming with bad intent and most people can infer different scenarios of bad intent.

Well of course that's what she was referring to!! That's not even in question. It's the idea that they are doing this with the unknowing participation of JS and TG that is being asserted and that is just completely unwarranted. Your definition helps none at all with that.

And now you're saying that JS and TG are criminals!

Quote:

"as in criminals spies and espionage"

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That's fine except, of course, for the fact that HC was not referring to child grooming or anything remotely resembling it. Why would you even refer to that? You might as well refer to the grooming of hair.

Yet you wrote, "So plainly the word 'groomed' has no inherent idea of an unwitting participant. It CAN have that meaning, but as the example above clearly shows, it generally does not. Come on. You work in a library. Use a dictionary."

Of course, she meant it in the same way!

Quote:

You don't know if "it" worked well or not. You have no evidence that the Russkies sponsored, in any way, Jill Stein's candidacy. Yes, I'm on FB just about every day. Evidently the Russians didn't want me to vote for her.

Yes, I know it worked. tRump won because of the presence of Russian bots and their activity to confuse the election with the electoral college.

Quote:

Now as for me giving you a "slap". When you try and suggest that HC's use of "grooming" was in the same vein that child predator's groom children, then you should have your wrist slapped. That's just a stretch that is not warranted, and I think you know that. I actually consider you to be quite intelligent, but when you make those kinds of suggestions then I'm going to call you on it. I expect you to do the same with me as you do when I said "agent" rather than "asset". Was that a slap???

Sexual predator grooming = Russia grooming.

Quote:

Stay in the game, WG! Get a little tough. When you need to, call me down. I know I can get a little overly excited about this. I don't mind you knocking me on the side of the head when you need to.

I'm holding back. Ask Athos for verification on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Well of course that's what she was referring to!! That's not even in question. It's the idea that they are doing this with the unknowing participation of JS and TG that is being asserted and that is just completely unwarranted. Your definition helps none at all with that.

And now you're saying that JS and TG are criminals!

No I CLEARLY asserted that the ones doing the grooming are the criminals.

Quote:

No I CLEARLY asserted that the ones doing the grooming are the criminals.

Nope. Your definition clearly said that "No HC was referring to insidious grooming as in criminals spies and espionage." It is the criminals and spies that are being groomed. Hence, TG and JS.

Quote:

Yet you wrote, "So plainly the word 'groomed' has no inherent idea of an unwitting participant. It CAN have that meaning, but as the example above clearly shows, it generally does not. Come on. You work in a library. Use a dictionary."

Of course, she meant it in the same way!

Well, have it your way. So HC was saying that the Russians were grooming JS and TG so they can put sexual predators on them. If anything, that's even crazier than thinking they were actively grooming them to be a third party candidate. I am so glad I am not a liberal democrat and having to defend that.

Look. If you want to say that it is possible that HC meant the Russkies are clandestinely arranging things to encourage the possibility of TG running as a third party candidate, then that's fine. I think it is extremely unlikely and it would be a real shot in the dark for them, but yeah, it's possible. But to suggest that you KNOW that she meant that, then you've got an enormous credibility problem. You cannot possibly know that for sure and HC has not suggested that meaning is accurate.

As to your supposed evidence of the Russians supporting Jill Stein's third party being Trump's win in 2016, then does the dems winning the House in 2018 also qualify as evidence for Russians supporting Nancy Pelosi and the House dems?

I really think you are smarter than this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Where did your post go?

#204.

Quote:

Well, have it your way. HC was saying that the Russians were grooming JS and TG so they can put sexual predators on them. If anything, that's even crazier than thinking they were actively grooming them to be a third party candidate. I am so glad I am not a liberal democrat and having to defend that.

Have you eaten anything today? Your brain is missing nutrients. As a mom-type, I'm starting to worry about you.

Quote:

As to your supposed evidence of the Russians supporting Jill Stein's third party being Trump's win in 2016, then does the dems winning the House in 2018 also qualify as evidence for Russians supporting Nancy Pelosi and the House dems?

Just change the subject, why doncha.

Quote:

I really think you are smarter than this.

When in doubt, insult.

I wasn't looking for your post. I was looking for Tal's.

Quote:

Have you eaten anything today? Your brain is missing nutrients. As a mom-type, I'm starting to worry about you.

