1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#227 Jul 20 2017 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,738 posts
Sean Hannity wrote:
I guess my issue with this whole thing is how the word "collusion" has apparently changed meaning over time.
Is the issue you're having that no one is falling for "your" attempts to change the definition of the word now that "it never happened" isn't working thanks to 45.5?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#228 Jul 20 2017 at 8:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Most telling is how frantic the Trump supporters are in insisting that absolutely nothing was wrong, please stop right now, if you don't stop investigating it's just a "witch hunt" and "fishing", etc. And every day is more revelations: another unreported meeting (or hundred, if you're Kushner), another changed story, another financial tie, another couple of people who just happened to be at a meeting...

Meanwhile, Mueller finds reason to hire more seasoned people experienced in corruption and fraud.

Edit: Worth noting as well that the Trump people really, REALLY want you to believe that no result will be legitimate unless it meets their definition of collusion. Again, Mueller is authorized and tasked with investigating "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" and, at his discretion, "is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters". It's impossible for him to "go fishing" or engage in a "witch hunt" with the implications of going above and beyond his authority because that is, within the sphere of the Russian investigation, literally what he is tasked with.

Edited, Jul 20th 2017 9:28am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#229 Jul 20 2017 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,738 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Worth noting as well that the 45 people really, REALLY want you to believe that no result will be legitimate unless it meets their definition of collusion.
The only thing worth noting about that is that it not only isn't a new tactic in politics but it's also historically never really worked to convince anyone outside the party's respective loyalists.

Edited, Jul 20th 2017 12:42pm 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.
#230 Jul 20 2017 at 5:55 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,658 posts
The hits just keep on coming: Paul Manafort is under investigation for possible money laundering.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#231 Jul 20 2017 at 6:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Fish Hunt!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#232 Jul 21 2017 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,738 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Fish Hunt!
Fishing would be a lot easier with shotguns, but the game wardens never seem to agree.

Edited, Jul 21st 2017 9:51am 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.
#233 Jul 21 2017 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,457 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Blah, blah, blah... go ahead and cry "witch hunt" since that's all the Trump campaign has left.
Quote:
If someone calls or emails a member of a campaign claim to have dirt on the opposition, that member takes the meeting. Period.

Or not. But normalizing unethical behavior for the sake of political gain seems to be what the GOP is all about these days.


Er... He contacted the FBI, not because someone sent him damaging information about Bush, but that it was clear from a very brief viewing of the materials that it was stolen property, and receiving stolen property is a crime. The charges the woman was convicted of were theft, mail fraud (presumably for sending stolen stuff via the mail), and perjury (cause she lied about it when questioned later).

If, instead of what was clearly stolen tapes from Bush prep sessions, it had been a recording of Bush at a public event captured on an open mic, saying something damaging, you can bet it would have been used. If, just to keep things relevant, instead of a package of stolen goods, it had been a letter from someone claiming to have damaging information about Bush, and asking to meet, he would have taken the meeting. The idea that the determining factor here is "I can't accept information that might hurt my bosses political opponent" and not "I can't use obviously stolen/illegal sources, or I subject myself and my boss to legal problems" is frankly bizarre.

But everything about this issue is bizarre. It requires otherwise intelligent people to chose to toss their brains out the window and go along with pretending to not know the difference between was is normal and acceptable and what is illegal and not acceptable. By your argument, no campaign could ever run an ad on TV showing *anything* harmful about their opponent. No video clips of things they've said, no quotes from them, no quotes from others about them, nothing at all. Because they'd have had to received that from someone, maybe in the media, maybe from a business, or an old friend of the opponent with juicy stuff. Nope. They'd have to report even the attempt for someone to provide them with such things to the FBI and then recuse themselves from the campaign.


That's... ridiculous.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#234 Jul 21 2017 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
So it turns out that Sessions talked about the campaign in his meetings with the Russian ambassador, something that he denied having done (having initially denied that the meetings even happened). Drip, drip, blame Clinton, drip...

