|
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 |
I already stated that I wish he was doing more to change those awful laws. But not changing laws that exist and actually creating them are much different and that is why I left him off of my list.
I'm not sure how actively advocating for their continuation and permanent authorisation is meaningfully different to creating them.
On November 12 2018 09:07 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 08:56 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:40 kmillz wrote:Why should Trump be on that list? I turn my webcam to my ceiling because of Obama and Bush. I do wish Trump would do more to end those policies but he didn't start them or expand on them as far as I know. Which policies do you mean? The Trump administration seems to be thoroughly uninterested in getting rid of intrusive spying laws: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/03/trump-draconian-surveillance-laws-prism-snowdenThere's also the attacks of the Trump administration on the civil liberties of minorities but I don't think getting into that with you is a worthwhile use of my time. If you want to know more in that direction, Google it. I'm sure a nice google search will find some rhetoric, I'm only interested in discussing actual policy he has changed. I'm not aware of any.
If somebody else wants to take this one, go for it.
|
On November 12 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 04:50 kmillz wrote:On November 11 2018 21:11 iamthedave wrote:
I think T_D is on the edge. It's fine for it to just be a place for the Trump fanclub to share their (inexplicable) love for the man, but it's very close to being a conspiracy theory breeding ground that's affecting the mainstream political sphere.
My perspective is coloured because I regularly browse r_pol, which is more left leaning but has articles very much of the same vein. The difference is that T_D often engages in outright falacious reporting and generation of conspiracy theories, while r_pol literally just discusses articles found from news websites, so while the posters there clearly lean liberal, they aren't affecting the public discourse or even really trying to.
If T_D had the same base structure only they focused on right wing news articles I wouldn't care in the slightest.
My problem with what Nettles said is the typical right wing problem where they don't seem to understand why censorship is being discussed in that instance, and why it's not a sign of authoritarianism. It's perfectly reasonable to shut down completely toxic, pointless political debate when that debate begins to affect the mainstream. T_D is hitting that threshold, because the WH has now shared doctored, fake footage that someone - presumably an intern - found there.
Relatedly, it is absurd that infowars was not aggressively shut down years ago. Alex Jones is a one man argument for why people like him should be legalised against. He spreads nothing but disinformation and lies and has done incalcuable harm to the public discourse and to the grieving families of victims of school shootings. People like him should be either in jail or chased so far to the edges of society that it borders on impossible for their voice to be heard. He contributes nothing, not one positive thing, to the ongoing political debate in your country. So many things wrong with your post. How would you know what's in /r/The_Donald if you don't even "waste your time"? You're literally just regurgitating NPC leftist talking points from /r/pol spewed by their propaganda sources. You don't actually go there, or know what the people there are like, or engage with them to see what they really think. And if you did you would know everything you're saying is complete nonsense. Nobody gives a shit about Russia or Putin, for the most part. They certainly aren't showering him with praise, they just don't want the US to be unnecessarily hostile with one of the world's most dangerous superpowers. As for the shutting down "toxic, pointless debate when it affects the mainstream" first of all, that's authoritarian in it's OWN right. Toxic and pointless debates should not be squelched merely for being toxic or pointless. Second of all, who decides what is toxic or pointless? You? Tech media giants? 1) I did my time, I do know what's in T_D generally, but not today's top posts. It's a horrible place that no sane man should go, and I have better things to do with my time. Unless you want to argue that the character of T_D has changed drastically (it clearly hasn't going by what other people who've been there recently have said) then my prior investigations work just fine. 2) Lurking and reading is quite enough for me, thanks. I can do without mixing with that particular brand of person. 3) No, the government decides. Fucking obviously. The government elected by the people, trusted by the people to handle these things, decides. Otherwise, why did you elect them in the first place? 4) As I said already, pretty much every Western country that isn't America manages to both have laws restricting certain kinds of discourse and a democracy. I'm sure that the US could handle this remarkably simple bit of legislation as well. 5) Having re-read point 4, I realise I may be given the US too much credit. But I believe you could do it if you tried. 6) Pivoting away from Alex Jones doesn't deflate or deflect my point. It should be obvious to any sane human being that Infowars and its ilk should not be allowed to exist. It is actively, maliciously harmful, and it should not in any way be protected by 'free speech'. And no, I will not accept a slippery slope fallacy argument. Every other western country in the western hemisphere has managed this. It really isn't hard.
