|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States24793 Posts
On March 25 2019 10:31 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 09:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2019 09:03 pmh wrote:
Trump won,no evidence of collusion.
For 2 years the democrats and cable news media (cnn) have been wasting their time persuing this.
Now they never going to win the next elections. That's a complete non sequitur; whether or not there is any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia has no implication whatsoever that Democrats can't win the next election(s). Only to the extent that it further erodes public trust in the media and the media is 90% anti Trump.
If we ignore the actions of the Trump campaign and start with the day of the inauguration, the first visible thing the Trump administration did was chastise the media for not inflating crowd sizes and not lying about the weather. Using blatant lies to blame the media for false reporting does have a tendency to make the media more skeptical of you down the line.
|
On March 25 2019 10:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 09:38 pmh wrote:
Off course this is going to have an effect on the elections.
2 years of campaigning against trump invalidated. Trump said witch hunt all the time,and now many people will think it was indeed that,a witch hunt. People will dislike cnn and the likes (and any critizism about the president)even more because they hammerd this so hard and then in the end it fizzles.
This campaign has done huge damage to the democrats and their changes for 2020. I really think they have zero change if the elections would be held today.
But yes still 1.5 years to go,things can happen and lessons could be learned. Yeah, that is totally how elections work and people totally take the word of the FBI when they say they couldn’t find suffice to evidence to charge.
Yup,that is exactly how elections work. Its mostly about impressions and feelings that people have,not so much about facts and policy. That always was the case but should have been clear since Hillary lost.
Anyway I will leave the thread again,cu all in 2020.
|
On March 25 2019 11:13 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 10:18 Plansix wrote:On March 25 2019 09:38 pmh wrote:
Off course this is going to have an effect on the elections.
2 years of campaigning against trump invalidated. Trump said witch hunt all the time,and now many people will think it was indeed that,a witch hunt. People will dislike cnn and the likes (and any critizism about the president)even more because they hammerd this so hard and then in the end it fizzles.
This campaign has done huge damage to the democrats and their changes for 2020. I really think they have zero change if the elections would be held today.
But yes still 1.5 years to go,things can happen and lessons could be learned. Yeah, that is totally how elections work and people totally take the word of the FBI when they say they couldn’t find suffice to evidence to charge. Yup,that is exactly how elections work. Its mostly about impressions and feelings that people have,not so much about facts and policy. That always was the case but should have been clear since Hillary lost. Anyway I will leave the thread again,cu all in 2020.
I find arguments are often won by folks who have to declare they're going to peace out for two years.
|
On March 25 2019 10:35 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 10:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 25 2019 09:45 NewSunshine wrote:On March 25 2019 09:38 pmh wrote:
Off course this is going to have an effect on the elections.
2 years of campaigning against trump invalidated. Trump said witch hunt all the time,and now many people will think it was indeed that,a witch hunt. People will dislike cnn and the likes (and any critizism about the president)even more because they hammerd this so hard and then in the end it fizzles.
This campaign has done huge damage to the democrats and their changes for 2020. I really think they have zero change if the elections would be held today.
But yes still 1.5 years to go,things can happen and lessons could be learned. Things can happen, such as seeing what's in the actual report, and other investigations/charges concluding. Barr already told you what’s in the report: nothing worthy of prosecution. This is further corroborated by the utter lack of any charges related to the Trump/Russia conspiracy narrative. The idea that Barr is hiding something is truly preposterous. Flip this situation on around. Obama's still president and there's a Special Counsel investigation into his conduct. At the end of the investigation, Eric Holder gets the report, and rather than releasing it, he puts out a letter saying that essentially there's nothing to see here, though there was some stuff that didn't necessarily exonerate Obama's conduct, but based on Holder's opinion, it shouldn't be pursued. How would you feel? Would you trust what Holder's judgment on the unknown matter in which there might be evidence of wrongdoing was correct?
Why play a rhetorical game?
Benghazi.
