|
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 |
On July 14 2018 02:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2018 02:34 NewSunshine wrote:On July 14 2018 02:27 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 02:23 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 02:20 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 02:04 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 14 2018 01:58 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 01:55 m4ini wrote:On July 14 2018 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't see what's wrong with Trump's statement. He's clearly stating that Russia invaded Ukraine because it knew that Obama was a weak president, and that Putin wouldn't have tried it on Trump's watch. I think it goes without saying that everyone knows that Trump has far more resolve than Obama. How twisted of a mind would you need to have to actually believe that? Russia would've invaded Ukraine either way, because there's jack shit the US can do about it. To argue otherwise is disgustingly disingenuous. Trump would've done nothing different, or do you actually think someone believes that he'd go to war with russia? I don't really know whether Russia would have done it on Trump's watch or if Trump would have responded militarily. All that I am saying is that Trump is clearly tougher than Obama. Also, one thing to keep in mind is that Obama likely precipitated the Russian invasion of Ukraine with his meddling in Ukrainian politics. So Russia's invasion of the Ukraine wasn't simply about Obama perceived weakness to the extent that was part of Russia's calculation. What the fuck are you talking about?? You are literally regurgitating Russian propaganda about American meddling in Ukraine perpetrating the Russian invasion of Ukraine. You should be ashamed of yourself. Dauntless like to regurgitate propaganda for all sorts of sources when it comes to his political views. Many of us still remember the day when he unknowingly posted the 14 words in this thread. Apparently you still don't understand what that conversation was about. You getting hoodwinked by a bunch of white nationalists into propagating their hateful, but cleaned up for the public, bullshit? Because that is literally what happened, Vox Day rehashed white nationalist propaganda and you reposted it thinking it was something new. He was paid to do it too. Here's How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The MainstreamWe have read the emails. You got played. Like I said, you don't know what that conversation was about. It seems to me like it's awfully easy to just repeat "you don't know what you're talking about", especially when you don't then explain why. Not terribly convincing. Most of us remember what happened. Yes, I'm sure y'all have certain memories and impressions of what happened, but I highly doubt that most of you really understood what was actually being discussed and the point that was being made. And I don't really care to revisit it given that y'all aren't up to the conversation.
I'm sure you don't care to revisit it, but I don't think it's for the reasons you claim here.
|
5930 Posts
I dunno, it doesn't seem like they're missing the point. If you want to defend yourself, start doing so instead of telling people "uh uh you just don't get it"
|
On July 14 2018 02:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2018 02:39 NewSunshine wrote:On July 14 2018 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 02:35 Womwomwom wrote:On July 14 2018 02:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 02:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 14 2018 01:58 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 01:55 m4ini wrote:On July 14 2018 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 01:46 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
He literally said that. I don't see what's wrong with Trump's statement. He's clearly stating that Russia invaded Ukraine because it knew that Obama was a weak president, and that Putin wouldn't have tried it on Trump's watch. I think it goes without saying that everyone knows that Trump has far more resolve than Obama. How twisted of a mind would you need to have to actually believe that? Russia would've invaded Ukraine either way, because there's jack shit the US can do about it. To argue otherwise is disgustingly disingenuous. Trump would've done nothing different, or do you actually think someone believes that he'd go to war with russia? I don't really know whether Russia would have done it on Trump's watch or if Trump would have responded militarily. All that I am saying is that Trump is clearly tougher than Obama. Also, one thing to keep in mind is that Obama likely precipitated the Russian invasion of Ukraine with his meddling in Ukrainian politics. So Russia's invasion of the Ukraine wasn't simply about Obama perceived weakness to the extent that was part of Russia's calculation. I don't think tough is the right word. Erratic more like. Sure there are things he's followed through on (tariffs) but there are also things he's rolled over on (tariffs). There isn't a whole lot of rhyme or reason to his strategies, and people who support him have a tendency to connect the dots as the see fit. Fewer Presidents have gotten less done in their first year or so in office than Trump. Seems like the guy is pretty impotent. Again, how many presidents have had to deal with the resistance -- from day one -- that Trump has had to deal with? The only president that immediately comes to mind without researching it is Lincoln (and he was obviously in a worse position). Let's see what happens when the new congress shows up in January. The guy has the presidency, a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate and arguably a majority on the Supreme Court. What resistance is there really? Blame the Republican Party if they can't pass anything, there are enough red state Democrats that are clearing willing to work with the administration. That's exactly my point. Trump was at odds with a huge chunk of the GOP when he was elected, and that's before we consider the Democrats or the madness that is the Russian conspiracy stuff. Rofl, how can you still parrot this after the press conference you linked us to today? There's literally a growing pile of evidence that the conspiracy is real. When I talk about the "Russian conspiracy stuff," I'm referring to the allegation that Trump colluded with Russians or is otherwise a Russian tool. I have never really doubted that the Russians engaged in various espionage activities during the last election.
