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.
On July 17 2018 06:06 TheLordofAwesome wrote: [quote] GH: "I would say [you are a colossal idiot] to anyone who thinks... that all this Trump-Russia and 'treason' stuff is about some money laundering or some Russian intelligence people."
WTF? What do you THINK this investigation is about, if not money laundering and shady Russian spies?
I think you missed the point of that.
The people saying Trump is treasonous aren't saying it because some Russians spies did Russian spy things or corrupt millionaires laundering money or not properly disclosing international relationships.
So, then, why are they saying his behavior has been treasonous, in the layman's sense of the word.
On July 17 2018 06:08 xDaunt wrote: [quote]
You do realize that Mueller already told the Court that there won't be any evidence of, or argument regarding, Trump campaign/Russia collusion, right? That trial will be strictly about pre-campaign stuff.
Pretty safe to say they missed that.
Manafort's July trial is solely about his various financial crimes. Manafort's charges were among the first unveiled by Mueller. Flynn, Papadopolous, and Pinedo didn't even get formally charged, they went straight to a plea deal. I believe Gates was formally charged but then flipped on Manafort. Anyways, the point is that Manafort's charges were all financial crimes that were announced over half a year ago but the case is only now coming to trial because the legal system takes time.
Trump is "in the pocket", "a puppet", "possibly being blackmailed", "colluded", "stole the election with the Russians", and so on...
Surely you're familiar.
I'm not asking for examples of rhetoric. I'm asking, what exactly is the investigation of Team Trump about, if it's not money laundering, related financial crimes, and very weird and shady interactions with Russian spies? Because you claim only a colossal idiot would think that those 3 things are the basis of the probe....
The people saying Trump is treasonous aren't saying it because some Russians spies did Russian spy things or corrupt millionaires laundering money or not properly disclosing international relationships.
So what then, precisely, is Trump and Co. being investigated for?
They are being investigated for a wide range of things (what aren't they being investigated for?) as evidenced by the only trial being one completely unrelated to the campaign or collusion.
Even if they had emails of Trump saying to Putin "I will pay you if you give me Clinton's emails", we would still be exactly where we are. Cletus can't handle the idea of Trump being indicted. This was bound to be a long, drawn out investigation no matter what. You need to find a bunch of other illegal stuff to allow the investigation to continue. Big stuff comes last.
Pretty sure we would have heard about something like that but maybe not. Don't really think that changes anything I'm saying though.
Why would we have heard? There has been pretty much 0 information coming out of the Mueller investigation outside of their indictments.
Really? That doesn't seem accurate. I mean it doesn't seem like Mueller and his team are leaking things, but something like that would have been through several hands before it got to Mueller, namely the FBI, which have been far from airtight.
Mueller picked his team, including agents. So it’s likely he picked ones he knew wouldn’t leak. We don’t know exactly how high the investigation goes or who it’s involves, but it seems like it’s going to be far more then just Trumps folks.
There was one message from Trump that didn't quite say "I will pay you if you give me Clinton's emails" but it was pretty close: link. It was more like "The "media" will pay you if you give me Clinton's emails."
On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote: People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right?
Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they?
Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this.
Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action.
Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control.
Hello ? Separation of powers, democracy ? Arguing that they were or are corrupt may be valid, but wanting them to be under the control of the executive power, please do not. Seriously. Especially under this president that is talking about nukes like I talk about my breakfast. We have been at peace (mostly, at least in our western areas) for 70 years, and you want the balance of power of the strongest country in the world to fail ?
Separation of powers is not a license to commit treason or other criminal acts. If the actions that the FBI and intelligence community have taken against Trump and his campaign are without legitimate predicate (which is not only the default presumption, but also appears to be the case in fact so far), then those organizations need to be thoroughly cleaned out.
And at what point would you be able to admit that the current investigation is justified ? There have already been more than 20 indictments of russian nationals, so if anything, it has at least brought some answers. What would be your belief if it happens that the investigation did not start with legitimacy, but end up bringing consistent proof ? Are you going to deny these proofs are valid because the trigger of the investigation was unjustified and put a cloth upon your eyes ? Will you be able to even trust the results of the investigation ? Of any ? Do you believe breaking the principles of a democracy and turning to concentration of powers to protect ONE guy is justified ? Even if it is the president himself ?
Cleaned out != taking control. What are your red lines to protect your country ? Seeing what happened today, which felt unbelievable to the whole world... Is it still not enough ? Or did this one guy suddenly shift the balance and have half the population starting a personality cult instead of behaving like a people... I'm so waiting 20-30years if we still have a world, to get to the bottom of what happened these past few years.