After all the investigations etc pp, we're at the point where everything that lead to the conclusion that HRC is "not guilty" are questioned, and by questioned i mean outright declared as deep state lies to protect their interests.
Hell. You think this bullshit is "new" or "Trump-age"? For funsies, read into how "conservatives" behaved when Nixon came under fire.
Here's some quotes in regards to Wright Patman, the guy who basically jumpstarted Watergate by investigating Nixons aides connection to the Watergate Burglary.
House Republican leader, Gerald Ford of Michigan (who later succeeded Mr. Nixon as president), called it a “political witch hunt” according to the historian Stanley I. Kutler
After reporters revealed close ties between the Watergate burglars and Mr. Nixon’s administration and re-election campaign, Senator Robert Dole of Kansas jumped to the president’s defense. He labeled the media accounts “a barrage of unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations by George McGovern” — whom Mr. Nixon defeated in the 1972 election — “and his partner in mud-slinging, The Washington Post.”
It's the modus operandi of "conservatives" (which, i'd like to add, is thanks to the US and the UK now worldwide seen as "the shitty side to chose" for sane people). Decry anything that happens to point out flaws, reject everything regardless of how plausible (and might i add, we have people working in law here who should know better, but somehow act on the same level as Aaron Schlossberg), and if someone dares to point out an inconsistency, call it "ludicrous". Or "tremendous" i suppose. Republicans literally use the same quotes they did when Nixon was under investigation, and we all know how that one turned out.
There's no point in asking "what if" - we all know the answer. There's absolutely zero point in trying to point it out, because clearly, if anyone of the residents answers to this, it'll be to point out that the historian was a liar, paid by McGovern and a columnist of the Post, HRC absolutely is "guilty for Beghazi", and that "conservatives" obviously are the "sane" people in the country.
|
On March 25 2019 10:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 10:12 On_Slaught wrote:On March 25 2019 10:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 25 2019 09:45 NewSunshine wrote:On March 25 2019 09:38 pmh wrote:
Off course this is going to have an effect on the elections.
2 years of campaigning against trump invalidated. Trump said witch hunt all the time,and now many people will think it was indeed that,a witch hunt. People will dislike cnn and the likes (and any critizism about the president)even more because they hammerd this so hard and then in the end it fizzles.
This campaign has done huge damage to the democrats and their changes for 2020. I really think they have zero change if the elections would be held today.
But yes still 1.5 years to go,things can happen and lessons could be learned. Things can happen, such as seeing what's in the actual report, and other investigations/charges concluding. Barr already told you what’s in the report: nothing worthy of prosecution. This is further corroborated by the utter lack of any charges related to the Trump/Russia conspiracy narrative. The idea that Barr is hiding something is truly preposterous. Barr is providing his opinion based on a set of facts. Given his known bias against charging a President, it makes sense to wait and see how strongly founded his opinion is before declaring it ironclad (not that it would change the fact he isnt being indicted, but it could change how Congress reacts). It is not just Barr’s opinion. It is also Rosenstein’s. In fact, it is also Mueller’s. Mueller chose not to indict Trump, his son, and everyone else who was not indicted. No one reasonable believes that Mueller would have held back if he had the goods. He had no trouble indicting people for all sorts of petty process shit such as with Flynn and Papadopoulos.
I'm talking purely about obstruction which only has to do with Trump himself. If it's as Barr says and Mueller gave both sides of the obstruction argument in his report then I want to see what possible exculpatory evidence they found to get around Trump's public admission that he fired Comey to stop the investigation into Flynn; an investigation which may have discovered the facts that are putting Flynn in jail now.
If the report completely exonerates him as yall say, then there should be no problem releasing it for us all to see.
|
On March 25 2019 10:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 10:12 On_Slaught wrote:On March 25 2019 10:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 25 2019 09:45 NewSunshine wrote:On March 25 2019 09:38 pmh wrote:
Off course this is going to have an effect on the elections.
