Cocaine in the White House

[rajncajn]

What absolutely amazes me is the lengths you guys will go to in order to feel good about your vote. None of the candidates are perfect, but to flat out act like you're ok with this kind of behavior, ignore it or worse yet, mock someone for even bringing it up is pretty f'n sad.

 

[6kings]

13 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

What absolutely amazes me is the lengths you guys will go to in order to feel good about your vote. None of the candidates are perfect, but to flat out act like you're ok with this kind of behavior, ignore it or worse yet, mock someone for even bringing it up is pretty f'n sad.

 

Liberals see facts like Dracula sees the sun. Run and Hide, but if you come in contact with it just SCREAM!

[Bobby Brown]

52 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

 mock someone for even bringing it up

 

I'm mocking you for essentially stating the sensational diary claims are true.  It's not believed to be legit or vetted by anyone outside the extreme right underbelly.  Hell, not even a lot of them.  I'm mocking you for falling for the same things 6memes does.  I'm mocking you because you got duped by something this guy wouldn't even publish due to their "journalistic standards":

 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Bobby Brown

[rajncajn]

10 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

I'm mocking you for essentially stating the sensational diary claims are true.  It's not believed to be legit or vetted by anyone outside the extreme right underbelly.  Hell, not even a lot of them.  I'm mocking you for falling for the same things 6memes does.  I'm mocking you because you got duped by something this guy wouldn't even publish:

As I said, I don't care if you believe the diary thing is true or not. I believe it is,  but I could definitely be completely wrong and I'm certainly willing to accept that and be open about the possibility of my being wrong. That's not even the point though and you know that it's not. You won't even touch the rest of my post. Instead you try to deflect by mocking me for a specific that's generally unimportant whether you agree with or not. Most of what you respond to me is for effect. You're more interested in winning over the forum and getting your hifives than actually having a discussion.

[rajncajn]

39 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

 

Says the guy who thinks this is OK

 

[6kings]

27 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

As I said, I don't care if you believe the diary thing is true or not. I believe it is,  but I could definitely be completely wrong and I'm certainly willing to accept that and be open about the possibility of my being wrong. That's not even the point though and you know that it's not. You won't even touch the rest of my post. Instead you try to deflect by mocking me for a specific that's generally unimportant whether you agree with or not. Most of what you respond to me is for effect. You're more interested in winning over the forum and getting your hifives than actually having a discussion.

Deep down he knows Biden is a corrupt sick pos. He doesn’t want to see the truth about him or his administration because he then would have to admit he made a mistake by voting for him. His ego is too big! Same goes for a few more that have responded.

[Bobby Brown]

Likes to argue guy likes to argue so much, he makes up arguments to argue about. 

 

The posts are now indistinguishable from 6memes.

 

Likes to argue guy can’t figure out why every thread ends up with him wanting to argue and no one engaging. 

[rajncajn]

41 minutes ago, Bobby Brown said:

Likes to argue guy likes to argue so much, he makes up arguments to argue about. 

 

The posts are now indistinguishable from 6memes.

 

Likes to argue guy can’t figure out why every thread ends up with him wanting to argue and no one engaging. 

That's your problem bushy, you say you're being honest when you're completely disingenuous from the start. Nearly every post you've made in this thread, including those made "in jest" are dripping with contempt. You say I'm the one who likes to argue when you're the one dumping the fuel.

Getting past the bevvy of jokes mocking the subject you started with, this is your idea of being "honest." Every single one of these posts I ignored the jabs you finished them off with and kept it on discussion. Even agreed with you on some of what you had to say, but as usual,  that wasn't enough for you. 

On 7/16/2023 at 1:37 PM, Bobby Brown said:

Seems like manufactured concern. 

 

On 7/16/2023 at 8:06 PM, Bobby Brown said:

Only for right wing Karens with Biden Derangement Syndrome.

 

On 7/16/2023 at 10:15 PM, Bobby Brown said:

Occam's razor usually rules over conspiracy theory. 

 

On 7/16/2023 at 11:11 PM, Bobby Brown said:

It was a dime bag, not an undentonated bomb.

 

[stevegrab]

5 hours ago, rajncajn said:

What absolutely amazes me is the lengths you guys will go to in order to feel good about your vote. None of the candidates are perfect, but to flat out act like you're ok with this kind of behavior, ignore it or worse yet, mock someone for even bringing it up is pretty f'n sad.

 

Being obsessed with this isn't normal either. But initially it was about the coke. Clearly now its just more Biden bashing.

I don't need to do or say things to feel good about my vote. I had already decided Trump was garbage when he ran in 2016, so whoever ran against him got my vote. Not that it matters since Trump won Ohio by several percent. 

[rajncajn]

4 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

Being obsessed with this isn't normal either. But initially it was about the coke. Clearly now its just more Biden bashing.

I don't need to do or say things to feel good about my vote. I had already decided Trump was garbage when he ran in 2016, so whoever ran against him got my vote. Not that it matters since Trump won Ohio by several percent. 

Who was it that brought up Trump in this thread? Who was it that brought up Trump talking about grabbing pu$$ies? Who was it that came after me when I pointed out the hypocrisy in that statement? Are you seriously going to tell me that I am the one that turned this thread?