But he son admitted to having a meeting with someone who has strong connections to the Russian government. And a bunch of Russian oligarchs attending his inaugural ball. And we don’t know where a whole bunch of money from the Trump inauguration fund went.
There is a lot of smoke out there that someone did something shady.
|
On July 14 2018 01:54 Leporello wrote:Tip of the iceburg. Manafort trial in 2 weeks. WikiLeaks and Roger Stone indictment imminent. And I'm guessing that Congressman is the "honorable" traitor, Rohrabacher. edit: Maybe you all haven't heard about today's new indictments against "Guccifer 2.0", which is actually a collection of GRU agents. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4598929-Netyksho-Et-Al-Indictment.html
Looks like we are getting closer and closer to Americans begging Russians for information the Russians stole.
|
5930 Posts
On July 14 2018 02:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2018 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 02:39 NewSunshine wrote:On July 14 2018 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 02:35 Womwomwom wrote:On July 14 2018 02:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 02:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 14 2018 01:58 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 01:55 m4ini wrote:On July 14 2018 01:52 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't see what's wrong with Trump's statement. He's clearly stating that Russia invaded Ukraine because it knew that Obama was a weak president, and that Putin wouldn't have tried it on Trump's watch. I think it goes without saying that everyone knows that Trump has far more resolve than Obama. How twisted of a mind would you need to have to actually believe that? Russia would've invaded Ukraine either way, because there's jack shit the US can do about it. To argue otherwise is disgustingly disingenuous. Trump would've done nothing different, or do you actually think someone believes that he'd go to war with russia? I don't really know whether Russia would have done it on Trump's watch or if Trump would have responded militarily. All that I am saying is that Trump is clearly tougher than Obama. Also, one thing to keep in mind is that Obama likely precipitated the Russian invasion of Ukraine with his meddling in Ukrainian politics. So Russia's invasion of the Ukraine wasn't simply about Obama perceived weakness to the extent that was part of Russia's calculation. I don't think tough is the right word. Erratic more like. Sure there are things he's followed through on (tariffs) but there are also things he's rolled over on (tariffs). There isn't a whole lot of rhyme or reason to his strategies, and people who support him have a tendency to connect the dots as the see fit. Fewer Presidents have gotten less done in their first year or so in office than Trump. Seems like the guy is pretty impotent. Again, how many presidents have had to deal with the resistance -- from day one -- that Trump has had to deal with? The only president that immediately comes to mind without researching it is Lincoln (and he was obviously in a worse position). Let's see what happens when the new congress shows up in January. The guy has the presidency, a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate and arguably a majority on the Supreme Court. What resistance is there really? Blame the Republican Party if they can't pass anything, there are enough red state Democrats that are clearing willing to work with the administration. That's exactly my point. Trump was at odds with a huge chunk of the GOP when he was elected, and that's before we consider the Democrats or the madness that is the Russian conspiracy stuff. Rofl, how can you still parrot this after the press conference you linked us to today? There's literally a growing pile of evidence that the conspiracy is real. When I talk about the "Russian conspiracy stuff," I'm referring to the allegation that Trump colluded with Russians or is otherwise a Russian tool. I have never really doubted that the Russians engaged in various espionage activities during the last election. But he son admitted to having a meeting with someone who has strong connections to the Russian government. And a bunch of Russian oligarchs attending his inaugural ball. And we don’t know where a whole bunch of money from the Trump inauguration fund went. There is a lot of smoke out there that someone did something shady.
I mean shit, Roger Stone even had this jem:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/ci8vtbE.jpg)
Gee, I think they're just sharing some secret baking recipes here and not some sensitive political information.
|
On July 14 2018 02:50 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2018 02:45 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 02:39 NewSunshine wrote:On July 14 2018 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 02:35 Womwomwom wrote:On July 14 2018 02:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 02:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 14 2018 01:58 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 01:55 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
How twisted of a mind would you need to have to actually believe that?
