Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Time to give Trump Presidency it's own Thread.Follow

#202 Jul 13 2017 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Once he remembers his password, Gbaji will be in here saying that he's not sayin' it's true, he's just askin' questions.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#203 Jul 13 2017 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,392 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Strangely enough, NPR yesterday was offering defense (of a sort) likening it to the Clinton campaign receiving information from Ukraine on Trump campaign members dealing with Pro-Russian Ukrainian folk to be used to harm during the elections.
NPR tweeted the Declaration of Independence and people insisted they were spreading propaganda and calling for a revolution.

Best July 4th ever.

Edited, Jul 12th 2017 9:28am by lolgaxe


I'm waiting for the day Trump literally eats a live baby on a plate with a knife and fork as if it were a steak to see how much people will tie themselves into knots explaining why it's perfectly acceptable. I wish-- I WISH I could say I was exaggerating. Not that he would actually do that, but that people would actually find it acceptable because there is literally nothing at all he can do that is wrong in their eyes.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#204 Jul 14 2017 at 7:03 AM Rating: Good
******
49,477 posts
What kind of sick person would even do that? Eat a baby with a knife and fork? They're clearly hand foods.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#205 Jul 14 2017 at 9:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,282 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
I'm waiting for the day Trump literally eats a live baby on a plate with a knife and fork as if it were a steak to see how much people will tie themselves into knots explaining why it's perfectly acceptable. I wish-- I WISH I could say I was exaggerating. Not that he would actually do that, but that people would actually find it acceptable because there is literally nothing at all he can do that is wrong in their eyes.
It's survivorship bias.

Both major candidates from this last election cycle had a long list of reasons they were awful. Anyone that was still seriously supporting either of them come election day probably would have voted for a decapitated walrus. All the 'normal' people jumped ship a long long time ago.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#206 Jul 14 2017 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
People who seriously bought into the Make America Great Again thing are never going to admit to themselves that they were (a) hoodwinked (b) in part by Russia. It is easier to chant "Fake News", deny any evidence and believe in conspiracy theories about Clinton shuttling in Russian counterspies to trap Trump than to accept that their candidate lied to them, is inept at governing and was elected with the express aid of a hostile foreign government.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#207 Jul 14 2017 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,282 posts
I mean the conspiracy had Clinton, Obama, the DNC, kids, and globalists all intertwined in it. The only thing that could have possibly made it better is if someone had tied in a fake global warming scare. There was no stopping it once it got going. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#208 Jul 14 2017 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
******
49,477 posts
It was pretty warm on election day ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#209 Jul 15 2017 at 5:57 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,144 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I mean the conspiracy had Clinton, Obama, the DNC, kids, and globalists all intertwined in it. The only thing that could have possibly made it better is if someone had tied in a fake global warming scare. There was no stopping it once it got going. Smiley: rolleyes


Hannity is all over the place.
#210 Jul 15 2017 at 6:01 AM Rating: Good
***
1,054 posts
TRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMP
TRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMP
TRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMP
TRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMP
TRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMP

This story brought to you by TrumpNews, part of the Donald Trump news family.
Donald Trump endorses this message.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#211 Jul 15 2017 at 11:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,212 posts
Kavekkk wrote:

RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP
RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP
RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP
RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP
RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP

His sory brough to you by RumpNews, par of the Donald Rump news family.
Donald Rump endorses his message.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#212 Jul 15 2017 at 11:30 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,896 posts
I bet you were paid to say anything remotely not praising Trump.
#213 Jul 16 2017 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kavekkk wrote:
TRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMP
TRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMP
TRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMP
TRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMP
TRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMP

Is that the sound of Alt-Right jackboots coming to silence us? Smiley: eek
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#214 Jul 16 2017 at 9:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
*This post silenced*