1) Ok that's nice, you're still wrong about your point about them praising/loving Russia.
2) Cool story bro, I understand engaging the side you disagree with is challenging for some.
3) So you think the government should be deciding which citizens are allowed to speak? That's dictatorial shit man.
4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry.
5) Again, we don't want fascist censorship policies.
6) I believe a court should decide if something is deemed unacceptable speech for things such as inciting violence (directly, not mean words that triggerg people) with evidence and documentation proving it directly leads to this violence. Not the government. Not Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey. I don't care how much you hate Alex Jones, he is still a person and has every right to say crazy shit if he wants to because he is an American.
|
On November 12 2018 09:07 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 08:56 Aquanim wrote:On November 12 2018 08:40 kmillz wrote:Why should Trump be on that list? I turn my webcam to my ceiling because of Obama and Bush. I do wish Trump would do more to end those policies but he didn't start them or expand on them as far as I know. Which policies do you mean? The Trump administration seems to be thoroughly uninterested in getting rid of intrusive spying laws: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/03/trump-draconian-surveillance-laws-prism-snowdenThere's also the attacks of the Trump administration on the civil liberties of minorities but I don't think getting into that with you is a worthwhile use of my time. If you want to know more in that direction, Google it. I'm sure a nice google search will find some rhetoric, I'm only interested in discussing actual policy he has changed. I'm not aware of any. I already stated that I wish he was doing more to change those awful laws. But not changing laws that exist and actually creating them are much different and that is why I left him off of my list.
The Trump administration has active gone after consent agreement for reform in troubled police department, either ending them or prohibiting future agreements. This has inhibited the justice department from working with local governments to reform abusive or troubled police. It is directly harmful to civil liberties.
There is also a effort to strip American citizens of their citizenship. All of these citizens happen to be South America immigrants that legally became citizens.
And then there is assault on the free press and protest. Trump has never been a fan of freedom of association and would like to force us all to salute, stand for the pledge.
|
On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:
1) Ok that's nice, you're still wrong about your point about them praising/loving Russia.
We already went over this. You agreed with the praise, you agreed it was all there.
3) So you think the government should be deciding which citizens are allowed to speak? That's dictatorial shit man.
And yet three sentences down you said the courts should decide. What do you think the courts are?
4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry.
Canada is has more freedom than the US, thank you very much.
5) Again, we don't want fascist censorship policies.
Like a president attacking the press?
6) I believe a court should decide if something is deemed unacceptable speech for things such as inciting violence (directly, not mean words that triggerg people) with evidence and documentation proving it directly leads to this violence. Not the government. Not Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey. I don't care how much you hate Alex Jones, he is still a person and has every right to say crazy shit if he wants to because he is an American.
Get your story straight. Do you think the government should decide which citizens are allowed to speak or not?
Also the government should control what private individuals, corporations and businesses are allowed to do? Mark Zuckerberg can't ban someone who's using his privately owned website? That's some fascist shit man.
|
On November 12 2018 09:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:
1) Ok that's nice, you're still wrong about your point about them praising/loving Russia. We already went over this. You agreed with the praise, you agreed it was all there. Show nested quote +3) So you think the government should be deciding which citizens are allowed to speak? That's dictatorial shit man. And yet three sentences down you said the courts should decide. What do you think the courts are? Like a president attacking the press? Show nested quote +6) I believe a court should decide if something is deemed unacceptable speech for things such as inciting violence (directly, not mean words that triggerg people) with evidence and documentation proving it directly leads to this violence. Not the government. Not Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey. I don't care how much you hate Alex Jones, he is still a person and has every right to say crazy shit if he wants to because he is an American.
Get your story straight. Do you think the government should decide which citizens are allowed to speak or not? Also the government should control what private individuals, corporations and businesses are allowed to do? Mark Zuckerberg can't ban someone who's using his privately owned website? That's some fascist shit man.