Russia would've invaded Ukraine either way, because there's jack shit the US can do about it. To argue otherwise is disgustingly disingenuous. Trump would've done nothing different, or do you actually think someone believes that he'd go to war with russia? I don't really know whether Russia would have done it on Trump's watch or if Trump would have responded militarily. All that I am saying is that Trump is clearly tougher than Obama. Also, one thing to keep in mind is that Obama likely precipitated the Russian invasion of Ukraine with his meddling in Ukrainian politics. So Russia's invasion of the Ukraine wasn't simply about Obama perceived weakness to the extent that was part of Russia's calculation. I don't think tough is the right word. Erratic more like. Sure there are things he's followed through on (tariffs) but there are also things he's rolled over on (tariffs). There isn't a whole lot of rhyme or reason to his strategies, and people who support him have a tendency to connect the dots as the see fit. Fewer Presidents have gotten less done in their first year or so in office than Trump. Seems like the guy is pretty impotent. Again, how many presidents have had to deal with the resistance -- from day one -- that Trump has had to deal with? The only president that immediately comes to mind without researching it is Lincoln (and he was obviously in a worse position). Let's see what happens when the new congress shows up in January. The guy has the presidency, a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate and arguably a majority on the Supreme Court. What resistance is there really? Blame the Republican Party if they can't pass anything, there are enough red state Democrats that are clearing willing to work with the administration. That's exactly my point. Trump was at odds with a huge chunk of the GOP when he was elected, and that's before we consider the Democrats or the madness that is the Russian conspiracy stuff. Rofl, how can you still parrot this after the press conference you linked us to today? There's literally a growing pile of evidence that the conspiracy is real. When I talk about the "Russian conspiracy stuff," I'm referring to the allegation that Trump colluded with Russians or is otherwise a Russian tool. I have never really doubted that the Russians engaged in various espionage activities during the last election. But he son admitted to having a meeting with someone who has strong connections to the Russian government. And a bunch of Russian oligarchs attending his inaugural ball. And we don’t know where a whole bunch of money from the Trump inauguration fund went. There is a lot of smoke out there that someone did something shady. I mean shit, Roger Stone even had this jem: Gee, I think they're just sharing some secret baking recipes here and not some sensitive political information.
Where is this from?
|
5930 Posts
On July 14 2018 02:53 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2018 02:50 Womwomwom wrote:On July 14 2018 02:45 Plansix wrote:On July 14 2018 02:41 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 02:39 NewSunshine wrote:On July 14 2018 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 02:35 Womwomwom wrote:On July 14 2018 02:30 xDaunt wrote:On July 14 2018 02:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 14 2018 01:58 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
I don't really know whether Russia would have done it on Trump's watch or if Trump would have responded militarily. All that I am saying is that Trump is clearly tougher than Obama.
Also, one thing to keep in mind is that Obama likely precipitated the Russian invasion of Ukraine with his meddling in Ukrainian politics. So Russia's invasion of the Ukraine wasn't simply about Obama perceived weakness to the extent that was part of Russia's calculation. I don't think tough is the right word. Erratic more like. Sure there are things he's followed through on (tariffs) but there are also things he's rolled over on (tariffs). There isn't a whole lot of rhyme or reason to his strategies, and people who support him have a tendency to connect the dots as the see fit. Fewer Presidents have gotten less done in their first year or so in office than Trump. Seems like the guy is pretty impotent. Again, how many presidents have had to deal with the resistance -- from day one -- that Trump has had to deal with? The only president that immediately comes to mind without researching it is Lincoln (and he was obviously in a worse position). Let's see what happens when the new congress shows up in January. The guy has the presidency, a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate and arguably a majority on the Supreme Court. What resistance is there really? Blame the Republican Party if they can't pass anything, there are enough red state Democrats that are clearing willing to work with the administration. That's exactly my point. Trump was at odds with a huge chunk of the GOP when he was elected, and that's before we consider the Democrats or the madness that is the Russian conspiracy stuff. Rofl, how can you still parrot this after the press conference you linked us to today? There's literally a growing pile of evidence that the conspiracy is real. When I talk about the "Russian conspiracy stuff," I'm referring to the allegation that Trump colluded with Russians or is otherwise a Russian tool. I have never really doubted that the Russians engaged in various espionage activities during the last election. But he son admitted to having a meeting with someone who has strong connections to the Russian government. And a bunch of Russian oligarchs attending his inaugural ball. And we don’t know where a whole bunch of money from the Trump inauguration fund went. There is a lot of smoke out there that someone did something shady. I mean shit, Roger Stone even had this jem: Gee, I think they're just sharing some secret baking recipes here and not some sensitive political information. Where is this from?