2 years of campaigning against trump invalidated. Trump said witch hunt all the time,and now many people will think it was indeed that,a witch hunt. People will dislike cnn and the likes (and any critizism about the president)even more because they hammerd this so hard and then in the end it fizzles.
This campaign has done huge damage to the democrats and their changes for 2020. I really think they have zero change if the elections would be held today.
But yes still 1.5 years to go,things can happen and lessons could be learned. Things can happen, such as seeing what's in the actual report, and other investigations/charges concluding. Barr already told you what’s in the report: nothing worthy of prosecution. This is further corroborated by the utter lack of any charges related to the Trump/Russia conspiracy narrative. The idea that Barr is hiding something is truly preposterous. Barr is providing his opinion based on a set of facts. Given his known bias against charging a President, it makes sense to wait and see how strongly founded his opinion is before declaring it ironclad (not that it would change the fact he isnt being indicted, but it could change how Congress reacts). It is not just Barr’s opinion. It is also Rosenstein’s. In fact, it is also Mueller’s. Mueller chose not to indict Trump, his son, and everyone else who was not indicted. No one reasonable believes that Mueller would have held back if he had the goods. He had no trouble indicting people for all sorts of petty process shit such as with Flynn and Papadopoulos.
I imagine I'm going to end up agreeing with Barr. But I don't know that yet. Until we see the report, there's nothing for anyone to say. This is such a charged topic that anything other than the document itself is too little.
|
On March 25 2019 10:36 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 10:31 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 25 2019 09:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2019 09:03 pmh wrote:
Trump won,no evidence of collusion.
For 2 years the democrats and cable news media (cnn) have been wasting their time persuing this.
Now they never going to win the next elections. That's a complete non sequitur; whether or not there is any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia has no implication whatsoever that Democrats can't win the next election(s). Only to the extent that it further erodes public trust in the media and the media is 90% anti Trump. If we ignore the actions of the Trump campaign and start with the day of the inauguration, the first visible thing the Trump administration did was chastise the media for not inflating crowd sizes and not lying about the weather. Using blatant lies to blame the media for false reporting does have a tendency to make the media more skeptical of you down the line.
Well the media was against Trump before the inauguration too.Remember pissgate? The phony Buzzfeed claim that Russia had a tape of prostitutes urinating on Trump in a Russian hotel room that Putin was blackmailing him with?
That was a few weeks prior to the inauguration.Think about that.
|
On March 25 2019 12:15 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 10:35 Ben... wrote:On March 25 2019 10:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 25 2019 09:45 NewSunshine wrote:On March 25 2019 09:38 pmh wrote:
Off course this is going to have an effect on the elections.
2 years of campaigning against trump invalidated. Trump said witch hunt all the time,and now many people will think it was indeed that,a witch hunt. People will dislike cnn and the likes (and any critizism about the president)even more because they hammerd this so hard and then in the end it fizzles.
This campaign has done huge damage to the democrats and their changes for 2020. I really think they have zero change if the elections would be held today.
But yes still 1.5 years to go,things can happen and lessons could be learned. Things can happen, such as seeing what's in the actual report, and other investigations/charges concluding. Barr already told you what’s in the report: nothing worthy of prosecution. This is further corroborated by the utter lack of any charges related to the Trump/Russia conspiracy narrative. The idea that Barr is hiding something is truly preposterous. Flip this situation on around. Obama's still president and there's a Special Counsel investigation into his conduct. At the end of the investigation, Eric Holder gets the report, and rather than releasing it, he puts out a letter saying that essentially there's nothing to see here, though there was some stuff that didn't necessarily exonerate Obama's conduct, but based on Holder's opinion, it shouldn't be pursued. How would you feel? Would you trust what Holder's judgment on the unknown matter in which there might be evidence of wrongdoing was correct? Why play a rhetorical game?