Edited, Jul 16th 2017 2:45pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#215 Jul 17 2017 at 11:28 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,477 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Kavekkk wrote:
RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP
RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP
RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP
RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP
RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP RUMP
Rap music is really lazy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#216 Jul 17 2017 at 1:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,282 posts
If there's not a new rapper coming out in the next few years called Fat-old Rump or similar I'm going to be seriously disappointed.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#217 Jul 18 2017 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,282 posts
Congratulations to Mr. Trump on continuing to fail to get your party on board with your health care reforms. Looks like things are dead in the water again, at least until the next attempt. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#218 Jul 18 2017 at 9:47 AM Rating: Good
******
49,477 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Looks like things are dead in the water again,
There's some next tier level of irony in Uncle Cranky McCain's need for brain surgery being what held up health care reform.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#219 Jul 18 2017 at 1:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,282 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Looks like things are dead in the water again,
There's some next tier level of irony in Uncle Cranky McCain's need for brain surgery being what held up health care reform.
Even more-so since Kennedy in the hospital was wrapped in with the concerns in getting Obamacare through in the first place.

In retrospect we could probably use a few more leaders that aren't on their death bed. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Jul 18th 2017 12:14pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#220 Jul 18 2017 at 2:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
From what Gbaji tells me, this is all just normal parts of writing legislation and reflects no failure on the part of the GOP leadership.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#221 Jul 18 2017 at 4:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,282 posts
I'd add in a token strawman for popular consumption but r/the_donald, which tends to be my source for nutjob news, has been quiet on the subject today. Mostly just ramblings about Clinton stealing money and killing people, and other good wholesome conspiracies like that. Something, something, Seth Rich, organ harvesting, rabble, rabble.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#222 Jul 18 2017 at 4:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Clinton paid Planned Parenthood to abort Seth Rich and sell his organs to illegal immigrants so they would be indebted to liberals and steal guns from hardworking Americans and ship them to drug cartels.

Edit: The guns, not the Americans. But there's no conspiracy that can't be spiced up with a little white slavery.

Edited, Jul 18th 2017 5:58pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#223 Jul 19 2017 at 6:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,180 posts
We don't know how many Caucasian Americans were enslaved during Jade Helm. They've mostly been cleared out of the Walmart underground bunkers by now, so we'll probably never know for sure.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#224 Jul 19 2017 at 7:14 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,477 posts
We'd have been able to save more if it weren't for the Bowling Green Massacre.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#225 Jul 19 2017 at 9:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Jophiel wrote:
This seems to be the NPR interview in question (it's the only transcript mentioning Ukraine & Clinton from the past couple weeks). It doesn't seem as though Shapiro was mentioning Ukraine as a defense personally but said that "White House allies" were bringing it up. Neither compared any legal ramification from it to Trump's situation.

Again, there's significant differences between the stories but it's ultimately irrelevant anyway because what Clinton (the DNC, actually) did or didn't do has no impact on any breaches committed by the Trump campaign.


Except the relevant fact that this kind of thing isn't unusual in national level campaigns by showing that the Clinton campaign also benefited from information obtained from foreign sources and used it against Trump during the election. I guess my issue with this whole thing is how the word "collusion" has apparently changed meaning over time. At the start of this, collusion meant that the Trump campaign was directly involved in the hacking and leaking of the DNC emails and thus associated with a criminal act, even if just after the fact, along with some sort of assumed quid pro quo agreement in return for that assistance. Now, apparently, "collusion" means having a conversation with anyone remotely associated with, or just claiming association with, a foreign government, but apparently only if that government is Russia, and only if it's the Trump campaign, and regardless of any sort of promises made in return.

If someone calls or emails a member of a campaign claim to have dirt on the opposition, that member takes the meeting. Period. Doesn't matter who the other person is. If the dirt is real, you use it. Again, doesn't matter who the person is who has it, or how they got it. It's certainly not illegal or a violation of any sort of campaign laws to do this. If it was, then a whole lot of people are breaking the law every single election year. This is a case where it appears as though the mere fact of reporting something makes people think the thing being reported is relevant or important. It's not.