[stevegrab]

14 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

Who was it that brought up Trump in this thread? Who was it that brought up Trump talking about grabbing pu$$ies? Who was it that came after me when I pointed out the hypocrisy in that statement? Are you seriously going to tell me that I am the one that turned this thread?

Nope I didn't say any of that, so not sure what you're railing against. You posted some stuff, and talked about us all doing stuff to feel good about our vote. I responded to that. And I talked about Trump in my post because I was explaining how I would never vote for him, and therefore I wasn't really making a choice. Certainly not one I have to feel good about, or justify to anybody who thinks I was lazy for voting by mail. 

You started this thread looking for people to agree with you and say how we all thought it was unbelievable and that the WH and SS are corrupt or incompetent. Sorry you didn't get the desired results. 

[rajncajn]

9 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

Nope I didn't say any of that, so not sure what you're railing against. You posted some stuff, and talked about us all doing stuff to feel good about our vote. I responded to that.

Maybe that's because I wasn't talking to or about you, Steve. Did you not read the other posts by the other posters prior to mine?

Edited July 18, 2023 by rajncajn

[Bobby Brown]

54 minutes ago, rajncajn said:

That's your problem

Golly, I hope I can muster up the capabilities to deal with it . 

[rajncajn]

11 minutes ago, stevegrab said:

 You started this thread looking for people to agree with you and say how we all thought it was unbelievable and that the WH and SS are corrupt or incompetent. Sorry you didn't get the desired results. 

I'm sorry that I thought it was unbelievable that the United States secret service was incapable of pulling fingerprints from a plastic bag. I'm sorry that I thought that was worth discussing.

[gilthorp]

Oh boy....Bushie. I demand you apologize to Rajn right now. It's obviously your problem here. 

He said he was sorry. Stevegrab said he was sorry. 

 

I mean, they are both sorry, right?

[rajncajn]

33 minutes ago, gilthorp said:

Oh boy....Bushie. I demand you apologize to Rajn right now. It's obviously your problem here. 

He said he was sorry. Stevegrab said he was sorry. 

 

I mean, they are both sorry, right?

:hifive:

[Big Country]

1 hour ago, rajncajn said:

I'm sorry that I thought it was unbelievable that the United States secret service was incapable of pulling fingerprints from a plastic bag. I'm sorry that I thought that was worth discussing.

One reason could be that while fingerprints can technically be pulled from plastic bags, generally speaking it is very difficult to get usable prints that can be used for matching. This is because the plastic material is less porous than something like paper or glass, so they are usually smeared, easily wiped, and in many cases bags have been touched by multiple people. In addition to the link/quote below, one other site stated that the likelihood of usable prints being capable of being found are "Only if fingerprints remain undisturbed in a stable environment with a good amount of sweat or other liquid." Those conditions seem near impossible to meet for this case.

I found this by doing a simple google search on "Can you get fingerprints off a plastic bag?" and this came up on quora from a question from 2020.

Quora Link

Quote

Fingerprints left on plastic bags are less reliable as evidence because the surface of a plastic bag is not as porous as other surfaces, such as paper or glass. This means that fingerprints on plastic tend to be less visible, and that the oils and sweat from the fingertips that create the fingerprints can be easily wiped or smudged away. Additionally, plastic bags are often handled by many people, which can make it difficult to determine the source of a fingerprint.

 

So, based on my rudimentary google fu skills I'd be inclined to believe that based on what we know of the situation and the potential source of forensic evidence being a small baggy, the statement that no usable forensic evidence was found is likely very true and accurate.

[rajncajn]

27 minutes ago, Big Country said:

One reason could be that while fingerprints can technically be pulled from plastic bags, generally speaking it is very difficult to get usable prints that can be used for matching. This is because the plastic material is less porous than something like paper or glass, so they are usually smeared, easily wiped, and in many cases bags have been touched by multiple people. In addition to the link/quote below, one other site stated that the likelihood of usable prints being capable of being found are "Only if fingerprints remain undisturbed in a stable environment with a good amount of sweat or other liquid." Those conditions seem near impossible to meet for this case.

I found this by doing a simple google search on "Can you get fingerprints off a plastic bag?" and this came up on quora from a question from 2020.

Quora Link

 

So, based on my rudimentary google fu skills I'd be inclined to believe that based on what we know of the situation and the potential source of forensic evidence being a small baggy, the statement that no usable forensic evidence was found is likely very true and accurate.

Thanks BC, seems plausible I suppose. Honestly,  I thought about googling that, but how do you enter that in a search without getting on the FBIs watch list? (That was a joke btw).

My theory was that it was likely someone who worked there,  in which case they would have every fingerprint on both hands and it seemed they'd at least be able to get one print off it. I know about the fingerprint scan because, as you know,  I've worked a government or government contractor job for over 30 years and in order to get any government issued ID they have to have all your prints on file. I believe people with a higher clearance than I get a palm scan as well. Don't quote me on that though,  it's just what I've heard.