I think you missed my point. The whole point I was going for is that xDaunt was blindly placing 100% trust in Barr and was questioning why others were doubting Barr. So I came up with an analogy to maybe give a bit of insight into why others are not so trusting of Barr's judgment.
|
I think you missed my point. The whole point I was going for is that xDaunt was blindly placing 100% trust in Barr and was questioning why others were doubting Barr. So I came up with an analogy to maybe give a bit of insight into why others are not so trusting of Barr's judgment.
I think m4ini got it, he's just saying it's not worth engaging in rhetorical games with US conservatives because it won't be productive or useful.
|
On March 25 2019 13:53 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 12:15 m4ini wrote:On March 25 2019 10:35 Ben... wrote:On March 25 2019 10:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 25 2019 09:45 NewSunshine wrote:On March 25 2019 09:38 pmh wrote:
Off course this is going to have an effect on the elections.
2 years of campaigning against trump invalidated. Trump said witch hunt all the time,and now many people will think it was indeed that,a witch hunt. People will dislike cnn and the likes (and any critizism about the president)even more because they hammerd this so hard and then in the end it fizzles.
This campaign has done huge damage to the democrats and their changes for 2020. I really think they have zero change if the elections would be held today.
But yes still 1.5 years to go,things can happen and lessons could be learned. Things can happen, such as seeing what's in the actual report, and other investigations/charges concluding. Barr already told you what’s in the report: nothing worthy of prosecution. This is further corroborated by the utter lack of any charges related to the Trump/Russia conspiracy narrative. The idea that Barr is hiding something is truly preposterous. Flip this situation on around. Obama's still president and there's a Special Counsel investigation into his conduct. At the end of the investigation, Eric Holder gets the report, and rather than releasing it, he puts out a letter saying that essentially there's nothing to see here, though there was some stuff that didn't necessarily exonerate Obama's conduct, but based on Holder's opinion, it shouldn't be pursued. How would you feel? Would you trust what Holder's judgment on the unknown matter in which there might be evidence of wrongdoing was correct? Why play a rhetorical game? I think you missed my point. The whole point I was going for is that xDaunt was blindly placing 100% trust in Barr and was questioning why others were doubting Barr. So I came up with an analogy to maybe give a bit of insight into why others are not so trusting of Barr's judgment.
I most certainly am not blindly trusting Barr. I have a good grasp of the facts and the law. The result of Mueller’s investigation has been inevitable for most of a year now, if not longer. The only people who don’t understand this are those who have blindly trusted the media’s reporting on all of this, which should now be readily apparent to everyone as being an utter journalistic catastrophe. The bottom line is that everyone who actually took the time to understand the basic facts surrounding the case as well as some elements of the law knew that Mueller was going to come up empty in his report. Everyone who trusted the media and its biased narrative is now struggling to understand WTF happened. This latter group will come around in time, but they are undoubtedly behind the 8-ball right now.
Edit: If anyone wants to start to understand the real story, read this. The author is meticulous with his sourcing and very conservative (not in the political sense (though he is also a conservative)) with his analysis. I don’t agree entirely with his take on the investigation, but I do think he has the vast majority of it right.
User was warned for this post.
|
On March 25 2019 15:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 13:53 Ben... wrote:On March 25 2019 12:15 m4ini wrote:On March 25 2019 10:35 Ben... wrote:On March 25 2019 10:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 25 2019 09:45 NewSunshine wrote:On March 25 2019 09:38 pmh wrote:
Off course this is going to have an effect on the elections.
2 years of campaigning against trump invalidated. Trump said witch hunt all the time,and now many people will think it was indeed that,a witch hunt. People will dislike cnn and the likes (and any critizism about the president)even more because they hammerd this so hard and then in the end it fizzles.
This campaign has done huge damage to the democrats and their changes for 2020. I really think they have zero change if the elections would be held today.