At the end of the day, we live in a country that has free speech. That includes political speech. Anyone is free to express their opinion on something, especially in the political arena. If a foreign government wants to spend money promoting a politician, party, or agenda in the US, they have the right to do so. The idea that this is remotely new is bizarre, given that we've had foreign governments and citizens doing this for decades at least. Heck. It's not even strange to have Russian involvement. Have any of you actually read the declassified intelligence report everyone talks about when defending the "Russian meddling" claim, but rarely seem to actually know what's in it? Most of the report isn't about the hacked and leaked DNC emails. It's about how Russia uses propaganda methods to influence US politics, specifically via RT (Russia Times), or, more recently RT USA (and RT UK). What's funny is that RT USA was established, directed specifically at a US audience, back in 2008. What's even more funny is if you read the report, it lists the sorts of positions on various issues that RT advocates. It reads like a checklist of Democratic Party platform items.

If this is "meddling", and it's "bad", and we should be condemning the recipients of that meddling, then why has this been ignored for the last 8 years? Russia has consistently been meddling in ways that benefit the Democrats. Heck. Tie that in with Obama's open mike gaff, where he appeared to be promising Putin something better "in the next term", and you have actual evidence of a direct quid pro quo agreement *and* evidence of Russian help, at least in terms of messaging.

Not enough? Again, the fake dossier on Trump involves not one but *two* foreign governments. Yet, no one batted an eye that the source of the information was foreign. And certainly no one demanded that the Clinton campaign somehow answer for the fact that foreign operatives/governments were working to help her win the election. Not only do I not recall any such demands, I seem to recall Democrat after Democrat taking up this faked info and pushing it as hard as they could. Is anyone on this forum actually going to pretend that had Clinton won the election, there would have been investigations into foreign meddling and "collusion" between Clinton and these foreign parties?

The reality is that a political campaign will accept any help and any information it can to win. No one's going to turn down opposition information because it comes from a foreign source. No one. That's not "collusion". At least not any form of collusion that would be questionable, much less illegal. Again, the only form of collusion that is problematic is if a candidate makes promises to a foreign party in exchange for that help. Which is something we have evidence of Obama doing, but not Trump.

And that's before getting into the incredibly shady stuff surrounding foreign donations to the Clinton foundation. There's strong evidence that Clinton's political influence was up for sale, to anyone, including foreign parties. And once again, we have zero evidence of any such sort of activities on the part of Trump.

Yet Trump is being investigated? And you wonder why it's being viewed as a witch hunt? Can anyone here actually say what crime or violation of campaign rules they think Trump violated? Anyone? I'll point out again, you really need to have at least an idea of what law was broken or may have been broken *before* starting an investigation. Otherwise, it's just an investigation to have an investigation, knowing that the mere existence of such a thing has political weight. IMO, that's all this is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#226 Jul 19 2017 at 10:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Blah, blah, blah... go ahead and cry "witch hunt" since that's all the Trump campaign has left.
Quote:
If someone calls or emails a member of a campaign claim to have dirt on the opposition, that member takes the meeting. Period.

Or not. But normalizing unethical behavior for the sake of political gain seems to be what the GOP is all about these days.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#227 Jul 20 2017 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
******
49,477 posts
Sean Hannity wrote:
I guess my issue with this whole thing is how the word "collusion" has apparently changed meaning over time.
Is the issue you're having that no one is falling for "your" attempts to change the definition of the word now that "it never happened" isn't working thanks to 45.5?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#228 Jul 20 2017 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Most telling is how frantic the Trump supporters are in insisting that absolutely nothing was wrong, please stop right now, if you don't stop investigating it's just a "witch hunt" and "fishing", etc. And every day is more revelations: another unreported meeting (or hundred, if you're Kushner), another changed story, another financial tie, another couple of people who just happened to be at a meeting...

Meanwhile, Mueller finds reason to hire more seasoned people experienced in corruption and fraud.

Edit: Worth noting as well that the Trump people really, REALLY want you to believe that no result will be legitimate unless it meets their definition of collusion. Again, Mueller is authorized and tasked with investigating "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" and, at his discretion, "is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters". It's impossible for him to "go fishing" or engage in a "witch hunt" with the implications of going above and beyond his authority because that is, within the sphere of the Russian investigation, literally what he is tasked with.