Edited, Jul 21st 2017 7:14pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#235 Jul 21 2017 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Drip, blame Clinton, drip, drip...

Edited, Jul 21st 2017 7:13pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#236 Jul 21 2017 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,457 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Sean Hannity wrote:
I guess my issue with this whole thing is how the word "collusion" has apparently changed meaning over time.
Is the issue you're having that no one is falling for "your" attempts to change the definition of the word now that "it never happened" isn't working thanks to 45.5?


The definition of collusion I'm using is the same it's always been:

"Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others."

There's a reason why we have a word like collusion, while also having words like "cooperation", and "communication". There's an assumed nefarious and/or illegal objective when you are colluding. We use the word most often when speaking of someone in a position of trust who betrays that trust to others via some sort of secret agreement. So a judge might collude with an organized crime family to help them avoid justice. A police officer might collude with drug dealers to help them not get arrested. A city council member might collude with a local businessman to arrange for favorable legislation.

In all these cases, there is a presumption of some sort of benefit to the two (or more, I suppose) "sides" of said collusion, which is usually extra-legal in nature. This is why I've repeatedly talked about the need for some form of quid pro quo *and* that some sort of law is violated along the way. You'd need to show that someone in Trumps campaign knowingly worked with the Russians, knew that they (or he) was doing something illegal, did it anyway, and received some form of benefit as a result.

And no: Having someone in office we think might be better for us, is *not* a payoff in this context. It only is, if Trump actually promises them some benefit in return. As I pointed out earlier, RT USA has been propagandizing in a very pro-Democratic party manner for about a decade now. No one has *ever* suggested that since this benefits the Democratic party and those running on those very issues and platform, it must be illegal, much less that we should punish the members of that party for "foreign influence" that benefits them. There's no quid pro quo. Even if members of the Democratic party are fully aware of the positive press they get from this foreign funded operation, that's not a problem either. They're not responsible for what a third party says that may or may not be helpful to them. Heck. Even if you found a quote from a prominent Dem stating their appreciation for this Russian funded assistance, it might be embarrassing politically, but no sane person would suggest that it's illegal, much less launch investigations over the matter. And yes, even if the foreign party has committed a crime along the way (say by hacking the DNC server in one case, or passing falsified documents about Trump in another), this does not in any way create a legal problem for the party or politician who may benefit from that illegal "help".

What would make it illegal, and the only thing that makes it illegal is if the politician actually participates in the illegal help or promises some form of reward in return for it. That has not happened. Not only has it not happened, there's been no suggestion that anyone even thinks it happened, or that there's any evidence anywhere to support such a thought if it exists.

At the end of the day, this is yet another case of a media fueled investigation, the purpose of which is not to actually investigate any actual crime, but just for the political value of it existing in the first place. And, just as I said with the Plame investigation, it'll either go on for a couple years and produce nothing (except the political value of course), or they'll get lucky and in the process of asking enough people the same questions over the course of a couple years, they'll find someone who mixes up a date, or changes the timeline in one vaguely remembered sequence of events from one round of testimony to another and then pounce on the poor sap with a perjury charge.

We've seen this play out before. And yeah, it's worth some political points in the short run for the Left. But the more you guys go to that well, the more the folks on the Right and the Middle are looking at this, shaking their heads, and moving away. We literally just saw an election result that was the direct result of a voting population disgusted with this sort of tactic, and yet, the response from the political left and the media left is apparently to just double down on it? That's dumb. Every day this goes on more and more people are realizing just how totally out of touch the left is, how much they are willing to blatantly lie about everything, and how much they are willing to cover for each other's lies.

There's a reason why the term "fake news" resonates. There's a reason why, as this process is going on, the media is what is suffering the most in terms of public approval and trust. And that media is the primary means the left has to get people to accept it's message. You guys are killing yourself with this. Trump's a nothing. I don't care about Trump. But long after he's left office, the damage done to the Left in terms of trust and belief will still be in effect. You guys are way way way overplaying this hand. The only people who think this is a good idea are the folks inside the liberal bubble. And they're not the ones you need to win over.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#238 Jul 21 2017 at 6:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,457 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So it turns out that Sessions talked about the campaign in his meetings with the Russian ambassador, something that he denied having done (having initially denied that the meetings even happened).