But yes still 1.5 years to go,things can happen and lessons could be learned. Things can happen, such as seeing what's in the actual report, and other investigations/charges concluding. Barr already told you what’s in the report: nothing worthy of prosecution. This is further corroborated by the utter lack of any charges related to the Trump/Russia conspiracy narrative. The idea that Barr is hiding something is truly preposterous. Flip this situation on around. Obama's still president and there's a Special Counsel investigation into his conduct. At the end of the investigation, Eric Holder gets the report, and rather than releasing it, he puts out a letter saying that essentially there's nothing to see here, though there was some stuff that didn't necessarily exonerate Obama's conduct, but based on Holder's opinion, it shouldn't be pursued. How would you feel? Would you trust what Holder's judgment on the unknown matter in which there might be evidence of wrongdoing was correct? Why play a rhetorical game? I think you missed my point. The whole point I was going for is that xDaunt was blindly placing 100% trust in Barr and was questioning why others were doubting Barr. So I came up with an analogy to maybe give a bit of insight into why others are not so trusting of Barr's judgment. Edit: If anyone wants to start to understand the real story, read this. The author is meticulous with his sourcing and very conservative (not in the political sense (though he is also a conservative)) with his analysis. I don’t agree entirely with his take on the investigation, but I do think he has the vast majority of it right.
The key takeaway from this entire “Russian Interference” part, is that there wasn’t actually any Russian interference, so the predicate for Trump to be investigated for colluding or conspiring to do something that technically wasn’t being done is just silly.
You call it well sourced but he is making claims about Muellers evidence without seeing Muellers evidence, interpreting Barrs words as legal obtuse talk by Mueller, than making some really random claims about hacking that are wrong, and then denying any Russian interference AT ALL even happened and therefore Trump being investigated for it is a scandal? No actual interference? Like...it's impossible to get that conclusion from what is currently known. It says a lot that you refer to something of this bad quality to explain your view on the story.
|
On March 25 2019 13:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 10:36 micronesia wrote:On March 25 2019 10:31 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 25 2019 09:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2019 09:03 pmh wrote:
Trump won,no evidence of collusion.
For 2 years the democrats and cable news media (cnn) have been wasting their time persuing this.
Now they never going to win the next elections. That's a complete non sequitur; whether or not there is any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia has no implication whatsoever that Democrats can't win the next election(s). Only to the extent that it further erodes public trust in the media and the media is 90% anti Trump. If we ignore the actions of the Trump campaign and start with the day of the inauguration, the first visible thing the Trump administration did was chastise the media for not inflating crowd sizes and not lying about the weather. Using blatant lies to blame the media for false reporting does have a tendency to make the media more skeptical of you down the line. Well the media was against Trump before the inauguration too.Remember pissgate? The phony Buzzfeed claim that Russia had a tape of prostitutes urinating on Trump in a Russian hotel room that Putin was blackmailing him with? That was a few weeks prior to the inauguration.Think about that.
I don't think anyone was chanting Lock Him Up or became skeptical of Trump's honesty or leadership ability because of the whole pee tape thing. That accusation wasn't about him doing anything illegal, just doing a millionth dirty and creepy thing after the rest had already been well-documented (sexual assault, sexual harassment, cheating on his wives, paying for hookers, constant lying, racism, sexism, etc.), and wouldn't have seriously affected Trump's image at all. If someone had decided to support Trump before the pee tape scandal broke, they certainly weren't going to be swayed by that accusation. The Bengazi issue, on the other hand, was a pivotal accusation with potentially legal consequences, and the FBI's open investigation during the election could have reasonably deterred voters from siding with Hillary during the actual election. For those reasons, I don't think Hillary's Bengazi and Trump's Pee Tape are analogous in terms of effect or public trust.
And remember, these other dirty and creepy things are documented *by Trump and his family* in tweets and e-mails and speeches (and confirmed by other sources), not just media fabrications and witch hunts. It's not really a witch hunt when you actually find witches.
|
On March 25 2019 17:55 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 15:49 xDaunt wrote:On March 25 2019 13:53 Ben... wrote:On March 25 2019 12:15 m4ini wrote:On March 25 2019 10:35 Ben... wrote:On March 25 2019 10:01 xDaunt wrote:On March 25 2019 09:45 NewSunshine wrote:On March 25 2019 09:38 pmh wrote:
Off course this is going to have an effect on the elections.