Edited, Jul 20th 2017 9:28am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#229 Jul 20 2017 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good
******
49,477 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Worth noting as well that the 45 people really, REALLY want you to believe that no result will be legitimate unless it meets their definition of collusion.
The only thing worth noting about that is that it not only isn't a new tactic in politics but it's also historically never really worked to convince anyone outside the party's respective loyalists.

Edited, Jul 20th 2017 12:42pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#230 Jul 20 2017 at 5:55 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,565 posts
The hits just keep on coming: Paul Manafort is under investigation for possible money laundering.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#231 Jul 20 2017 at 6:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Fish Hunt!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#232 Jul 21 2017 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
******
49,477 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Fish Hunt!
Fishing would be a lot easier with shotguns, but the game wardens never seem to agree.

Edited, Jul 21st 2017 9:51am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#233 Jul 21 2017 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Blah, blah, blah... go ahead and cry "witch hunt" since that's all the Trump campaign has left.
Quote:
If someone calls or emails a member of a campaign claim to have dirt on the opposition, that member takes the meeting. Period.

Or not. But normalizing unethical behavior for the sake of political gain seems to be what the GOP is all about these days.


Er... He contacted the FBI, not because someone sent him damaging information about Bush, but that it was clear from a very brief viewing of the materials that it was stolen property, and receiving stolen property is a crime. The charges the woman was convicted of were theft, mail fraud (presumably for sending stolen stuff via the mail), and perjury (cause she lied about it when questioned later).

If, instead of what was clearly stolen tapes from Bush prep sessions, it had been a recording of Bush at a public event captured on an open mic, saying something damaging, you can bet it would have been used. If, just to keep things relevant, instead of a package of stolen goods, it had been a letter from someone claiming to have damaging information about Bush, and asking to meet, he would have taken the meeting. The idea that the determining factor here is "I can't accept information that might hurt my bosses political opponent" and not "I can't use obviously stolen/illegal sources, or I subject myself and my boss to legal problems" is frankly bizarre.

But everything about this issue is bizarre. It requires otherwise intelligent people to chose to toss their brains out the window and go along with pretending to not know the difference between was is normal and acceptable and what is illegal and not acceptable. By your argument, no campaign could ever run an ad on TV showing *anything* harmful about their opponent. No video clips of things they've said, no quotes from them, no quotes from others about them, nothing at all. Because they'd have had to received that from someone, maybe in the media, maybe from a business, or an old friend of the opponent with juicy stuff. Nope. They'd have to report even the attempt for someone to provide them with such things to the FBI and then recuse themselves from the campaign.


That's... ridiculous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#234 Jul 21 2017 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So it turns out that Sessions talked about the campaign in his meetings with the Russian ambassador, something that he denied having done (having initially denied that the meetings even happened). Drip, drip, blame Clinton, drip...

Edited, Jul 21st 2017 7:14pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#235 Jul 21 2017 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Drip, blame Clinton, drip, drip...

Edited, Jul 21st 2017 7:13pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#236 Jul 21 2017 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Sean Hannity wrote:
I guess my issue with this whole thing is how the word "collusion" has apparently changed meaning over time.
Is the issue you're having that no one is falling for "your" attempts to change the definition of the word now that "it never happened" isn't working thanks to 45.5?


The definition of collusion I'm using is the same it's always been:

"Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others."

There's a reason why we have a word like collusion, while also having words like "cooperation", and "communication". There's an assumed nefarious and/or illegal objective when you are colluding. We use the word most often when speaking of someone in a position of trust who betrays that trust to others via some sort of secret agreement. So a judge might collude with an organized crime family to help them avoid justice. A police officer might collude with drug dealers to help them not get arrested. A city council member might collude with a local businessman to arrange for favorable legislation.

In all these cases, there is a presumption of some sort of benefit to the two (or more, I suppose) "sides" of said collusion, which is usually extra-legal in nature. This is why I've repeatedly talked about the need for some form of quid pro quo *and* that some sort of law is violated along the way. You'd need to show that someone in Trumps campaign knowingly worked with the Russians, knew that they (or he) was doing something illegal, did it anyway, and received some form of benefit as a result.

