Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Time to give Trump Presidency it's own Thread.Follow

#1627 Aug 07 2018 at 4:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
They wanted the guy at the bottom to win, that was Trump at the bottom, ergo, they wanted Trump to win.

The report has a whole column of points dedicated to WHY Putin wanted Trump to win (including things that wouldn't apply to any other candidate such as his pro-Russian friendly business links) but Gbaji has convinced himself that that column... uh... doesn't exist or means the opposite or something. I mean, the depth of self-delusion here is amazingly. Sad, but amazing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1628 Aug 07 2018 at 5:46 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,628 posts
Gbaji, you've managed to get it backwards, as usual. Obviously trump was the best choice for Russia, but damaging Clinton in the process was a beneficial side effect in case she became President.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#1629 Aug 07 2018 at 11:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,763 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
They wanted the guy at the bottom to win, that was Trump at the bottom, ergo, they wanted Trump to win.

The report has a whole column of points dedicated to WHY Putin wanted Trump to win (including things that wouldn't apply to any other candidate such as his pro-Russian friendly business links) but Gbaji has convinced himself that that column... uh... doesn't exist or means the opposite or something. I mean, the depth of self-delusion here is amazingly. Sad, but amazing.


I was just trying to put it into words that gbaji had already posted, but with a more correct meaning. Smiley: lol

Edited, Aug 7th 2018 10:52pm by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#1630 Aug 08 2018 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,104 posts
Quote:


"A clear preference for Trump doesn't mean they wanted him to win! Trying to help his election chances doesn't mean they wanted him to win! Kept their public praise quiet so it wouldn't backfire but preferred his Pro-Russian policies doesn't mean they wanted him to win!!!!"


I think it's more: "expected him to win".

I'm still not seeing anything.. I'm probably so obtuse I don't see why any of this is illegal anyway.. bad taste... bad pollitics.. sure..

Let's say there is a famous Chinese Election Expert that is a renowned genius at winning democratic elections... (in China even!)... so what if an American politician wants to go an consult with them? Isn't the same thing done in other matters? Are we still pretending like our elections are some sacred institution granted from on-high by Lady Liberty herself?

Smiley: tongue
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#1631 Aug 08 2018 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,692 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Let's say there is a famous Chinese Election Expert
Their being an expert means gbaji actually knows better than them. See any topic involving science.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1632 Aug 08 2018 at 8:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Let's say there is a famous Chinese Election Expert that is a renowned genius at winning democratic elections... (in China even!)... so what if an American politician wants to go an consult with them?

Is the "Chinese Election Expert" acting as a representative of the Chinese government? Is the Expert conducting illegal acts of hacking and theft on the behalf of the Chinese government and possibly with the knowledge and consent of the candidate? In your example, the standard action would be to write the Chinese guy a check and hire him on as a campaign advisor.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1633 Aug 08 2018 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,104 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Let's say there is a famous Chinese Election Expert that is a renowned genius at winning democratic elections... (in China even!)... so what if an American politician wants to go an consult with them?

Is the "Chinese Election Expert" acting as a representative of the Chinese government? Is the Expert conducting illegal acts of hacking and theft on the behalf of the Chinese government and possibly with the knowledge and consent of the candidate? In your example, the standard action would be to write the Chinese guy a check and hire him on as a campaign advisor.


So I'm thinking there is no evidence of any of that.. If these guys colluded.. I think the Russians are good enough at their trade to see there is no connection that we could find without Russian cooperation... something like "We'll do you a favor, comrade" and not divulging any details.... It would even stand to reason that this is pushed on all candidates.. various foreign cells assigned to "do favors" for a candidate to expect compensation or for blackmail purposes..... The possibilities are endless really.. I'm thinking the plot of Throw Mama from the Train here....

I must admit, however, that actively colluding with foreign agents to win an election is far slimier than what the DNC did in hacking their OWN elections in favor of Hilary... but that's all pots and kettles...

No one knows. When there's dearth of information emotion must become the source of our judgments..when we are foolish enough to make them.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#1634 Aug 08 2018 at 9:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kelvyquayo wrote:
So I'm thinking there is no evidence of any of that.