2 years of campaigning against trump invalidated. Trump said witch hunt all the time,and now many people will think it was indeed that,a witch hunt. People will dislike cnn and the likes (and any critizism about the president)even more because they hammerd this so hard and then in the end it fizzles.
This campaign has done huge damage to the democrats and their changes for 2020. I really think they have zero change if the elections would be held today.
But yes still 1.5 years to go,things can happen and lessons could be learned. Things can happen, such as seeing what's in the actual report, and other investigations/charges concluding. Barr already told you what’s in the report: nothing worthy of prosecution. This is further corroborated by the utter lack of any charges related to the Trump/Russia conspiracy narrative. The idea that Barr is hiding something is truly preposterous. Flip this situation on around. Obama's still president and there's a Special Counsel investigation into his conduct. At the end of the investigation, Eric Holder gets the report, and rather than releasing it, he puts out a letter saying that essentially there's nothing to see here, though there was some stuff that didn't necessarily exonerate Obama's conduct, but based on Holder's opinion, it shouldn't be pursued. How would you feel? Would you trust what Holder's judgment on the unknown matter in which there might be evidence of wrongdoing was correct? Why play a rhetorical game? I think you missed my point. The whole point I was going for is that xDaunt was blindly placing 100% trust in Barr and was questioning why others were doubting Barr. So I came up with an analogy to maybe give a bit of insight into why others are not so trusting of Barr's judgment. Edit: If anyone wants to start to understand the real story, read this. The author is meticulous with his sourcing and very conservative (not in the political sense (though he is also a conservative)) with his analysis. I don’t agree entirely with his take on the investigation, but I do think he has the vast majority of it right. Show nested quote +The key takeaway from this entire “Russian Interference” part, is that there wasn’t actually any Russian interference, so the predicate for Trump to be investigated for colluding or conspiring to do something that technically wasn’t being done is just silly. You call it well sourced but he is making claims about Muellers evidence without seeing Muellers evidence, interpreting Barrs words as legal obtuse talk by Mueller, than making some really random claims about hacking that are wrong, and then denying any Russian interference AT ALL even happened and therefore Trump being investigated for it is a scandal? No actual interference? Like...it's impossible to get that conclusion from what is currently known. It says a lot that you refer to something of this bad quality to explain your view on the story.
I said “start” there. The guy has written dozens of pieces about this stuff. He doesn’t include everything in that one article. Doing so would be impractical.
|
On March 25 2019 13:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 10:36 micronesia wrote:On March 25 2019 10:31 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 25 2019 09:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2019 09:03 pmh wrote:
Trump won,no evidence of collusion.
For 2 years the democrats and cable news media (cnn) have been wasting their time persuing this.
Now they never going to win the next elections. That's a complete non sequitur; whether or not there is any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia has no implication whatsoever that Democrats can't win the next election(s). Only to the extent that it further erodes public trust in the media and the media is 90% anti Trump. If we ignore the actions of the Trump campaign and start with the day of the inauguration, the first visible thing the Trump administration did was chastise the media for not inflating crowd sizes and not lying about the weather. Using blatant lies to blame the media for false reporting does have a tendency to make the media more skeptical of you down the line. Well the media was against Trump before the inauguration too.Remember pissgate? The phony Buzzfeed claim that Russia had a tape of prostitutes urinating on Trump in a Russian hotel room that Putin was blackmailing him with? That was a few weeks prior to the inauguration.Think about that.
Wasn't the pee tape part of the Steele Dossier which have with time only been proven more and more correct? Media reporting on issues as they are represented are not "fake news".
|
I love that we still uncritical throw around “the media” like it means something.
|
On March 25 2019 19:10 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 13:23 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 25 2019 10:36 micronesia wrote:On March 25 2019 10:31 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On March 25 2019 09:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2019 09:03 pmh wrote:
Trump won,no evidence of collusion.