And no: Having someone in office we think might be better for us, is *not* a payoff in this context. It only is, if Trump actually promises them some benefit in return. As I pointed out earlier, RT USA has been propagandizing in a very pro-Democratic party manner for about a decade now. No one has *ever* suggested that since this benefits the Democratic party and those running on those very issues and platform, it must be illegal, much less that we should punish the members of that party for "foreign influence" that benefits them. There's no quid pro quo. Even if members of the Democratic party are fully aware of the positive press they get from this foreign funded operation, that's not a problem either. They're not responsible for what a third party says that may or may not be helpful to them. Heck. Even if you found a quote from a prominent Dem stating their appreciation for this Russian funded assistance, it might be embarrassing politically, but no sane person would suggest that it's illegal, much less launch investigations over the matter. And yes, even if the foreign party has committed a crime along the way (say by hacking the DNC server in one case, or passing falsified documents about Trump in another), this does not in any way create a legal problem for the party or politician who may benefit from that illegal "help".

What would make it illegal, and the only thing that makes it illegal is if the politician actually participates in the illegal help or promises some form of reward in return for it. That has not happened. Not only has it not happened, there's been no suggestion that anyone even thinks it happened, or that there's any evidence anywhere to support such a thought if it exists.

At the end of the day, this is yet another case of a media fueled investigation, the purpose of which is not to actually investigate any actual crime, but just for the political value of it existing in the first place. And, just as I said with the Plame investigation, it'll either go on for a couple years and produce nothing (except the political value of course), or they'll get lucky and in the process of asking enough people the same questions over the course of a couple years, they'll find someone who mixes up a date, or changes the timeline in one vaguely remembered sequence of events from one round of testimony to another and then pounce on the poor sap with a perjury charge.

We've seen this play out before. And yeah, it's worth some political points in the short run for the Left. But the more you guys go to that well, the more the folks on the Right and the Middle are looking at this, shaking their heads, and moving away. We literally just saw an election result that was the direct result of a voting population disgusted with this sort of tactic, and yet, the response from the political left and the media left is apparently to just double down on it? That's dumb. Every day this goes on more and more people are realizing just how totally out of touch the left is, how much they are willing to blatantly lie about everything, and how much they are willing to cover for each other's lies.

There's a reason why the term "fake news" resonates. There's a reason why, as this process is going on, the media is what is suffering the most in terms of public approval and trust. And that media is the primary means the left has to get people to accept it's message. You guys are killing yourself with this. Trump's a nothing. I don't care about Trump. But long after he's left office, the damage done to the Left in terms of trust and belief will still be in effect. You guys are way way way overplaying this hand. The only people who think this is a good idea are the folks inside the liberal bubble. And they're not the ones you need to win over.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#237 Jul 21 2017 at 6:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Sean Hannity wrote:
I guess my issue with this whole thing is how the word "collusion" has apparently changed meaning over time.
Is the issue you're having that no one is falling for "your" attempts to change the definition of the word now that "it never happened" isn't working thanks to 45.5?


The definition of collusion I'm using is the same it's always been:

"Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others."

There's a reason why we have a word like collusion, while also having words like "cooperation", and "communication". There's an assumed nefarious and/or illegal objective when you are colluding. We use the word most often when speaking of someone in a position of trust who betrays that trust to others via some sort of secret agreement. So a judge might collude with an organized crime family to help them avoid justice. A police officer might collude with drug dealers to help them not get arrested. A city council member might collude with a local businessman to arrange for favorable legislation.

In all these cases, there is a presumption of some sort of benefit to the two (or more, I suppose) "sides" of said collusion, which is usually extra-legal in nature. This is why I've repeatedly talked about the need for some form of quid pro quo *and* that some sort of law is violated along the way. You'd need to show that someone in Trumps campaign knowingly worked with the Russians, knew that they (or he) was doing something illegal, did it anyway, and received some form of benefit as a result.