My bad, I remembered this incorrectly. Its from here and the person talking to Guccifer 2.0 isn't Stone but a Republican lobbyist. Either way, Roger Stone had contact with Guccifer 2.0 during the election and you'd have to ask why he'd be talking with someone like that if he wasn't ethically compromised.
|
On July 14 2018 02:47 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Looks like we are getting closer and closer to Americans begging Russians for information the Russians stole.
Here's a buried lede in the indictments:
Link:
On or about August 15, 2016, the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, received a request for stolen documents from a candidate for the US Congress. The Conspirators responded using the Guccifer 2.0 persona and sent the candidate stolen documents related to the candidate's opponent.
There's your fucking collusion.
My guess is Matt Gaetz, the most vocal in calling for Trump to fire Mueller. Gaetz is also buddy-buddy with Roger Stone.
Also appears Ron DeSantis used some as well, see comment from user aafarensis with the link. Also, this WSJ story from 2017: "How Alleged Russian Hacker Teamed Up With Florida GOP Operative"
The hacking spree that upended the presidential election wasn’t limited to Democratic National Committee memos and Clinton-aide emails posted on websites. The hacker also privately sent Democratic voter-turnout analyses to a Republican political operative in Florida named Aaron Nevins.
So connecting dots here: Guccifer (Russians) hack DCCC/DNC info in Florida. Roger Stone acts as POC for Guccifer, and has them give the info to Nevins. Nevins then distributes the hacked documents to DeSantis and Gaetz. My guess is that Gaetz is the one mentioned in the indictment given it says "candidate" not "incumbent" or "sitting Congressman".
Then again, it could be Nunes. Which would explain A LOT.
EDIT: Link shows up while writing, but not after posting. Weird. Lemme try down here:
//twitter.com/peterjhasson/status/1017805935400706052
Call me crazy but this is a hell of a coincidence. Remember Trump saying, "Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing"? That was July 27, 2016.
Now look at this line on pages 7-8 of the indictment:
For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.
"US intelligence agencies concluded that the accounts were hacked as part of a wide-ranging operation ordered by Putin to damage Clinton’s bid for the presidency and assist Trump’s campaign."
Wonder what the Greenwald crowd will cling to now, now that the "no formal evidence it was Russia that hacked the DNC" narrative is dead.
|
Anyone wanna speculate on who the candidate for Congress was?
|
When someone (probably a reporter) breaks who it was, they are going to be up shit creek. Impeach and jail them.
|
On July 14 2018 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone wanna speculate on who the candidate for Congress was?
Rohrabacher, maybe? "Putin's favorite Congressman?"
|
Just an aside but I just wanted to say that I just started listening to the hearing yesterday and holy shit... what a fucking shit show. It is straight up one of the most embarrassing things I have ever seen. I have no respect for any of these people.
|
On July 14 2018 03:15 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone wanna speculate on who the candidate for Congress was?
not I. I'd rather just wait for the evidence to come out.
|
On July 14 2018 02:34 xDaunt wrote:
Obama had a democrat congress and senate on day 1. So yeah, try again.
Trump... has... that... too?
He was handed the best legislative plate a President could possibly ask for. That his own incompetence turned the party against him is not a point in his favour.
You guys could probably literally kill every liberal in the US and you'd still feel victimised because it took so many bullets to kill them all.
|
|
|
On July 14 2018 03:33 JimmiC wrote:
Not really, it is not like all the republicans even like him let alone agree with him
I can't help but feel that maybe there's a reason for that.
|
|
|
On July 14 2018 03:40 JimmiC wrote:
For sure but it is an odd time in politics. I mean If you supported Bernie I don't know how you could support Hillary and vice versa. There is so much of a difference even within the parties themselves. Because sometimes the other option is even worse.
|
|
|
On July 14 2018 03:50 JimmiC wrote:
I mean it so widely spread in each party that I think there is almost more of a difference between Bernie and Hilary then there was between Hilary and the Donald. Look at what is happening in the US and between the US and the world and tell me that again with a strait face...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
