EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9782
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37055 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
On January 26 2018 10:45 Adreme wrote: The reason you get this reaction is that not a single credible news outlet is willing to put there name to this nonsense. The best you get is Alex Jones. Every other serious news outlet I guarantee investigated it, saw what a 7 hour uncontrolled fire could do to a building and said "yes the fire could do the damage needed to bring a building down" even though buildings of that size do not have 7 hour uncontrolled fires which is why it is so unprecedented. However unusual does not mean impossible. Hypothetically both that building and both world trade centers COULD have possibly stayed up if the fires had burned differently or gotten under control faster or the planes had hit at a slightly different angle. However just because something CAN happen does not make it the most likely outcome. You see things like this in academic fields as well where something that is hypothetically possible but unlikely is posed as the solution and most often times its because the researcher is using facts to back up there theory instead of making the theory fit the facts. That at its core is how a conspiracy starts. They have a theory and they dig thru and try to find facts that make it possible. Again you have people who say it could have been done this way, but not a single person involved and no chain of evidence that makes this anything other than the same of level of deranged conspiracy as all of the other ones I listed. By the way when you share an opinion with Alex Jones that should give you pause to check your opinion. Believe me, it would be a lot easier to just accept the official story and move on. The only reason I don't is because when I started looking I couldn't get satisfactory explanations. Hell I bought the whole understanding Serm mentioned and Danglars corrected before I started wondering. EDIT: Literally just read the post above after I posted, but I know yall are looking for a reason so I'll let you end it there. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news Which begs the question who here actrually thinks the GOP would consider this the last straw. They will go down with this ship. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On January 26 2018 10:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: lol Last year there was a tape of Kevin McCarthy saying he thinks Trump is paid by Putin, and Paul Ryan saying 'no leaks, we keep this in the family'. Isn't that a more interesting 'secret family society' for this enlightened fellow to dig into? But I guess that was just a joke and not something serious like this text message | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
and then Trump will tweet ' Failing New York Times spreads more fake news, McGahn never threatened to quit, it was ME who threatened to fire him when he didn't listen!' and thereby accidentally confirming the story and throwing another bus at his spokespeople | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
Then again, our President already told the world he fired the director of the FBI over the "Russiar thing". The difference between actual conspiracy, and theory, couldn't be clearer. And with Trump, it is actual conspiracy, and probably to a very treasonous extent. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
In one phone conversation during 2017, Trump complained to May over the criticism he’d been getting in British newspapers. Amid warnings that Trump would face protests in the streets when he arrived, he told the prime minister he would not be coming to the U.K. until she could promise him a warm welcome. May responded to say such treatment was simply the way the British press operate, and there wasn’t much she could do. In the secure bunker underneath the prime minister’s office, her advisers listened in to the call in astonishment at Trump’s demand. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-24/inside-the-dysfunctional-relationship-of-donald-trump-and-theresa-may Guess touting how you could've fucked the still very beloved Diana, including taking an HIV test, months after she died isn't as forgotten as he thinks. I actually could understand if the british have a special kind of hatred towards trump. Not just the usual one. Disclaimer: sorry if it was mentioned somewhere earlier, i just couldn't be arsed to go through the conspiracy shit. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 26 2018 11:31 Leporello wrote: Trump won't be impeached tomorrow because Republicans. Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On January 26 2018 11:34 Plansix wrote: Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns. The entire investigation will span years. But I have a feeling an Obstruction of Justice referral is coming sooner than later. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On January 26 2018 11:31 Leporello wrote: Trump won't be impeached tomorrow because Republicans. "The party of family values" takes a rather due turn. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On January 26 2018 11:34 Plansix wrote: Impeachment is serious. They need to wait for the investigation to end and make the case to the public. And also be democrats, not tea party clowns. That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle. Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe. Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around. edit: without the toxicity, i actually do think it's not in the realm of possibility that trump gets impeached over this, considering many republicans called for it anyway. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 26 2018 11:36 m4ini wrote: That would assume that you could trust in the integrity of republican politicians. Which makes even republicans chuckle. Lets be real. Trump gets impeached if he gets caught while being handed a yuge stash of cash by putin himself in the Kremlin. Maybe. Not over any of this. For that, you'd need to have country over party, not the other way around. Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4866 Posts
Even if he wanted to fire someone he had the authority to fire. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On January 26 2018 11:39 Plansix wrote: Nixon was impeached for firing the special counsel. It might happen here, but not until 2019. Unarguably i'm not as versed in "politicians 101" of the 60s and 70s, but my gut tells me that men back then had a shred more incentive to "do the right thing". Maybe it's just me, or nostalgia for "better times" - i don't think the situation is comparable. Again, there's republicans calling for firing Mueller. I don't know enough about nixons situation, if republicans back then did ask for the counsel to be fired? because you can't convince the American public That isn't a requirement. | ||
| ||
