*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

We're talking about the Trump tower meeting, and your response is literally "But Hilary!" how am I supposed to respond to that? Yeah, Hilary bad, but Osama Bin Laden really bad! There ya go. That's my response. Bin Laden very bad, so every bad, less bad now.

[BananaStand]

We're talking about the Trump tower meeting, and your response is literally "But Hilary!" how am I supposed to respond to that?

It goes directly to your assertion that contracting with a foreign government to receive opposition research is bad. Fine, let's agree that it's bad. One candidate just thought about doing that. The other actually did it.

now you have to pick ONE to be president. We dont' have the option of throwing them both out for this transgression and starting over with someone who is free of sin. That's not a luxury we have in politics.

What exactly is your point? Trump didn't run a perfect campaign? Is that it? Would it have been better if he didn't take that meeting? Sure. I'll agree to that. But he did. Now what? did anything awful happen? Is it enough to disqualify him as president? If so, who should be president then?

And so what if he lied about it? Do you think it's even possible to run a presidential campaign without telling a fib? The meeting was legal, innocuous, and fruitless. The media is salivating for anything Russian-flavored. Why would you say "Yeah we took this meeting, but nothing came of it". That would be a MONUMENTAL tactical error. Do you not see that? If you were Trump's campaign manager, would you advise him to say that?

So a politician did something not-great and tried to cover it up with a fib. Name one elected official that hasn't done that? (*ahem*...Benghazi...*cough* Muslim video...*choke* *hack* Susan Rice....). And if it wasn't for some grainy elevator cam footage we would never even know about this.

And in the end, what exactly is your problem with that meeting? What exactly happened that you object to? Do you think it should be investigated? Ok, maybe I agree. But guess what....it already WAS investigated. They took one of the guys who was in the room, and put 305 years in federal prison over his head to see if he would talk. He's got nothing to say about that meeting. Investigation over.

What do you think should happen now with regards to that meeting Oskar?

[oskar]

Banana, if the entirety of your argument boils down to whataboutism... I don't think I can explain to you any more clearly why this isn't sound.

[BananaStand]

Banana, if the entirety of your argument boils down to whataboutism... I don't think I can explain to you any more clearly why this isn't sound.

Maybe your IQ just isn't high enough to understand why the comparison is relevant.

In any event, you still haven't answered the question why this meeting, or it's subsequent cover-up, matters. Explain to me what's so bad about the meeting, and why was Trump wrong to try and cover it up?

Then the next question will be "what does it mean?"

And if you're going to say that it means he can't be president, then the next obvious question is..."who should be?" And that's where the Hillary comparisons become apt. Because she was the only other choice, and she's just as guilty of whatever bad behavior you think Trump is guilty of here. And we have to pick one of those two.

If your gripe here is "I can't believe we have a president who thought it was ok to get opposition research from Russia" then fine. Ok. That's a legit gripe.

But how could we have had a different outcome? What should we do about it now? And why? Without answering those questions, all you're doing is throwing a the type of crybaby sore loser temper tantrum that is symptomatic of fully metastasized Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Baby want a bottle now?

[oskar]

Maybe your IQ just isn't high enough to understand why the comparison is relevant.

In any event, you still haven't answered the question why this meeting, or it's subsequent cover-up, matters. Explain to me what's so bad about the meeting, and why was Trump wrong to try and cover it up?

Then the next question will be "what does it mean?"

And if you're going to say that it means he can't be president, then the next obvious question is..."who should be?" And that's where the Hillary comparisons become apt. Because she was the only other choice, and she's just as guilty of whatever bad behavior you think Trump is guilty of here. And we have to pick one of those two.

If your gripe here is "I can't believe we have a president who thought it was ok to get opposition research from Russia" then fine. Ok. That's a legit gripe.

But how could we have had a different outcome? What should we do about it now? And why? Without answering those questions, all you're doing is throwing a the type of crybaby sore loser temper tantrum that is symptomatic of fully metastasized Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Baby want a bottle now?

None of this makes any sense. Let's assume Hilary Clinton is the worst human imaginable. Then you're right to vote for trump... But how does this relate to this issue? If Trump resigns or gets removed, Hilary Clinton doesn't become president. Mike Pence does. So how in the fuck do Hilaries actions justify Trumps actions. They don't. So no, it's not relevant, it's pure whataboutism.

[BananaStand]

None of this makes any sense.

I recommend you swing by the IQ store on your way home today.

Let's assume Hilary Clinton is the worst human imaginable.

Already there...

Then you're right to vote for trump...

And what does that make everyone who voted for Hillary?

But how does this relate to this issue?

I am still not understanding what you think the issue is. What exactly do you object to? Trump didn't do anything illegal. The meeting at Trump tower was not illegal. Lying to the press about adoptions is not illegal. So what exactly is your objection to all this? What exactly do you think should be done about it?

Surely you know Mueller is aware of the meeting. Surely you know he's subpoenaed emails and documents surrounding the meeting. Surely you know that Mueller has pressured one of the meeting's attendees to provide incriminating information about the meeting by leveraging 305 years in federal prison. What else would you like to happen?

Are you even open to the possibility that there is nothing there? Can your low-IQ mind overcome it's own derangement and admit that maybe this was nothing more than a tactical error by the Trump campaign?

It's not 'whataboutism' to ask why this specific instance offends you so badly, when occurrences like this are commonplace throughout politics. What is it about this particular event that makes you perceive it as a nefarious affront to democracy?

Explain yourself.