The current investigation -- as in the appointment of the Mueller investigation -- will not be justified until evidence surfaces linking Trump and/or his campaign to Russian interference in the election. What has been prosecuted so far does not warrant Mueller's appointment. All of that can be handled by the DoJ proper. The cost and the damage that has been to the country by Mueller's appointment has been extraordinary. If Russia wanted to sow discord in the US, they couldn't have hoped for a better result.
Why is that, specifically?
The fact they've made so many indictments is surely vindication of the investigation, no?
Yes, yes, it's for stuff that happened before the election. But they didn't know that until they'd done the investigation, did they? The fact that they're not getting Trump doesn't mean the investigation wasn't worthwhile, and it doesn't mean that the indictments they've handed out are somehow nullified.
All the evidence seems to suggest that the investigation was entirely worthwhile, even if it isn't going to collar Trump and doesn't prove the campaign was allied with Russia. It nonetheless proved that a lot of Trump's inner circle at the time had strong ties to and were definitely influenced by their ties with Russia. And we know that because the investigation has revealed it.
Even if Trump is innocent, the investigation paints a pretty obvious picture of Russia attempting to influence the election.
I don't understand how that adds up to 'not worth it' in your head. Just to clarify, since this would clear up the confusion; do you also feel the Benghazi investigation was completely worthless?
On July 17 2018 07:00 Ayaz2810 wrote: Well holy shit. The NYT not holding back anymore. This is a headline that will live in infamy: Trump, Treasonous Traitor
On July 17 2018 07:54 micronesia wrote: There was one message from Trump that didn't quite say "I will pay you if you give me Clinton's emails" but it was pretty close: link. It was more like "The "media" will pay you if you give me Clinton's emails."
From the charges filed last week, it sounds like the efforts to hack Clinton’s email stated that same day.
On July 17 2018 06:52 zlefin wrote: how long does it take for poll numbers to change again? (i.e. the lag due to the time it takes to collect polls and report results) a week or so?
what do people think trump's poll numbers will be then? (for approval rating).
My guess is they'll dip a bit, but go back to where they are now within a couple weeks.
Anyone who approves of Trump after the saga of shit he's done will never drop their support permanently.
Hey guys, remember when the Dixie Chicks criticized the United States in London and it almost ruined them? I barely remember that country I used to live in.
kind of ironic that the most popular US Senator in the country is still inching more and more toward policy goals that neither party can even think of supporting publicly even though it is now in the majority of being supported. Meanwhile he is using social media to his advantage while the Dems can't even get their twitter figured out.
kind of ironic that the most popular US Senator in the country is still inching more and more toward policy goals that neither party can even think of supporting publicly even though it is now in the majority of being supported. Meanwhile he is using social media to his advantage while the Dems can't even get their twitter figured out.
His Facebook has been quite enjoyable, albeit there have been a few reruns.
kind of ironic that the most popular US Senator in the country is still inching more and more toward policy goals that neither party can even think of supporting publicly even though it is now in the majority of being supported. Meanwhile he is using social media to his advantage while the Dems can't even get their twitter figured out.
His Facebook has been quite enjoyable, albeit there have been a few reruns.
Bernie's Facebook is basically just: Jeff Bezos is a fucking dick, right guys? Can you believe he has BILLIONS of dollars????????????????
Bernie can bad mouth some billionaires, they will make it. I’m not really to worried about Lord Amazon and Rusty Venture, I mean Elon Tesla. The current political system is built for them to thrive.
kind of ironic that the most popular US Senator in the country is still inching more and more toward policy goals that neither party can even think of supporting publicly even though it is now in the majority of being supported. Meanwhile he is using social media to his advantage while the Dems can't even get their twitter figured out.
His Facebook has been quite enjoyable, albeit there have been a few reruns.
Bernie's Facebook is basically just: Jeff Bezos is a fucking dick, right guys? Can you believe he has BILLIONS of dollars????????????????
I dunno man, that's the only place where I'm still hearing about the tons of Puerto Ricans still without power.
On July 17 2018 08:25 Plansix wrote: Hey guys, remember when the Dixie Chicks criticized the United States in London and it almost ruined them? I barely remember that country I used to live in.
Dude.
That's 2003.
How about we just remember that Trump factually and literally said that "if you don't stand for the anthem, you shouldn't be in this country". Or "when somebody disrespects our flag, get that son of a bitch off the field"?
Or, maybe, when he quite viciously attacked a vietnam war veteran for getting captured (remember, a war which he didn't go to because he had a bone in his toe), saying "heros don't get captured"?