And no: Having someone in office we think might be better for us, is *not* a payoff in this context. It only is, if Trump actually promises them some benefit in return. As I pointed out earlier, RT USA has been propagandizing in a very pro-Democratic party manner for about a decade now. No one has *ever* suggested that since this benefits the Democratic party and those running on those very issues and platform, it must be illegal, much less that we should punish the members of that party for "foreign influence" that benefits them. There's no quid pro quo. Even if members of the Democratic party are fully aware of the positive press they get from this foreign funded operation, that's not a problem either. They're not responsible for what a third party says that may or may not be helpful to them. Heck. Even if you found a quote from a prominent Dem stating their appreciation for this Russian funded assistance, it might be embarrassing politically, but no sane person would suggest that it's illegal, much less launch investigations over the matter. And yes, even if the foreign party has committed a crime along the way (say by hacking the DNC server in one case, or passing falsified documents about Trump in another), this does not in any way create a legal problem for the party or politician who may benefit from that illegal "help".

What would make it illegal, and the only thing that makes it illegal is if the politician actually participates in the illegal help or promises some form of reward in return for it. That has not happened. Not only has it not happened, there's been no suggestion that anyone even thinks it happened, or that there's any evidence anywhere to support such a thought if it exists.

At the end of the day, this is yet another case of a media fueled investigation, the purpose of which is not to actually investigate any actual crime, but just for the political value of it existing in the first place. And, just as I said with the Plame investigation, it'll either go on for a couple years and produce nothing (except the political value of course), or they'll get lucky and in the process of asking enough people the same questions over the course of a couple years, they'll find someone who mixes up a date, or changes the timeline in one vaguely remembered sequence of events from one round of testimony to another and then pounce on the poor sap with a perjury charge.

We've seen this play out before. And yeah, it's worth some political points in the short run for the Left. But the more you guys go to that well, the more the folks on the Right and the Middle are looking at this, shaking their heads, and moving away. We literally just saw an election result that was the direct result of a voting population disgusted with this sort of tactic, and yet, the response from the political left and the media left is apparently to just double down on it? That's dumb. Every day this goes on more and more people are realizing just how totally out of touch the left is, how much they are willing to blatantly lie about everything, and how much they are willing to cover for each other's lies.

There's a reason why the term "fake news" resonates. There's a reason why, as this process is going on, the media is what is suffering the most in terms of public approval and trust. And that media is the primary means the left has to get people to accept it's message. You guys are killing yourself with this. Trump's a nothing. I don't care about Trump. But long after he's left office, the damage done to the Left in terms of trust and belief will still be in effect. You guys are way way way overplaying this hand. The only people who think this is a good idea are the folks inside the liberal bubble. And they're not the ones you need to win over.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#238 Jul 21 2017 at 6:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So it turns out that Sessions talked about the campaign in his meetings with the Russian ambassador, something that he denied having done (having initially denied that the meetings even happened).


Says Anonymous Source #217. So it must be true!

He also never denied having any meetings with the Russian ambassador. I'll reiterate my earlier comment. When you so obviously twist people's statements around to ignore the context of those statements, and to find some way to make them appear to be inconsistent or inaccurate or even outright lies, you make yourself look like you can't be trusted to report anything truthfully (I'm aiming that at the media, not you personally, although you might just think about not accepting everything you read as absolute truth).

He was asked a question by Franken, in a very specific context involving allegations of Russia having dirt on Trump, and an "exchange of information" (presumably within the context of the previously mentioned statement) between the members of the campaign and the Russian government. For anyone not trying really hard to find a way to parse his words in a harmful way, it's quite obvious that when he said he didn't know about such communications and never had any with the Russians, he was speaking of communications of the nature that Franken was asking about and not "any communication of any sort, on any topic, in any context, in which the other person has any connection with the Russian government". He was speaking specifically about conversations between the Trump campaign and the Russians with regards to alleged "compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump". Context freaking matters.

There's a common sense way of interpreting what he said, and then there's the ridiculous one. The argument you're following flows from the ridiculous one. Let's not forget that these are not written statements, but spoken ones, involving a back and forth conversation that goes on much longer than the small snippet you've likely read about, and where people often abbreviate their statement, because everyone in the room and involved in said back and forth know what's being talked about. No one at that session thought that he was saying what you're suggesting, since it would have been considered absurd. As a Senator, he has conversations with foreign diplomats and dignitaries all the time. The folks in the room were also Senators, and know this. It's pretty clear they all understood what he was saying at the time he said it.