1) No I didn't lol some real gaslighting attempts here. I provided evidence that most people there don't give a shit about Russia. One guy had to sift through 100 posts to even find ONE about Russia and in the majority of people there were saying they just want us to get along with them, not praising them.
2) Having a court to decide if somebody is inciting violence directly (like a mob yelling to physically attack people or destroy property) is not the same thing as having the government as a whole use it's power to silence people for any reason they want. You're making no sense at all. The courts interpret the laws we have, they don't make them.
3) No, saying mean words to reporters isn't fascism. Sorry.
4) Not for ANY reason he wants. Facebook and Twitter are huge platforms that reaches millions of people. They are the modern equivalent of public speaking squares. If someone is silenced they should be able to go to a court to protect their speech.
|
Public squares were most definitely public. Facebook and twitter are private platforms.
|
|
|
I’m pretty confident I know the way this one goes. Freedom of association is a fundamental right. Facebook and twitter cannot be forced to associate with anyone they do not want to.
|
On November 12 2018 09:53 Plansix wrote:I’m pretty confident I know the way this one goes. Freedom of association is a fundamental right. Facebook and twitter cannot be forced to associate with anyone they do not want to.
So if facebook and twitter decided to ban every single pro-Democrat/pro-liberal/progressive page because they didn't want to be associated with them anymore (hypothetically), you'd defend that? Obviously this is an extreme example, but I'm making the point that surely a line has to be drawn somewhere, right?
|
On November 12 2018 09:38 kmillz wrote:
2) Having a court to decide if somebody is inciting violence directly (like a mob yelling to physically attack people or destroy property) is not the same thing as having the government as a whole use it's power to silence people for any reason they want. You're making no sense at all. The courts interpret the laws we have, they don't make them.
exactly that's his point though...The courts don't make the laws, they only follow the rules so to speak. So someone would have to make up those rules in the first place. That's the government. Surely you're not against that, are you? Or do you just take the law as something that at some point fell down from the heavens and is not to be changed?
//edit: if your point is that it shouldn't be the government that decides, based on the law they set-up earlier, who gets punished etc that's pretty obvious. I highly doubt that's what the guy you responded to meant.
|
United States42689 Posts
On November 12 2018 10:08 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 09:53 Plansix wrote:On November 12 2018 09:45 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:40 Plansix wrote:
Public squares were most definitely public. Facebook and twitter are private platforms. We'll see what the Supreme Court says I’m pretty confident I know the way this one goes. Freedom of association is a fundamental right. Facebook and twitter cannot be forced to associate with anyone they do not want to. So if facebook and twitter decided to ban every single pro-Democrat/pro-liberal/progressive page because they didn't want to be associated with them anymore (hypothetically), you'd defend that? Obviously this is an extreme example, but I'm making the point that surely a line has to be drawn somewhere, right?
There's a difference between agreeing with things and saying that there is no law against things.
|
On November 12 2018 10:08 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 09:53 Plansix wrote:On November 12 2018 09:45 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:40 Plansix wrote:
Public squares were most definitely public. Facebook and twitter are private platforms. We'll see what the Supreme Court says I’m pretty confident I know the way this one goes. Freedom of association is a fundamental right. Facebook and twitter cannot be forced to associate with anyone they do not want to. So if facebook and twitter decided to ban every single pro-Democrat/pro-liberal/progressive page because they didn't want to be associated with them anymore (hypothetically), you'd defend that? Obviously this is an extreme example, but I'm making the point that surely a line has to be drawn somewhere, right?
Defend their right to do it, absolutely. Or, more accurately, there wouldn't even be anything to defend or discuss.