Says Anonymous Source #217. So it must be true!

He also never denied having any meetings with the Russian ambassador. I'll reiterate my earlier comment. When you so obviously twist people's statements around to ignore the context of those statements, and to find some way to make them appear to be inconsistent or inaccurate or even outright lies, you make yourself look like you can't be trusted to report anything truthfully (I'm aiming that at the media, not you personally, although you might just think about not accepting everything you read as absolute truth).

He was asked a question by Franken, in a very specific context involving allegations of Russia having dirt on Trump, and an "exchange of information" (presumably within the context of the previously mentioned statement) between the members of the campaign and the Russian government. For anyone not trying really hard to find a way to parse his words in a harmful way, it's quite obvious that when he said he didn't know about such communications and never had any with the Russians, he was speaking of communications of the nature that Franken was asking about and not "any communication of any sort, on any topic, in any context, in which the other person has any connection with the Russian government". He was speaking specifically about conversations between the Trump campaign and the Russians with regards to alleged "compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump". Context freaking matters.

There's a common sense way of interpreting what he said, and then there's the ridiculous one. The argument you're following flows from the ridiculous one. Let's not forget that these are not written statements, but spoken ones, involving a back and forth conversation that goes on much longer than the small snippet you've likely read about, and where people often abbreviate their statement, because everyone in the room and involved in said back and forth know what's being talked about. No one at that session thought that he was saying what you're suggesting, since it would have been considered absurd. As a Senator, he has conversations with foreign diplomats and dignitaries all the time. The folks in the room were also Senators, and know this. It's pretty clear they all understood what he was saying at the time he said it.

But hey. Keep bringing up stuff that's been thoroughly debunked already. It's classy!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#239 Jul 21 2017 at 7:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So it turns out that Sessions talked about the campaign in his meetings with the Russian ambassador, something that he denied having done (having initially denied that the meetings even happened).
Says Anonymous Source #217. So it must be true!

Funny how often these sources say something and the administration has to backpedal or, more often I guess, someone gets sent out to lie about it and the next day Trump says "Yeah, it's true so what?"

Also funny how you try EVER so hard to cover for Sessions when, in reality, he was caught lying and was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation as a result. But you keep on making excuses, kiddo Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#240 Jul 21 2017 at 10:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,457 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So it turns out that Sessions talked about the campaign in his meetings with the Russian ambassador, something that he denied having done (having initially denied that the meetings even happened).
Says Anonymous Source #217. So it must be true!

Funny how often these sources say something and the administration has to backpedal or, more often I guess, someone gets sent out to lie about it and the next day Trump says "Yeah, it's true so what?"


No. What's funny is how often the sources and their claims turn out to be completely bogus, requiring the newspapers who ran with them to have to print retractions. And how often when the statement is actually correct, it's correct about something that isn't actually a contradiction at all (see the whole bit about Sessions and what he actually said above). Citing "unnamed sources" that point out that Sessions had a conversation with the Russian ambassador, while he said he "did not have communications with the Russians", presents the false impression of a lie by Sessions, when in actual fact the quote from Sessions is being taken out of context to an absurd degree.

Quote:
Also funny how you try EVER so hard to cover for Sessions when, in reality, he was caught lying and was forced to recuse himself from the Russia investigation as a result. But you keep on making excuses, kiddo Smiley: laugh


And there you are repeating the same thing again, as though just repeating it makes it true. He was not "caught lying". I just wrote a post clearly explaining the entire thing, complete with quotes of what was said and the context of the conversation he said it in, and instead of even attempting to respond to that, you just repeat the allegation that he lied. It's almost like even you don't actually believe what you're saying, but you're hoping that maybe other people will, if you just repeat it enough times. The point I'm trying to make here is that this isn't working. If anything, the extreme reactions and over reactions going on right now by the Left is driving people to disbelieve anything they say. I've mentioned the whole "boy who cried wolf" aspect of this before. When you guys keep jumping on the flimsiest of claims and repeat loudly the most easily debunked allegations, all you're doing is teaching people that you'll say anything at all, no matter how untrue, in the pursuit of damaging Trump and the GOP. Which in turn teaches people to just immediately assume that what you're saying isn't true.