Edited July 18, 2023 by rajncajn

[Bobby Brown]

2 hours ago, Big Country said:

fu skills 

:hifive:

[gilthorp]

But rudimentary Google skills wouldn't make an innocent non political post go through the ad nausem circle jerk game to OP loves playing on these boards. 

[rajncajn]

@bigcountryI did a search as well and came up with this info. Of course it doesn't mean that they were able to get prints, but it seems like it's not really that difficult to obtain them IF they are present. It's possible there were no prints. It's possible, as Gil suggested, that the baggie was purposefully placed there. Regardless, since you took the time to look, I thought you'd be interested in some more info. I used a Duckduckgo search, so these may not have come up for you, but these were towards the top hits and one is a forensics site.

 

Fingerprints on Plastic Surface: #How Long it Stay? & Development (forensicreader.com)

Quote

Fingerprints on the plastic surface have more ridge details when compared to porous surfaces such as fingerprints on clothes. However, as the nature of plastic is a non-porous substrate, the chance of finding finger marks is less as compared to semi-porous surfaces such as fingerprints on paper.

Latent fingerprints on plastic surfaces can be developed for up to 5 years. On rigid plastic, the finger marks can last for 5 years if remain undisturbed (or even more). In flexible plastic surfaces, they can be developed up to a few weeks to a few months.

So, depending on how long it was there, the fingerprints could have been beyond the timeframe where they were able to pull them. Later in the article it lists several plastic types and has black plastic bag as 3-6 months, though it does not list a baggie of any sort. it also has a table of methods used and for plastic bags they use a type of superglue and/or an acid called Amido Black. 

This is a bit more detail on the superglue method. It sounds ridiculous, but it's actually a pretty technical process called Cyanoacrylate (Super Glue) Fuming

 

Apparently, they are also able to collect DNA from the plastic as well in some cases:

Quote

Yes, DNA can be extracted from fingerprints on plastic. According to a study by Lana Ostojic et al., a full DNA profile can be obtained even after 40 days from fingerprints. However, after a certain time, it may not be sufficient for DNA typing and identification.

 

Edited July 19, 2023 by rajncajn

[rajncajn]

53 minutes ago, gilthorp said:

But rudimentary Google skills wouldn't make an innocent non political post go through the ad nausem circle jerk game to OP loves playing on these boards. 

Sorry, I haven't really had the time to research forensic fingerprinting on plastics before now. Apparently no one else has until today either. I barely have the time anymore for what I have posted and I certainly didn't expect, nor wish it to turn into this idiocy.

Edited July 19, 2023 by rajncajn

[Big Country]

1 hour ago, rajncajn said:

@bigcountryI did a search as well and came up with this info. Of course it doesn't mean that they were able to get prints, but it seems like it's not really that difficult to obtain them IF they are present. It's possible there were no prints. It's possible, as Gil suggested, that the baggie was purposefully placed there. Regardless, since you took the time to look, I thought you'd be interested in some more info. I used a Duckduckgo search, so these may not have come up for you, but these were towards the top hits and one is a forensics site.

 

Fingerprints on Plastic Surface: #How Long it Stay? & Development (forensicreader.com)

So, depending on how long it was there, the fingerprints could have been beyond the timeframe where they were able to pull them. Later in the article it lists several plastic types and has black plastic bag as 3-6 months, though it does not list a baggie of any sort. it also has a table of methods used and for plastic bags they use a type of superglue and/or an acid called Amido Black. 

This is a bit more detail on the superglue method. It sounds ridiculous, but it's actually a pretty technical process called Cyanoacrylate (Super Glue) Fuming

 

Apparently, they are also able to collect DNA from the plastic as well in some cases:

 

The forensic reader link is actually the second site I mentioned in my post, though I didn't link to it. You did not note, though I doubt you left it out intentionally as it is in pretty small print at the bottom of the table you site about how long prints can be obtained, is the massive caveat that I noted - specifically that those timeframes and the possibility of getting usable prints are "Only if fingerprints remain undisturbed in a stable environment with a good amount of sweat or other liquid."

And this is not 100% directed at you rajn, but a comment in general - what we all see on TV on shows like CSI, Law & Order, etc. is not real life. There is no "enhance image 50%" and have it get sharper and in many cases it is extremely difficult to get usable forensic evidence.

Now, if Axel Foley was on the case, he'd have gotten those prints and we'd be on our way down to 385 North looking for a suspect

[Bobby Brown]

5 hours ago, gilthorp said:

But rudimentary Google skills wouldn't make an innocent non political post go through the ad nausem circle jerk game to OP loves playing on these boards. 

I demand you apologize to everyone in the circle jerk. 

[Bobby Brown]

8 hours ago, rajncajn said:

Thanks BC, seems plausible I suppose.

:chuckle:

Ain't no one gonna tell me this isn't most likely a cover-up in the Biden Whitehouse!

Occam's Razor - again.  The two most least likely "plausible" scenarios, IMHO, are a "plant" or a "cover-up."  

The most likely scenario is 500 people accessed the area and someone dropped their dime bag without significant forensic or visual evidence. 

The good news is that Biden has apparently solved every major policy issue, because this is the most important right wing issue of the moment.  That and teachers making kids get sex changes.  And Bud Light.