TeamLiquid bans everyone for balance whining. Facebook's got their own arbitrary rules that they'll ban everyone for. If political talk becomes one of them, then crying in the corner's about the only you've got.
|
On November 12 2018 10:08 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 09:53 Plansix wrote:On November 12 2018 09:45 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:40 Plansix wrote:
Public squares were most definitely public. Facebook and twitter are private platforms. We'll see what the Supreme Court says I’m pretty confident I know the way this one goes. Freedom of association is a fundamental right. Facebook and twitter cannot be forced to associate with anyone they do not want to. So if facebook and twitter decided to ban every single pro-Democrat/pro-liberal/progressive page because they didn't want to be associated with them anymore (hypothetically), you'd defend that? Obviously this is an extreme example, but I'm making the point that surely a line has to be drawn somewhere, right?
Yes. They have the right to ban whatever they want. And I have the right to no longer go to that platform. That is freedom of association.
|
On November 12 2018 09:16 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 09:07 iamthedave wrote:On November 12 2018 04:50 kmillz wrote:On November 11 2018 21:11 iamthedave wrote:
I think T_D is on the edge. It's fine for it to just be a place for the Trump fanclub to share their (inexplicable) love for the man, but it's very close to being a conspiracy theory breeding ground that's affecting the mainstream political sphere.
My perspective is coloured because I regularly browse r_pol, which is more left leaning but has articles very much of the same vein. The difference is that T_D often engages in outright falacious reporting and generation of conspiracy theories, while r_pol literally just discusses articles found from news websites, so while the posters there clearly lean liberal, they aren't affecting the public discourse or even really trying to.
If T_D had the same base structure only they focused on right wing news articles I wouldn't care in the slightest.
My problem with what Nettles said is the typical right wing problem where they don't seem to understand why censorship is being discussed in that instance, and why it's not a sign of authoritarianism. It's perfectly reasonable to shut down completely toxic, pointless political debate when that debate begins to affect the mainstream. T_D is hitting that threshold, because the WH has now shared doctored, fake footage that someone - presumably an intern - found there.
Relatedly, it is absurd that infowars was not aggressively shut down years ago. Alex Jones is a one man argument for why people like him should be legalised against. He spreads nothing but disinformation and lies and has done incalcuable harm to the public discourse and to the grieving families of victims of school shootings. People like him should be either in jail or chased so far to the edges of society that it borders on impossible for their voice to be heard. He contributes nothing, not one positive thing, to the ongoing political debate in your country. So many things wrong with your post. How would you know what's in /r/The_Donald if you don't even "waste your time"? You're literally just regurgitating NPC leftist talking points from /r/pol spewed by their propaganda sources. You don't actually go there, or know what the people there are like, or engage with them to see what they really think. And if you did you would know everything you're saying is complete nonsense. Nobody gives a shit about Russia or Putin, for the most part. They certainly aren't showering him with praise, they just don't want the US to be unnecessarily hostile with one of the world's most dangerous superpowers. As for the shutting down "toxic, pointless debate when it affects the mainstream" first of all, that's authoritarian in it's OWN right. Toxic and pointless debates should not be squelched merely for being toxic or pointless. Second of all, who decides what is toxic or pointless? You? Tech media giants? 1) I did my time, I do know what's in T_D generally, but not today's top posts. It's a horrible place that no sane man should go, and I have better things to do with my time. Unless you want to argue that the character of T_D has changed drastically (it clearly hasn't going by what other people who've been there recently have said) then my prior investigations work just fine. 2) Lurking and reading is quite enough for me, thanks. I can do without mixing with that particular brand of person. 3) No, the government decides. Fucking obviously. The government elected by the people, trusted by the people to handle these things, decides. Otherwise, why did you elect them in the first place? 4) As I said already, pretty much every Western country that isn't America manages to both have laws restricting certain kinds of discourse and a democracy. I'm sure that the US could handle this remarkably simple bit of legislation as well. 5) Having re-read point 4, I realise I may be given the US too much credit. But I believe you could do it if you tried. 6) Pivoting away from Alex Jones doesn't deflate or deflect my point. It should be obvious to any sane human being that Infowars and its ilk should not be allowed to exist. It is actively, maliciously harmful, and it should not in any way be protected by 'free speech'. And no, I will not accept a slippery slope fallacy argument. Every other western country in the western hemisphere has managed this. It really isn't hard. 1) Ok that's nice, you're still wrong about your point about them praising/loving Russia. 2) Cool story bro, I understand engaging the side you disagree with is challenging for some. 3) So you think the government should be deciding which citizens are allowed to speak? That's dictatorial shit man. 4) And those countries are far worse than the US in the freedom department. No we will not accept fascist censorship policies. Sorry. 5) Again, we don't want fascist censorship policies. 6) I believe a court should decide if something is deemed unacceptable speech for things such as inciting violence (directly, not mean words that triggerg people) with evidence and documentation proving it directly leads to this violence. Not the government. Not Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey. I don't care how much you hate Alex Jones, he is still a person and has every right to say crazy shit if he wants to because he is an American.