That Russian agents hacked systems as part of the election? That's agreed upon by the intelligence community (perhaps not by Trump though 'cause his BFF Putin said he totally didn't do it and why would Putin lie?). That they did it with the knowledge or consent of the Trump campaign? Too early for you or I to say since the investigation hasn't concluded yet and there hasn't really been any leaks out of the Mueller investigation. All anyone's been doing is guessing based on vague clues such as who he has questioned or hired on or which indictments have been filed.
Quote:
I think the Russians are good enough at their trade

Well, there's a second party there as well which hasn't exactly been the standard of competence (witness the ever changing fiasco of the Trump Tower/Russian lawyer meeting).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1635 Aug 08 2018 at 11:03 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,104 posts
Quote:
That Russian agents hacked systems as part of the election? That's agreed upon by the intelligence community


Did they report what the hacking actually consisted of? Is this the same thing as Russian trolls on social media or is this entirely different? I know they said they found no evidence of actual election fraud or vote-count tampering... so what are they saying they actually colluded on?
Is this just the phishing emails because I would find it hard to believe that phishing emails exclusively were targeted at the HRC campaign.. not that I am naive enough to think that all Russian hackers need be independent of their gov... It just seems that the only possible thing is collusion or nothing at all.. but I would think that there would need to be more evidence of actual collusion before such a conclusion is made... it's just weird...

Sorry.. I should do my own homework... but I miss you cnuts.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#1636 Aug 08 2018 at 11:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Sorry.. I should do my own homework... but I miss you cnuts.

The DNI report is a bit vague since it's only intended to be an overview but you can read the current indictments if you're so inclined.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1637 Aug 08 2018 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,692 posts
Remember, there was absolutely no problem with this election, but we absolutely need ID for future elections because, hell, we need it to buy groceries.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1638 Aug 08 2018 at 1:48 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,628 posts
Well, see, there's nothing illegal about Junior meeting with the Russians for dirt on Clinton. It's only illegal when the Democrats do it, re: the Steele Dossier (which originated from a Republican request for opposition research, but that's apparently irrelevant).
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#1639 Aug 09 2018 at 7:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Remember, there was absolutely no problem with this election, but we absolutely need ID for future elections because, hell, we need it to buy groceries.

Oh, voting fraud keeps happening, it's just usually done by Republicans and not the type that demanding ID at the ballot box will help.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1640 Aug 09 2018 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,692 posts
Well you know those don't count.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1641 Aug 09 2018 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,299 posts
Debalic wrote:
Well, see, there's nothing illegal about Junior meeting with the Russians for dirt on Clinton. It's only illegal when the Democrats do it, re: the Steele Dossier (which originated from a Republican request for opposition research, but that's apparently irrelevant).
But in this case, isn't it the opposite that is actually happening? Jr. meeting with the Russian lawyer for potential dirt is being treated as the illegal collusion and foreign aid, but Clinton and the DNC paying former foreign intelligence members is dismissed, and people complaining are just woman-hating Bernie-bros?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#1642 Aug 09 2018 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TirithRR wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Well, see, there's nothing illegal about Junior meeting with the Russians for dirt on Clinton. It's only illegal when the Democrats do it, re: the Steele Dossier (which originated from a Republican request for opposition research, but that's apparently irrelevant).
But in this case, isn't it the opposite that is actually happening?

You must have missed the Congressional hearings trying to make dirt out of the Steele dossier.

But there is nothing innately illegal about meeting with "a" Russian, etc. There is plenty illegal about meeting with a Kremlin-backed Russian and planning to disseminate stolen information, etc. Which is why the Trump Tower meeting is being investigated and the lies Trump has been telling about it (Trump never knew, it was actually about adoption law, the lawyer was just some lobbyist, etc) are being dismantled. That's not to say that there's a smoking gun there but there's a solid reason to investigate and look for one.

Edited, Aug 9th 2018 10:09am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1643 Aug 09 2018 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,345 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Remember, there was absolutely no problem with this election, but we absolutely need ID for future elections because, hell, we need it to buy groceries.



Someone tweeted "OMG I say "groceries" when I buy liquor, too!"
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1644 Aug 09 2018 at 11:19 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,692 posts
Samira wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Remember, there was absolutely no problem with this election, but we absolutely need ID for future elections because, hell, we need it to buy groceries.
Someone tweeted "OMG I say "groceries" when I buy liquor, too!"
Okay that's good. Smiley: lol
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1645 Aug 09 2018 at 5:59 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,299 posts
Jophiel wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Well, see, there's nothing illegal about Junior meeting with the Russians for dirt on Clinton. It's only illegal when the Democrats do it, re: the Steele Dossier (which originated from a Republican request for opposition research, but that's apparently irrelevant).
But in this case, isn't it the opposite that is actually happening?