But hey. Keep bringing up stuff that's been thoroughly debunked already. It's classy!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#239 Jul 21 2017 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So it turns out that Sessions talked about the campaign in his meetings with the Russian ambassador, something that he denied having done (having initially denied that the meetings even happened).
Says Anonymous Source #217. So it must be true!

Funny how often these sources say something and the administration has to backpedal or, more often I guess, someone gets sent out to lie about it and the next day Trump says "Yeah, it's true so what?"

Also funny how you try EVER so hard to cover for Sessions when, in reality, he was caught lying and was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation as a result. But you keep on making excuses, kiddo Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#240 Jul 21 2017 at 10:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,808 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So it turns out that Sessions talked about the campaign in his meetings with the Russian ambassador, something that he denied having done (having initially denied that the meetings even happened).
Says Anonymous Source #217. So it must be true!

Funny how often these sources say something and the administration has to backpedal or, more often I guess, someone gets sent out to lie about it and the next day Trump says "Yeah, it's true so what?"


No. What's funny is how often the sources and their claims turn out to be completely bogus, requiring the newspapers who ran with them to have to print retractions. And how often when the statement is actually correct, it's correct about something that isn't actually a contradiction at all (see the whole bit about Sessions and what he actually said above). Citing "unnamed sources" that point out that Sessions had a conversation with the Russian ambassador, while he said he "did not have communications with the Russians", presents the false impression of a lie by Sessions, when in actual fact the quote from Sessions is being taken out of context to an absurd degree.

Quote:
Also funny how you try EVER so hard to cover for Sessions when, in reality, he was caught lying and was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation as a result. But you keep on making excuses, kiddo Smiley: laugh


And there you are repeating the same thing again, as though just repeating it makes it true. He was not "caught lying". I just wrote a post clearly explaining the entire thing, complete with quotes of what was said and the context of the conversation he said it in, and instead of even attempting to respond to that, you just repeat the allegation that he lied. It's almost like even you don't actually believe what you're saying, but you're hoping that maybe other people will, if you just repeat it enough times. The point I'm trying to make here is that this isn't working. If anything, the extreme reactions and over reactions going on right now by the Left is driving people to disbelieve anything they say. I've mentioned the whole "boy who cried wolf" aspect of this before. When you guys keep jumping on the flimsiest of claims and repeat loudly the most easily debunked allegations, all you're doing is teaching people that you'll say anything at all, no matter how untrue, in the pursuit of damaging Trump and the GOP. Which in turn teaches people to just immediately assume that what you're saying isn't true.

He recused himself because it was politically correct to do so. You can't read any sort of admission of guilt into that. It's the "right thing to do", even if you believe you can be impartial, to recuse yourself if there's sufficient belief by the public that you can't. Even when driven by false allegations, it doesn't matter. What's ironic is that he was doing what anyone in that situation should have done in an environment where most people would have assumed he wouldn't. But instead of praising him for doing that "right thing", you're using it as ammunition? How on earth does that make sense?


What''s amusing about this is the incredible double standard being used. I don't see you (or anyone on the Left) demanding that Mueller recuse himself as the investigator into "Russian Meddling", despite the fact that he's a close personal friend of the guy who was just fired by the guy he's investigating. He's at least as connected personally to the issue as Sessions was. And given the strange behavior of Comey himself. it's even more suspicious. We find ourselves again in a situation where the person leading the investigation can't possibly be trusted to be impartial, more or less guaranteeing distrust in the results of any such investigation.

A side point to all of this is something I've pointed out several times in the past on this forum. The GOP is usually quite willing to turn to folks on their own side and tell them to recuse themselves, step down, resign, etc, at almost the slightest hint of scandal, or suggestion that he or she can't fulfill their position. And not surprisingly, the Left sees this as a weakness, often intentionally fanning false allegations and/or exaggerating them so as to create a public perception that will trigger this reaction. But the Left seems to go into full "circle the wagons" mode when the same sorts of things happen. it's like your "side" doesn't care about right or wrong, just protecting the "side" itself. The very fact that you use the act of recusing himself as a negative shows how you innately believe that this is a negative to be avoided, perhaps at all costs.