1) No I'm not, but thanks for playing.
2) I've engaged plenty. It's largely pointless because nobody listens. In the UK I can have actual discussions with people on the right. I've yet to see it achieved with a US right winger, and you all say the same about your own liberals. I mean, this exchange here is largely talking past each other and past every other poster who disagrees with you.
3) They already do. It's called prison. The government arbitrarily removes the rights from citizens all the time. If you want to go down this rabbit hole you're going to quickly realise your nation is a dictatorship. Don't think you thought that point through clearly. As soon as you get past the basic laws 'don't kill, steal and fuck the wrong things', you very quickly start seeing massive problems with how every nation criminalises stuff. It's completely arbitrary what will get you locked up from one nation to the next. You just think it isn't because it's the system you grew up with. As an added bonus, your government removed the right to vote in near-perpetuity for a good portion of your prison population (depending on the state). Compounding this, the US has among the highest prison populations in the world by percentage. You need to get out of that nation man, it's a dictatorship!
4) You have no conception of what fascism is if you think that what I'm talking about is fascism. I consider the jury to be firmly out on how much freedom Americans have, as well. Last I checked, the UK doesn't run Guantanamo Bay or anything remotely like it, and I know of no incidents of citizens being forcibly deported, unlike in the US where some citizens were arbitrarily kicked out because ICE got overly enthusiastic. In addition we manage to handle voting without massive disenfranchisement of entire sections of the population. So, I wouldn't crow too loudly about your freedom. To the rest of us I'm afraid it's more of a bumper sticker we snigger at than a reality.
6) Alex Jones' crazy shit is causing the entirely innocent parents of entirely innocent children shot by a psychopath to get threatening phone calls because he believes the whole thing was a hoax. The free market of ideas does not work, and the current state of political discourse in the US is proof of it. You can cling to failure as much as you like, but it won't stop it from failing. And if you consider harassing the parents of murdered children to be 'mean words triggering people' then you need to get your sense of proportion checked. Somehow, I get the feeling if you were on the receiving end of one of those calls your response wouldn't be 'sir, I say sir, I heartily support your first amendment rights on this matter. Please continue to harass me and remind me of the brutal murder of my children and god bless America'.
Just a guess, but I don't think that'd be your response.
On November 12 2018 10:08 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2018 09:53 Plansix wrote:On November 12 2018 09:45 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2018 09:40 Plansix wrote:
Public squares were most definitely public. Facebook and twitter are private platforms. We'll see what the Supreme Court says I’m pretty confident I know the way this one goes. Freedom of association is a fundamental right. Facebook and twitter cannot be forced to associate with anyone they do not want to. So if facebook and twitter decided to ban every single pro-Democrat/pro-liberal/progressive page because they didn't want to be associated with them anymore (hypothetically), you'd defend that? Obviously this is an extreme example, but I'm making the point that surely a line has to be drawn somewhere, right?
Obviously. I'd have thought you'd be fully on their side in this matter. It's their service, they have the freedom to do what they want with it, to block whomever they like for whatever reason as and when they desire. You wouldn't want to restrict their freedom would you?
That'd be dictatorial. Can't have the government telling private citizens what to do with their proprietary intellectual property, can we?
|
I agree with the freedom of association, they are privet platforms, there is no way to get around this. I can choose to stop using those platforms if they choose to do things I don't like.