You must have missed the Congressional hearings trying to make dirt out of the Steele dossier.

But there is nothing innately illegal about meeting with "a" Russian, etc. There is plenty illegal about meeting with a Kremlin-backed Russian and planning to disseminate stolen information, etc. Which is why the Trump Tower meeting is being investigated and the lies Trump has been telling about it (Trump never knew, it was actually about adoption law, the lawyer was just some lobbyist, etc) are being dismantled. That's not to say that there's a smoking gun there but there's a solid reason to investigate and look for one.

But the point was less about whether or not anything official had been done (there's Mueller looking into the Russian thing currently too), and more about the general accusation of hypocrisy, specifically against any Republican who was giving Jr. a pass on his Russian Lawyer meeting, but making a big deal about the DNC and Clinton. When the same is true on the flip side.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#1646 Aug 09 2018 at 10:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not really, no. There was/is a whole sphere of weird and suspicious stuff around Trump and Russia (the Trump Tower meeting, Sessions "forgetting" about meeting Russians, Manafort's ties to Russia via Ukraine, etc) whereas the GPS Fusion document is "But see, he's from another country so it's totally like the same thing!"

If Clinton's campaign had a bunch of links to the British government and the US intelligence service said that the UK was trying to hack into our systems and there were numerous other examples of Britain trying to sway the election, then maybe "See, he was a British spy once!" would be "true on the flip side". As is, it's just weak "whataboutism". Which is why Nunes & Co made a bunch of noise about the GPS Fusion report and the sham hearings that all resulted in a bunch of nothing. But it was great for tricking people into thinking there was some sort of equivalence.

Edited, Aug 9th 2018 11:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#1647 Aug 10 2018 at 6:05 PM Rating: Excellent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,178 posts
Since Russian information operations had no effect on the election, we should ban all political advertising. We can curve corruption by keeping money out of the equation since advertisement doesn't do anything.
#1648 Aug 10 2018 at 10:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,763 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Since Russian information operations had no effect on the election, we should ban all political advertising. We can curve corruption by keeping money out of the equation since advertisement doesn't do anything.


I created bot accounts to rate you up more.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#1649 Aug 13 2018 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,692 posts
But without political advertising things like this wouldn't exist.

Pretty sure the guy is a shot of Jack short of completely blacking out drunk.

Edited, Aug 13th 2018 9:26am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#1650 Aug 13 2018 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,345 posts
Holy cats, you ain't kiddin'.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#1651 Aug 14 2018 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,384 posts
Few points here:

Jophiel wrote:
But there is nothing innately illegal about meeting with "a" Russian, etc. There is plenty illegal about meeting with a Kremlin-backed Russian and planning to disseminate stolen information, etc.


Using an incredibly broad definition of "Kremlin-backed" though. She worked as an attorney for a private sector client who had connections to one guy who was in the government. If you try hard enough, you can probably connect anyone to the government for the country they work in. There's also the issue of even if we accept that she was receiving her marching orders directly from Putin himself, that you'd have to show that the Trump team was aware of this ahead of the meeting.

Secondly, what "stolen information"? She said she had dirt on Clinton. There's nothing wrong with meeting with *anyone* who claims to have something negative about your opponent in an election. The only issues arise when you find out what it is, where it came from, and then make a decision about what to do with it. In this case though, it was a bait and switch. She said she had info about Clinton, but when the met her, she wanted them to take a position on Russian adoption. She was clearly working for some group who cared about this. It could even have been the Kremlin. It doesn't matter though, because nothing at all came of the meeting. There was certainly nothing illegal nor unethical about taking the meeting, nothing discussed in the meeting was illegal nor unethical, and as it turned out, no decisions or actions were taken by the campaign as a result of the meeting. They all basically went "that was a waste of our time", and moved on. Which is almost certainly why, when asked about meetings with Russians, they didn't even remember it happening. It was a nothing event that they bailed on after 15 minutes.

Quote:
Which is why the Trump Tower meeting is being investigated and the lies Trump has been telling about it (Trump never knew, it was actually about adoption law, the lawyer was just some lobbyist, etc) are being dismantled.


What lies? Who cares? It's being investigated because it was a "meeting with a Russian", and that's enough. Doesn't matter whether any rules were broken, it fits a political narrative, not a legal one. This was all about supporting the claim that the Trump campaign was collaborating with the Russians to rig the election somehow, and the only thing they could find was this one meeting, this one time, with someone loosely connected to the Russian government, so they could go "See! They did meet with a Russian, so they were lying, so they must be hiding something! Omg! It's a freaking conspiracy!!!"