He recused himself because it was politically correct to do so. You can't read any sort of admission of guilt into that. It's the "right thing to do", even if you believe you can be impartial, to recuse yourself if there's sufficient belief by the public that you can't. Even when driven by false allegations, it doesn't matter. What's ironic is that he was doing what anyone in that situation should have done in an environment where most people would have assumed he wouldn't. But instead of praising him for doing that "right thing", you're using it as ammunition? How on earth does that make sense?


What''s amusing about this is the incredible double standard being used. I don't see you (or anyone on the Left) demanding that Mueller recuse himself as the investigator into "Russian Meddling", despite the fact that he's a close personal friend of the guy who was just fired by the guy he's investigating. He's at least as connected personally to the issue as Sessions was. And given the strange behavior of Comey himself. it's even more suspicious. We find ourselves again in a situation where the person leading the investigation can't possibly be trusted to be impartial, more or less guaranteeing distrust in the results of any such investigation.

A side point to all of this is something I've pointed out several times in the past on this forum. The GOP is usually quite willing to turn to folks on their own side and tell them to recuse themselves, step down, resign, etc, at almost the slightest hint of scandal, or suggestion that he or she can't fulfill their position. And not surprisingly, the Left sees this as a weakness, often intentionally fanning false allegations and/or exaggerating them so as to create a public perception that will trigger this reaction. But the Left seems to go into full "circle the wagons" mode when the same sorts of things happen. it's like your "side" doesn't care about right or wrong, just protecting the "side" itself. The very fact that you use the act of recusing himself as a negative shows how you innately believe that this is a negative to be avoided, perhaps at all costs.

This leads to the doubling down that I've mentioned so many times in the past. Things start to go sideways, but instead of cleaning house and moving on, you feel like you have to deny that anything is wrong. You refused to acknowledge the deep flaws of Clinton as a candidate, despite plenty of warning. The more problems that appeared, the more you guys denied it. And not just denied it, but went on the attack against whomever would dare suggest that maybe all the really really questionable things she did might actually be harmful for her election chances. No one's willing to call out the power structure. Everyone just follows in lockstep. Every question about Obama's actions could not possibly be legitimate and never triggered any sort of self reflection. Nope, just call those questioning his actions racists and move on. Question proposed super harmful cap and trade regulations? Climate Change deniers! Question the sanity of keeping separate bathroom facilities for men and women? Haters! It's all about pushing back at the other side on everything and never once even questioning what you're doing.


Sessions recused himself. Flynn resigned (ok, Trump fired him, but do you think a Democrat president would have done that, or circled the wagons and expected the media and pundits to fall in line behind him?). These are the actions of people who are doing the right things, for the right reasons. Your "side" doesn't. And it's becoming so obvious that even the most muddle brained masses can see it clearly. We've got clear examples of people working in the government right now, who are putting their party loyalty ahead of their oaths to their country (how many leaks are we at now?). That doesn't go in the other directions. I'm sure there were a ton of conservatives working in the federal government under Obama, and surely plenty of opportunities to leak embarrassing stuff if wanted. So why not? Why is it only folks on the Left willing to go that extra mile in the pursuit of their own partisanship?