I am not in anyways in favor of shutting down T_D and such, Its a little scary to see some here advocating for silencing of obvious political opponents/people they don't agree with and demonizing them to justify it. I actually also don't read T_D but I did check it out yesterday when this topic came up, honestly it seemed like the right wing version of this forum here. I'm sure i've missed some stupid posts but all in all it didn't look that extreme to me.
I prefer to read this forum because many here don't agree with my point of view, it can be annoying sometimes but its better then being in my own echo chamber.
|
On November 12 2018 10:45 Taelshin wrote:
I agree with the freedom of association, they are privet platforms, there is no way to get around this. I can choose to stop using those platforms if they choose to do things I don't like.
I am not in anyways in favor of shutting down T_D and such, Its a little scary to see some here advocating for silencing of obvious political opponents/people they don't agree with and demonizing them to justify it. I actually also don't read T_D but I did check it out yesterday when this topic came up, honestly it seemed like the right wing version of this forum here. I'm sure i've missed some stupid posts but all in all it didn't look that extreme to me.
I prefer to read this forum because many here don't agree with my point of view, it can be annoying sometimes but its better then being in my own echo chamber.
T_D is mostly fine. It's just that it's approaching a dangerous line where occasionally it gets whipped up into a crazed, blood-foaming frenzy. It's very frequent that people start up talks - or it was last time I browsed it in any seriousness - about 'what they have to do' if Democrats take back control of the government, and the like. The talk sometimes turns very dangerous-sounding. Still, I'm fairly confident reddit will step in if it does cross that line. They've shut down boards in the past when they went too far off the rails.
By no means am I advocating the silencing of all right wing places of online discussion. That'd be insane. Besides, nothing's ever been done about 4Chan and that place is responsible for some truly awful shit over the last couple of decades.
I do think that at some point the west is going to start applying some sort of laws to try and control the internet. The US has played around with the idea, we have in the UK, I know some EU countries have. It'll be interesting when one of us has a serious go at it.
|
|
|
On November 12 2018 10:45 Taelshin wrote:
I agree with the freedom of association, they are privet platforms, there is no way to get around this. I can choose to stop using those platforms if they choose to do things I don't like.
I am not in anyways in favor of shutting down T_D and such, Its a little scary to see some here advocating for silencing of obvious political opponents/people they don't agree with and demonizing them to justify it. I actually also don't read T_D but I did check it out yesterday when this topic came up, honestly it seemed like the right wing version of this forum here. I'm sure i've missed some stupid posts but all in all it didn't look that extreme to me.
I prefer to read this forum because many here don't agree with my point of view, it can be annoying sometimes but its better then being in my own echo chamber.
I'm just looking at the front page of T_D, and half of it is election conspiracy. Like "Democrats are forging ballots and dead people are voting" conspiracy.
You either have an extremely low opinion of this forum, or an extremely sheltered internet experience, if you think this is the left-wing opposite of T_D.
|
I think trump Russia collusion is insane conspiracy's and that's been discussed here at length, Just because I think its a crazy conspiracy does not make it invalid of discussion.
edit: lol at dead people voting, did they check the pet cemetery records yet?
second edit: I actually went over and your correct there is a lot of threads about the florida/az voting, most of them look like actual new reports, one little a little conspiratorial and another was a joke about a kid finding another ballot in his chocolate bar wrapper, which imo is pretty funny. But there is a ton of threads about veterans day as well which seems pretty decent to me.
|
United States42689 Posts
On November 12 2018 12:32 Taelshin wrote:
I think trump Russia collusion is insane conspiracy's and that's been discussed here at length, Just because I think its a crazy conspiracy does not make it invalid of discussion.
edit: lol at dead people voting, did they check the pet cemetery records yet?
Which part of it do you think is insane? We know that Russian representatives met with Trump Jr. in their official capacity as part of, as they phrased it, Putin's support for their campaign. We know that he took that meeting, knowing what was being proposed. We know that sanctions relief was discussed at that meeting. We know that the Russian government hacked the Democratic email server. We know that the Trump campaign seized the emails as their attack vector immediately after that meeting.
That's all proven fact at this point.
Let's approach this another way, what evidence would it take to convince you that Trump accepted the help of the Russian government during the election? What would we need to find that we don't already have?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