This leads to the doubling down that I've mentioned so many times in the past. Things start to go sideways, but instead of cleaning house and moving on, you feel like you have to deny that anything is wrong. You refused to acknowledge the deep flaws of Clinton as a candidate, despite plenty of warning. The more problems that appeared, the more you guys denied it. And not just denied it, but went on the attack against whomever would dare suggest that maybe all the really really questionable things she did might actually be harmful for her election chances. No one's willing to call out the power structure. Everyone just follows in lockstep. Every question about Obama's actions could not possibly be legitimate and never triggered any sort of self reflection. Nope, just call those questioning his actions racists and move on. Question proposed super harmful cap and trade regulations? Climate Change deniers! Question the sanity of keeping separate bathroom facilities for men and women? Haters! It's all about pushing back at the other side on everything and never once even questioning what you're doing.


Sessions recused himself. Flynn resigned (ok, Trump fired him, but do you think a Democrat president would have done that, or circled the wagons and expected the media and pundits to fall in line behind him?). These are the actions of people who are doing the right things, for the right reasons. Your "side" doesn't. And it's becoming so obvious that even the most muddle brained masses can see it clearly. We've got clear examples of people working in the government right now, who are putting their party loyalty ahead of their oaths to their country (how many leaks are we at now?). That doesn't go in the other directions. I'm sure there were a ton of conservatives working in the federal government under Obama, and surely plenty of opportunities to leak embarrassing stuff if wanted. So why not? Why is it only folks on the Left willing to go that extra mile in the pursuit of their own partisanship?

The ultimate irony is the projection that goes right along with it. There were constant stories about how terrified folks on the Right must be with a liberal black president. And they were going to go crazy and do all sorts of horrible things. But we didn't see anything. For 8 years, there were no riots of angry white men, no subversive actions against Obama by people in his own government, no frenzy, no anger... nothing. But what we're seeing right now is the Left doing exactly what it claimed the Right would do. Again though, I'm not holding my breath on any significant amount of self reflection on this. Your side is consistent, if nothing else.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#241 Jul 22 2017 at 12:16 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,227 posts
gbaji wrote:
ok, Trump fired him, but do you think a Democrat president would have done that, or circled the wagons and expected the media and pundits to fall in line behind him?
Well, no.

Because no liberal Democrat has ever fired anyone from his cabinet ever...in the whole history of the USA.


Darn tootin'.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#242 Jul 22 2017 at 12:22 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,227 posts
gbaji wrote:
He recused himself because it was politically correct to do so.
Historically, people recuse themselves from cases because they are inherently involved in some way. But don't let little things like facts and history get in the way of your blind devotion to a one party state ideal.

We wouldn't want to cramp your style, friend.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#243 Jul 22 2017 at 10:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Despite the attempts to frame this solely about one exchange with the Senate, Sessions also failed to disclose his meetings on his security clearance. It honestly isn't that complicated. Sessions withheld the truth and got caught. Comey said in his testimony that the intelligence community had access to information that would have made it difficult for Sessions to remain involved in the investigations and, hey, now we find out that the intelligence community intercepted communications regarding Sessions talking to Kislyak about the campaign.

He recused himself because (a) political pressure after being caught lying and (b) because he then lied about the content of the meetings (as we just learned) and needed to insulate himself. You don't need fifty spinning paragraphs of "Context!" and "But... Clinton!" and "But I bet if Democrats..." and "Fake news!" to explain it.

Edited, Jul 22nd 2017 12:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#244 Jul 22 2017 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
3,305 posts
gbaji wrote:
Flynn resigned (ok, Trump fired him, but do you think a Democrat president would have done that, or circled the wagons and expected the media and pundits to fall in line behind him?).



Here's a thing that didn't happen. (Okay, here's what really happened, but just imagine that it happened this imaginary way, and then I ALMOST sound like I'm not dropping a straw man)
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#245 Jul 22 2017 at 9:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
When 90% of your argument relies on "But in my imaginary world, you're worse!" it might be time to rethink your points.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 52 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (52)