The ultimate irony is the projection that goes right along with it. There were constant stories about how terrified folks on the Right must be with a liberal black president. And they were going to go crazy and do all sorts of horrible things. But we didn't see anything. For 8 years, there were no riots of angry white men, no subversive actions against Obama by people in his own government, no frenzy, no anger... nothing. But what we're seeing right now is the Left doing exactly what it claimed the Right would do. Again though, I'm not holding my breath on any significant amount of self reflection on this. Your side is consistent, if nothing else.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#241 Jul 22 2017 at 12:16 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,802 posts
gbaji wrote:
ok, Trump fired him, but do you think a Democrat president would have done that, or circled the wagons and expected the media and pundits to fall in line behind him?
Well, no.

Because no liberal Democrat has ever fired anyone from his cabinet ever...in the whole history of the USA.


Darn tootin'.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#242 Jul 22 2017 at 12:22 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,802 posts
gbaji wrote:
He recused himself because it was politically correct to do so.
Historically, people recuse themselves from cases because they are inherently involved in some way. But don't let little things like facts and history get in the way of your blind devotion to a one party state ideal.

We wouldn't want to cramp your style, friend.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#243 Jul 22 2017 at 10:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Despite the attempts to frame this solely about one exchange with the Senate, Sessions also failed to disclose his meetings on his security clearance. It honestly isn't that complicated. Sessions withheld the truth and got caught. Comey said in his testimony that the intelligence community had access to information that would have made it difficult for Sessions to remain involved in the investigations and, hey, now we find out that the intelligence community intercepted communications regarding Sessions talking to Kislyak about the campaign.

He recused himself because (a) political pressure after being caught lying and (b) because he then lied about the content of the meetings (as we just learned) and needed to insulate himself. You don't need fifty spinning paragraphs of "Context!" and "But... Clinton!" and "But I bet if Democrats..." and "Fake news!" to explain it.

Edited, Jul 22nd 2017 12:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#244 Jul 22 2017 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,907 posts
gbaji wrote:
Flynn resigned (ok, Trump fired him, but do you think a Democrat president would have done that, or circled the wagons and expected the media and pundits to fall in line behind him?).



Here's a thing that didn't happen. (Okay, here's what really happened, but just imagine that it happened this imaginary way, and then I ALMOST sound like I'm not dropping a straw man)
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#245 Jul 22 2017 at 9:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
When 90% of your argument relies on "But in my imaginary world, you're worse!" it might be time to rethink your points.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#246 Jul 24 2017 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,738 posts
gbaji wrote:
"Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others." ,
Which is what 45.5 admitted to doing.
gbaji wrote:
There's a reason why the term "fake news" resonates.
The reason is that it takes no thought whatsoever to spout it so it's the path of least resistance, which is perfect for idiots. It requires no research or even convincing counterpoints. Just scream fake. It's also funny how the people that publicly scream about the "fake news" are also the ones that are the ones constantly and actively spreading misinformation. But you keep believing that more people trust the government, and especially this administration, than journalists. The majority of people on the other hand will be laughing at you for your birth certificates and Bowling Green Massacres.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#247 Jul 25 2017 at 7:11 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,738 posts
Looks like Lawn Gnome Sessions is next in line for the scapegoat crosshairs, as reported from that fake news source of 45's personal twitter account.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#248 Jul 25 2017 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I guess that pure Republican nobility doesn't get you very far these days, huh? Trump's ready to fire him and no one from the Senate has said peep about it being a bad idea.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#249 Jul 25 2017 at 1:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
They're too busy freaking out over the fact that we're not going to have a budget this year.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#250 Jul 25 2017 at 8:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,311 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Looks like Lawn Gnome Sessions is next in line for the scapegoat crosshairs, as reported from that fake news source of 45's personal twitter account.


I realized today that I actually want him to fire Beauregard. I am ******* weary. He already managed to put 4 years of crazy insanity into 6 months. At least Bush and Obama dosed their particular types of crazy. Here, it is non-stop crazy. If he fires him, it might be the final straw for Rs that support this idiocy..

Then I am biased, I have some money riding on it.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#251 Jul 25 2017 at 9:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It won't be. Trump will fire him and the GOP will find a way to say "No, that's fine. In fact, it's totally what should have happened."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 6 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (6)