How about that time he went full bigot on a gold star mother ("maybe she wasn't allowed to say anything?"), or went ham on a recently widowed, pregnant gold star woman?
But, to quote the Trump himself:
With the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office.
I wonder when that starts. More importantly, don't forget that this is now normal. Be a patriot, a real american, only when it suits you and makes you look good.
Something that's very prevalent in this thread as well.
Trump looks weak and pathetic at this point. Completely capitulating to Putin.
It's pretty sad seeing the conservatives on this site still try to defend him.
I really don't understand how you all survive the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance. Y'all railed on Obama for looking weak to the world and he never fucked up like this.
On July 17 2018 07:54 micronesia wrote: There was one message from Trump that didn't quite say "I will pay you if you give me Clinton's emails" but it was pretty close: link. It was more like "The "media" will pay you if you give me Clinton's emails."
It would definitely be a weird world if this was the conversation that was had. It wouldn't really be quid pro quo if Trump didn't agree to give them anything but rather suggest that the media would give them what they wanted. Russia hacks the DNC and releases the emails in order to get a reward from the media to advance their obvious goals. Trump stays shady but without an explicit tie he can't go down for it.
On July 17 2018 09:33 Stratos_speAr wrote: Trump looks weak and pathetic at this point. Completely capitulating to Putin.
It's pretty sad seeing the conservatives on this site still try to defend him.
I really don't understand how you all survive the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance. Y'all railed on Obama for looking weak to the world and he never fucked up like this.
I think the only people defending Trump with regards to the conference with Putin are the ones who didn't watch it. People are just assuming this is some kinda "typical hysteria" before watching and being like "oh yikes".
On July 17 2018 03:31 GreenHorizons wrote: People don't actually want Trump to do anything differently when it comes to Russia, they just want him to talk differently right?
Besides how he talks about Russia people saying he's too pro-Russia, or a pawn or whatever, wouldn't really change anything else would they?
Additionally, The NYT and a LOT of liberals are exposing a latent homophobia with shit like this.
Trump should be siding with his intelligence agencies and taking actions based on the intelligence agencies (sanctions) rather than trusting Putin. Inaction is still action.
Forgive me, but why should Trump publicly build up his intelligence agencies rather than equivocate on them? These are the same intelligence agencies that tried to infiltrate his campaign and bait him into committing a crime. These are the same intelligence agencies who have been leaking shit to undermine his presidency at every turn. These are the same intelligence agencies that had people like Brennan heading them, who today, has ludicrously accused the president of treason for what he said at the press conference. There's no political reason for Trump to give them cover until he gets them under control.
Hello ? Separation of powers, democracy ? Arguing that they were or are corrupt may be valid, but wanting them to be under the control of the executive power, please do not. Seriously. Especially under this president that is talking about nukes like I talk about my breakfast. We have been at peace (mostly, at least in our western areas) for 70 years, and you want the balance of power of the strongest country in the world to fail ?
Separation of powers is not a license to commit treason or other criminal acts. If the actions that the FBI and intelligence community have taken against Trump and his campaign are without legitimate predicate (which is not only the default presumption, but also appears to be the case in fact so far), then those organizations need to be thoroughly cleaned out.
First, the "treason" talk that you and GH are spouting is really irritating from a legal standpoint. It is a matter of settled law that treason can only be successfully charged if the USA is currently in a shooting war against country X and the treasonous fellow in question did something to aid country X in that war. It doesn't matter if Mueller has tapes of Trump offering to give back Alaska to Putin in exchange for help with the election. It still wouldn't be treason.
Second, you argue that a neutral observer should have a "default presumption" that the FBI's actions with respect to the Trump campaign were "without legitimate predicate." Where does the standard of this "default presumption" come from? What actions has the FBI taken that were criminal? What is a "thorough clean[ing]" at the FBI likely to look like, and why should such an enterprise be undertaken?
can you provide a link that justifies your first paragraph's assertion that "it is a matter of settled law" that something like "offering to give back Alaska to Putin in exchange for help with the election" wouldn't be treason?
On July 17 2018 09:33 Stratos_speAr wrote: Trump looks weak and pathetic at this point. Completely capitulating to Putin.
It's pretty sad seeing the conservatives on this site still try to defend him.
I really don't understand how you all survive the hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance. Y'all railed on Obama for looking weak to the world and he never fucked up like this.
isn't that one of the major reasons for some of those psych mechanisms? that they exist to make the hypocrisy seem ok by redefining/twisting things?
EPT