For 2 years the democrats and cable news media (cnn) have been wasting their time persuing this.
Now they never going to win the next elections. That's a complete non sequitur; whether or not there is any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia has no implication whatsoever that Democrats can't win the next election(s). Only to the extent that it further erodes public trust in the media and the media is 90% anti Trump. If we ignore the actions of the Trump campaign and start with the day of the inauguration, the first visible thing the Trump administration did was chastise the media for not inflating crowd sizes and not lying about the weather. Using blatant lies to blame the media for false reporting does have a tendency to make the media more skeptical of you down the line. Well the media was against Trump before the inauguration too.Remember pissgate? The phony Buzzfeed claim that Russia had a tape of prostitutes urinating on Trump in a Russian hotel room that Putin was blackmailing him with? That was a few weeks prior to the inauguration.Think about that. Wasn't the pee tape part of the Steele Dossier which have with time only been proven more and more correct? Media reporting on issues as they are represented are not "fake news".
Yes the pee tape is mentioned in official government report concerning the dossier which is why buzzfeed won the defamation lawsuit. Essentially they are not the one claiming the tape exists just the one reporting it based on government reports and the news can report on the goverment.
Although there has never been hard proof of it excistance. Still plenty of proof of Trumps skeevy behavior, not sure it matters to people who go straight to "well, what about..."
|
choice quote from a house republican who doesn’t like the taste of his party’s own medicine.
the article provides a handful of hurt feelings from republicans not being included in the legislative process.
“Giving a member less than 24 hours to sign onto a piece of legislation they have never seen is discourteous, especially when we have said at each hearing thus far this Congress that we are willing to work in a bipartisan way.”
www.politico.com
personally i’d prefer, ideally, a functional government actually intent on serving everyone. but in the mean-time some quality bullshit rank with hypocrisy at least serves as entertainment.
one day we’ll presumably return to normal.
|
The problem with so much attention being put on the Mueller investigation is that it provided cover for Trump’s other graft, like making money off being President, using his charity as a check book and paying off porn stars while lying about it. Luckily there are two years where people can refocus their attention leading up to 2020.
|
On March 25 2019 21:58 brian wrote:choice quote from a house republican who doesn’t like the taste of his party’s own medicine. the article provides a handful of hurt feelings from republicans not being included in the legislative process. Show nested quote +“Giving a member less than 24 hours to sign onto a piece of legislation they have never seen is discourteous, especially when we have said at each hearing thus far this Congress that we are willing to work in a bipartisan way.” www.politico.compersonally i’d prefer, ideally, a functional government actually intent on serving everyone. but in the mean-time some quality bullshit rank with hypocrisy at least serves as entertainment. one day we’ll presumably return to normal. Where was the 'working in a bipartisan way' when you were in charge mister Republican?
|
On March 25 2019 22:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2019 21:58 brian wrote:choice quote from a house republican who doesn’t like the taste of his party’s own medicine. the article provides a handful of hurt feelings from republicans not being included in the legislative process. “Giving a member less than 24 hours to sign onto a piece of legislation they have never seen is discourteous, especially when we have said at each hearing thus far this Congress that we are willing to work in a bipartisan way.” www.politico.compersonally i’d prefer, ideally, a functional government actually intent on serving everyone. but in the mean-time some quality bullshit rank with hypocrisy at least serves as entertainment. one day we’ll presumably return to normal. Where was the 'working in a bipartisan way' when you were in charge mister Republican?
i’ll preface this by saying i’ve done no investigation into this claim, but in the article there’s also a very specific mention of denying republicans with 2020 elections any say in legislation. this would be something i can totally get behind. i’d thoroughly appreciate an effort of real bipartisan work with only republicans we have no chance of losing in 2020 as to make the next election as weak as possible for 2020 incumbents while also actually working across the aisle.
that would be the absolute best case scenario for me, as opposed to a blanket ban on republican input. that seems like just the right amount of politicking after ryan and mcconnell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