I'm afraid that not eating is not a problem of mine. Kind of wish it was.

Quote:

As to your supposed evidence of the Russians supporting Jill Stein's third party being Trump's win in 2016, then does the dems winning the House in 2018 also qualify as evidence for Russians supporting Nancy Pelosi and the House dems?

Quote:

Just change the subject, why doncha.

Now that's what I'm talking about with you being smarter than this. I think you know I did not change the subject. I simply challenged your thinking. If Trump winning is your evidence of Russian influence, then why isn't the dems winning the House evidence of Russian interference?

Quote:

When in doubt, insult.

It was no more an insult than your food/brain comment was. I do think you are smarter than some of your conclusions would indicate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I wasn't looking for your post. I was looking for Tal's.

It's not mine. It's Tal's. Hmmm, what would you say to a student who hadn't checked?

Quote:

I'm afraid that not eating is not a problem of mine. Kind of wish it was.

Are you a bit fluffy, more to love?

Quote:

Now that's what I'm talking about with you being smarter than this. I think you know I did not change the subject. I simply challenged your thinking. If Trump winning is your evidence of Russian influence, then why isn't the dems winning the House evidence of Russian interference?

Don't get me started correcting your grammar. And you deliberately changed the subject. We weren't finished with the topic on the table.

Quote:

It was no more an insult than your food/brain comment was. I do think you are smarter than some of your conclusions would indicate.

I've been a Mensan for years, actually all my life. And no, I cushioned the food comment so it wasn't an insult. Wanna hear me insult you?

Hmm, maybe the Russians did help the dems win back the House. But the bi partisan Senate Intell commitee report backs up the Mueller Report. If repubs and dems agree shouldn't we ALL at least PAY ATTENTION?

BREAKING NEWS!

Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor testified on Capitol Hill!*

*Taylors opening statement included in link.

Quote:

you a bit fluffy, more to love?

My doc today told me to lost five or ten pounds.

Quote:

Don't get me started correcting your grammar. And you deliberately changed the subject. We weren't finished with the topic on the table.

OK. Have it your way. Finish the topic.

Quote:

I've been a Mensan for years, actually all my life. And no, I cushioned the food comment so it wasn't an insult. Wanna hear me insult you?

I'm impressed...slightly. I bear up under insults quite well. It always tells me that the person has run out of logical arguments and has decided to become offensive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

OK. Have it your way. Finish the topic.

Tal is helping.

Quote:

I'm impressed...slightly. I bear up under insults quite well. It always tells me that the person has run out of logical arguments and has decided to become offensive.

'Twon't be me.

Quote:

Tal is helping.

I try to never count on someone else to do my work for me.

Quote:

'Twon't be me.

Right.

Quote:

BREAKING NEWS!

Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor testified on Capitol Hill!*

*Taylors opening statement included in link.

Unsurprisingly, democrat lawmakers said that, in private testimony, the ambassador said that he heard that someone else had suggested that the President wanted Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian gas company and possible interference in the 2016 election. If they did not, then he heard that someone else had said that all those military thingies the Ukrainians wanted might not be delivered on time.

In the meantime, Ukrainian officials continue to deny that any quid pro quo existed. Hmmm.

There is a large mound of nothing that has accumulated about this case, and today's testimony added even more nothing to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I try to never count on someone else to do my work for me.

Aren't we all working together here? We be a team?

Quote:

Right.

'Twon't be me.
...who runs out of logical arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I try to never count on someone else to do my work for me.

Right.

Unsurprisingly, democrat lawmakers said that, in private testimony, the ambassador said that he heard that someone else had suggested that the President wanted Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian gas company and possible interference in the 2016 election. If they did not, then he heard that someone else had said that all those military thingies the Ukrainians wanted might not be delivered on time.

In the meantime, Ukrainian officials continue to deny that any quid pro quo existed. Hmmm.

There is a large mound of nothing that has accumulated about this case, and today's testimony added even more nothing to it.

He named names and had emails and phone records, but go ahead, ignore, dismiss, and harp on old right wing loony conspiracy theories. What else should we expect from you?

Quote:

Aren't we all working together here? We be a team?

Right.

Quote:

...who runs out of logical arguments.