Quote:
That's not to say that there's a smoking gun there but there's a solid reason to investigate and look for one.


How much investigation does this require though? At what point do you decide that nothing was done that was illegal or improper. The problem I have with this investigation is that it doesn't seem to have an "off" switch. There does not seem to be a bar that has to be reached, within a certain time, before deciding you've done "enough" to determine whether wrongdoing occurred. And in this case, even if every single thing being claimed about this meeting were true, there's still nothing illegal. No one can even say what *might* have happened at that meeting that violated any law.

It's all about influencing public opinion, not about actually pursuing a legal case. And that's a problem.


Jophiel wrote:
Not really, no. There was/is a whole sphere of weird and suspicious stuff around Trump and Russia (the Trump Tower meeting, Sessions "forgetting" about meeting Russians, Manafort's ties to Russia via Ukraine, etc)...


Only suspicious if you present it as so. The Trump Tower meeting isn't suspicious. They met with someone claiming to have information about Clinton, she didn't, and they ended the meeting. What's suspicious about that? I'm sure meetings like that happen all the time during campaigns. Sessions didn't "forget" anything. He assumed (correctly in context) that he was being asked about meetings with Russians as part of his work with the campaign, and not during his normal work as a Senator. If you read the freaking question he was asked, it was absolutely clear that the question was about inappropriate communications between the Trump campaign and Russians. He answered the question he was asked. He didn't forget anything. His answer was taken out of context and repeated in the media in that out of context manner. Manafort's ties to Russia (via Ukraine of course, because nothing seems to be direct here), were nearly a decade old, were well know, had already been investigated and determined not to be illegal or unethical, and (again) has absolutely no impact or effect on his work during the campaign. He was literally promoted to campaign manager for one month, not because of his contacts with folks in foreign countries, but because of his experience with contested conventions. Once the convention was over, he was let go.

There's nothing suspicious about any of this. This is basically silly conspiracy theory stuff, that would normally be ignored, but because there's political advantage to be had, it's being promoted and repeated in otherwise respectable mainstream media. It's laughable.

Quote:
... whereas the GPS Fusion document is "But see, he's from another country so it's totally like the same thing!"


No. The GPS Fusion document is evidence of an effort to fabricate false information about a political opponent by a campaign, using a front organization with significant ties to members of the campaign, and laundering it through multiple foreign parties, followed by an effort to launder the document itself through secondary media channels in order to make it look like it had supporting evidence, followed further by the possibility of members of the FBI in positions to make decisions about it, being pre disposed to accept anything, no matter how questionable, which could be used to hurt Trump.

Seriously. The absolute worse case with the whole "Russian collusion" thing is that the Trump campaign somehow laundered political messaging through the... Russians? Um... Why? You don't need Russians to create bogus online accounts and bots to spam folks with negative messaging about a political opponent. There's usually plenty of domestic folks willing and able to do that all on their own right here in the USA. We're talking about messaging which *might* influence people's votes. Maybe.

The suspicions in terms of what happened with Fusion GPS run into issues of potential abuse of power within our own government. That's massively more problematic. Elections already run on advertising and messaging to influence votes. A tiny bit more, which may be funded by a foreign party (which, btw, is not illegal either), is more or less lost in the wash of messaging going on during an election. Members of the FBI abusing their power to affect investigations? That's a much bigger thing. Possibility of collusion between the Clinton campaign, the Obama DoJ, and potentially even some in the intelligence agencies, designed to help her win an election, and to hurt Trump when he won? That's a huge conspiracy. So huge, that we should not hesitate to investigate. The damage that can cause is far worse than the worst case scenario with "Russian meddling".

Quote:
If Clinton's campaign had a bunch of links to the British government and the US intelligence service said that the UK was trying to hack into our systems and there were numerous other examples of Britain trying to sway the election, then maybe "See, he was a British spy once!" would be "true on the flip side". As is, it's just weak "whataboutism". Which is why Nunes & Co made a bunch of noise about the GPS Fusion report and the sham hearings that all resulted in a bunch of nothing. But it was great for tricking people into thinking there was some sort of equivalence.


It is so entirely not about the nationality of Steele. Wow are you off the mark there.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 73 All times are in CST
Allegory, Samira, Anonymous Guests (71)