Pres Trump protected our grid from China...infantile zombie biden cancleled that protection

[Ibleedbrown]

@calfoxwc said:

so, a "review" for no good reason is just a political attempt at a revenge ex order,

and that is fine with you, IBB ? Sounds like biden wants fake credit for allowing a

Pres Trump eo stand.

cheap, corrupt emotional cowardly  leftwing knee jerks.

The reason for the review appears to be to see if it fits within the criteria of the executive order. You can read that as well as l can. As stated they seem to be noble enough reasons. 

There’s too much we don’t know about any of this to get overly fired up about it. Some of the questions l posed to Axe above are just for starters. If you have a means of accurately answering those, then we can begin to formulate an idea on whether a review is necessary. 

My guess is those are the questions Biden’s team will set out to answer, which is the purpose of the review. Where are we with this? How much progress has been made? What are the risk factors involved? What is the cost? Etc.

Biden just got handed the responsibility for this and a million other things. It’s reasonable and pragmatic to want to evaluate and assess and then figure out a course of action.

[Westside Steve]

@hoorta said:

Massive cybersecurity breach linked to Russia. Trump response? Crickets. 

Let's say you're accusation seems pretty vague

When the headline is Rand Paul calls Trump's impeachment a farce- all I need to know about your source Cal.  I guess inciting insurrection isn't enough now to Impeach a President.  From a lot of Republican's POV.   

because like I said before only someone who is crazy or stupid or obsessed could read the exact words the president spoke and interpret that as a call do violent insurgents.

and I don't think you are clinically crazy or stupid.

 even if the case was constitutional.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

I guess you also support "biden's team" suspending our 1st and 2nd Amendments so as to be "able to answer those questions" ?

Can't "nobly" review without dramatically stopping/suspending what they haven't reviewed yet?

you are sounding more and more like stoned flower child from san fran.

[hoorta]

@westside-steve said:

because like I said before only someone who is crazy or stupid or obsessed could read the exact words the president spoke and interpret that as a call do violent insurgents.

and I don't think you are clinically crazy or stupid.

 even if the case was constitutional.

WSS

I won't reprint it here Steve but the complete text of Trump's speech was posted once already.  (Yes, I've read it) It will certainly be offered as evidence in the Senate trial. 

What did Trump do once he saw what was going on? Nothing for hours- and then told the Capitol rowdies "I love you".  If that isn't tacit approval of what went on- I don't know what is.  

[Vambo]

@hoorta said:

I won't reprint it here Steve but the complete text of Trump's speech was posted once already.  (Yes, I've read it) It will certainly be offered as evidence in the Senate trial. 

What did Trump do once he saw what was going on? Nothing for hours- and then told the Capitol rowdies "I love you".  If that isn't tacit approval of what went on- I don't know what is.  

There goes Valentines Day...So "I love you" means storm the capital?  

[Ibleedbrown]

@calfoxwc said:

I guess you also support "biden's team" suspending our 1st and 2nd Amendments so as to be "able to answer those questions" ?

Can't "nobly" review without dramatically stopping/suspending what they haven't reviewed yet?

you are sounding more and more like stoned flower child from san fran.

I’m a fan of the amendments. Answering those questions likely means access to information we don’t have access to, or information that hasn’t been reported. It may not be a censorship issue, just classified information. Or if it’s public record it’s probably boring as hell to read it.

Give it a shot though. See what you can find on what work was being done and what work has been suspended. Then we can make a rational decision on if suspending said work is a bad idea. Otherwise it’s just a bunch of fretting based on projection on what you think is happening.

The DOE is a likely starting point. You can always file paperwork under the Freedom of Information Act provided it’s not classified. Keep us apprised of your progress. This could be a really interesting endeavor. 

[calfoxwc]

@vambo said:

There goes Valentines Day...So "I love you" means storm the capital?  

anything can mean anything to them, it's how they FEEEEEELLLL, not what words'  definitions are.

[calfoxwc]

@ibleedbrown said:

I’m a fan of the amendments. Answering those questions likely means access to information we don’t have access to, or information that hasn’t been reported. It may not be a censorship issue, just classified information. Or if it’s public record it’s probably boring as hell to read it.

Give it a shot though. See what you can find on what work was being done and what work has been suspended. Then we can make a rational decision on if suspending said work is a bad idea. Otherwise it’s just a bunch of fretting based on projection on what you think is happening.

The DOE is a likely starting point. You can always file paperwork under the Freedom of Information Act provided it’s not classified. Keep us apprised of your progress. This could be a really interesting endeavor. 

sorry, you are a rotten salesman. and you don't get to order other people around telling them what to do, etc, just because

you are a friend of Hoorta's. and you didn't answer the question - you just emotionally knee jerked.

[Ibleedbrown]

@calfoxwc said:

sorry, you are a rotten salesman. and you don't get to order other people around telling them what to do, etc, just because

you are a friend of Hoorta's. and you didn't answer the question - you just emotionally knee jerked.

I’m a terrible salesman. But it was hardly an order, just suggestions to figure out if your suspicions are grounded or if they are based on your own fears.

I’ve never met Hoorta but l generally like everyone here, including you. What did l say that made you think l gave an emotional response? My goal was to propose a reasonable pathway to filling in the gaps of what we don’t know in order to make an informed decision. 

And the question l didn’t answer, are you referring to this?

”Can't "nobly" review without dramatically stopping/suspending what they haven't reviewed yet?”

I honestly didn’t understand any of that or how to respond. 

[calfoxwc]

fair enough. You just seem lost in utopian dreams, you don't see the world for how it really is.

I guess.

[Ibleedbrown]

I try not to let things l don’t understand upset me. If it does l try to better understand it. Just a personal philosophy. Or a fortune cookie.

[calfoxwc]

@ibleedbrown said:

I try not to let things l don’t understand upset me. If it does l try to better understand it. Just a personal philosophy.

Fair enough. I don't get upset either, I'm just more verbose about where historical trends lead.