I'm still waiting on you to make one. You said I was changing the subject, so I'm waiting on you to continue the conversation with rational, logical arguments. Hopefully it will be something more substantial than trying to convince me that HC really believes the Russians were setting up TG for a sexual predator.

Quote:

He named names and had emails and phone records, but go ahead, ignore, dismiss, and harp on old right wing loony conspiracy theories. What else should we expect from you?

You know the details of what was said in a private deposition? From what I have read, it is just more of he said/she said. At some point you have to come up with real evidence. In the meantime, Ukrainian officials continue to say...well, you know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I'm still waiting on you to make one. You said I was changing the subject, so I'm waiting on you to continue the conversation with rational, logical arguments. Hopefully it will be something more substantial than trying to convince me that HC really believes the Russians were setting up TG for a sexual predator.

That makes absolutely no sense. Whatchu bin readin', Willis???

Quote:

That makes absolutely no sense. Whatchu bin readin', Willis???

Yes. And therein lies the problem.

That's not a problem, it is an admission

WG, maybe we can agree on something. HC said that TG was a "Russian asset" being "groomed" by the Russians. Now maybe she meant TG was an unwitting participant. Maybe she meant TG was involved in a conspiracy with the Russians. None of us know for sure what she meant.

Can you agree to that?

I cannot!, as I thought HC's warning was crystal clear beyond the politis. It's not about JS or TG, but VLAD!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

WG, maybe we can agree on something. HC said that TG was a "Russian asset" being "groomed" by the Russians. Now maybe she meant TG was an unwitting participant. Maybe she meant TG was involved in a conspiracy with the Russians. None of us know for sure what she meant.

Can you agree to that?

She said TG is a Russian asset and is being groomed by them. That's difficult to understand?

Quote:

She said TG is a Russian asset and is being groomed by them. That's difficult to understand?

Quote:

I cannot!, as I thought HC's warning was crystal clear beyond the politis. It's not about JS or TG, but VLAD!

Forget it. You would have had to pay attention to the fifty posts prior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Forget it. You would have had to pay attention to the fifty posts prior.

Someone didn't. ;)

Quote:

Someone didn't. ;)

Exactly.

Well the House repubs answered the dufus rally cry to defend him better after damning reports about the Amb. Taylor impeachment testimony by storming the chamber and delaying the inquiry by 5 hours. I've seen such stunts before by repubs and dems and they never work but done any way.

Usually the minority party is pretty helpless to stop whatever the majority is doing, but I suppose it makes good news by rallying the troops.

I can't imagine why they would be upset about this. "As members of the minority, House Republicans do not have the authority to call witnesses themselves, unless given the power to do so by the Democratic majority."

Just another ridiculous aspect of what is becoming a kangaroo court.

I remember when these things were negotiated between them out of the public eye, actually they still are, but every party takes depositions behind closed doors, and repubs in the House have 37 members in those meetings with the same rights as the dems.

The dufus REQUIRES a public show of loyalty though. Makes it rather hard on House repubs. Moscow Mitch said the other day that he never even talked to the dufus about the Ukraine call, let alone praise how perfect it was, so the dufus lies again as he did about recapturing those escaped ISIS prisoners, blown up by Jim Jeffers his special representative to Syria.

Quote:

repubs in the House have 37 members in those meetings with the same rights as the dems.

No, they don't. They cannot call witnesses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No, they don't. They cannot call witnesses.

Yes that may be true, but the minority can ask questions and have the same time allotted as the majority. They can ask the chairman to add a witness, but I have no idea how often that is granted by either party.

So they don't have the same rights.

I guess not.

You do realize that this is TWO TIMES this week that we have agreed on something. Does it feel a little eerie?

Naw, it's a HOPEFUL sign that two people can find agreement after some rather stubborn and oft times highly contentious and protracted back and forth. Man look at the range of topics we go through. I forgot what we butted heads on last week. Don't worry though JL, that eerie feeling you have will be short lived once we get another topic to jump into.

Coffee HOT?

8}

*popping popcorn and adjusting reading glasses*

Quote:

Coffee HOT?

Where do you live relative to Austin?

I reside in North Texas, Fort Worth to be exact, right down the highway from Dallas. The Cowboys and Rangers play 10 minutes away.