Obama. Lynch. Comey. Clinton. McCabe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Printable View
Obama. Lynch. Comey. Clinton. McCabe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
And when have they called for his resignation?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm not sure what assumption there is in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I mean, I guess I'm assuming Trump doesn't have an IQ of 12. Because that's how low it would have to be to have full control over somebody's job and to allow that person to very openly and for a very long time try to put you in prison.
IIRC Trump interviewed Mueller for a different position the day before he was hired by Rosenstein. But don't quote me on that.
Oh I thought you were asking for something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The calls for his resignation came from the media wing of the party. The first bits were a few months ago.
Eh you can quote me on that. Even the Very Fake News Network reported that Trump interviewed Mueller the day before he was hired.
You seem to think his best option if he's guilty is to essentially admit his guilt by stopping the investigation or firing the guy in charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Firing Mueller would indeed be the best bet if Trump had something to hide. Even though it would make many people pull their hair out, it would vastly decrease Trump's real exposure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
However, what I am suggesting is a little different. I'm suggesting if Trump had something to hide he wouldn't have let his AG appoint a special counsel to "investigate him" in the first place.
Alan Dershowitz is right. Muh Russia never had any legs. Special counsel was necessary to give Muh Russia any chance of coming to fruition, and special counsel happened only because Trump wanted it to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So you think Trump 'let' his AG appoint a special counsel? You think Rosenstein called him up one day and say 'Hey boss, ok if I investigate this Russia thing that implicates a bunch of your crew?', and Trump said 'Sure, whatever dude. My hands are clean.'
That doesn't happen in an independent investigation, any more than a judge calls Trump up and asks him if it's ok to overturn his Muslim Ban thingy.
Your problem i think is that you equate the presidency of the US with a dictatorship where nothing happens without the head of state's approval. That's not my understanding of how it works. The DAG works for the people, not at the pleasure of the president.
Trump interviewed Mueller the day before Rosenstein hired him. There are not that many reasonable ways to take this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
How do you imagine that conversation went?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Trump: I'm getting a lot of heat over this Russia thing. I even fired Comey for it and admitted it on TV.
Mueller: Ok.
Trump: So I'm gonna get Rosenstein to hire you as special counsel.
Mueller: I see.
Trump: Make sure you don't find anything.
Mueller: That's not how it works.
Trump: I'll give you a free membership to Mar a Lago.
Mueller: Goodbye Mr. President.
Trump: Great! See you in Florida!
That's exactly how I see it going because Trump is very (very) very stupid.
It won't be intentional, but the demographic of new voters who will first be able to vote in a presidential election in 2020 are already much more right-leaning and like Trump more than the previous generation, so he'll have an even easier path.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Not to mention that he'll probably set the Dow Jones record another 200 times by the next presidential election (currently at around 70-75 record-breaking days since the day after the previous election), which hasn't shown any sign of going down.
The intense cuckery and oppression olympics of the Ostrich Brigade, also known as the parents of Generation Z, leads to Gen Z embracing the very thing the Ostrich Brigade loathes.
Fun stuff. Dr. Geotus would approve.
I'm trying to decode this shit but I'm failing miserably. You guys have some motherfucking enigma machine going onQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also, Im drunk on port so come at me bro
It's alomost 2018 yooooo
drunk on port is pretty ballin
It is bra, some Kopke tawny. Nothing special, but it gets the job doneQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm just presenting one plausible scenario (or implausible if you prefer).Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But I'd still like to know what you think went on in that meeting that means Trump is innocent. Try not to assume it's obvious to anyone that one has to imply the other, just spell it out.
It probably had to do with evaluating Mueller's integrity, making sure they have a guy who follows the corruption.
If there is a plan in the Trump administration to obfuscate publicly while secretly uncovering corruption (which there might be but isn't proven), I suspect Mueller was never "in on it". Mueller is probably just doing his job.
But really, I have no clue.
So in this interpretation, Trump lets the investigation go on as part of his plan to drain the swamp, and the whole 'investigating Russian collusion' story being given is just a cover story. And to maintain that narrative, a few people on his campaign team get indicted. Meanwhile the real criminals (i.e., democrats?) are the ones being investigated. Is that what's going on?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't know. I try to not read into these things because that's when hallucination happens. What the hard evidence suggests is that Trump isn't under the gun yet several others are.
I still don't see any Russian motive to involve anyone on Trump's staff in the election rigging.
Given they were willing and able to affect the election, their choice of who to back was obvious. Given their choice, I don't see any benefit of communicating that to anyone involved.
The only benefit they could gain is if they needed information from Trump's staff in order to rig the elections, but what does Trump's staff have to do with voting? They know campaigning, not the actual collection and tallying of votes. If the Russians needed this information, they didn't need it from Trump's team.
Anyone see any motive in the Russians to involve Trump's staff?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
With hindsight, yes it is clear they preferred Trump. But at the time when the influencing was going on, they didn't need to tell anyone who they wanted to win. They could approach the Trump team and say 'Hey, we can help you win, but it will cost us a lot of rubles. So how about something in return, like...public praise for Putin, bashing NATO, denigrating the election process, etc. etc.'
Obviously they're going to do what they can to get the most out of their investment. So, by telling the Trump team they're willing to help them, it obligates the latter to do something for them, something they might not have otherwise been willing to do.
WRONG! Jesus man, where are you getting your facts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
When the report from all the intelligence agencies came out, they were all in agreement that everything the Russians were doing was anti-Hillary. They all agreed that the Russians perceived a Hillary presidency as unfavorable. Hillary could have been running against a desk chair, and the Russians would have shown a preference for the desk chair.
It's been known, since day 1, which side the Russians were on.
This is a sensational pipe dream. What you're suggesting here is treason. That's a vicious accusation to be making with absolutely no evidence. Just because you can imagine it as a possibility, doesn't mean that it's true.Quote:
They could approach the Trump team and say 'Hey, we can help you win, but it will cost us a lot of rubles. So how about something in return, like...public praise for Putin, bashing NATO, denigrating the election process, etc. etc.'
Furthermore, if what you're suggesting DID actually happen, why wouldn't Trump's response be "You know I can get a pimple-faced college kid to hack Podesta's emails and spread shit on facebook. Why would I compromise myself, my campaign, and my country for something I can get on my own"
This is where the Russia hullaballoo fails. As MMM pointed out, there is no motive for Trump to accept the Russian's help. They weren't offering anything he couldn't get on his own. Furthermore, according to every intelligence agency in America, the Russians were going to shit all over Hillary anyway. So why would Trump pay for something he's gonna get for free no matter what??
I can't believe you post this garbage and still consider yourself an intelligent person. Everything in this post is sensational worst-case speculation presented as probable fact. You need to stop doing your political research during pot-parties with liberal hippie conspiracy theorists.Quote:
Obviously they're going to do what they can to get the most out of their investment. So, by telling the Trump team they're willing to help them, it obligates the latter to do something for them, something they might not have otherwise been willing to do.
@Poopadoop: It's a decent hypothesis. Does it actually bear fruit, though?
Compared to Hillary, Trump as president probably pays for itself in any costs to put him there.
What wheels need greasing, there? He's obviously on board for more open relations, which will be worth real $$$ to the Russians in trade deals and in the US not getting involved in their international shenanigans.
I'm not clear on the timeline, but he was saying stuff like, "Would it be so bad if the US and Russia were friends," on his campaign. That's pretty much a clear message that a Trump presidency will make life easier than a Hillary presidency. Again, that easiness is money. If the US isn't digging in its heels on every trade negotiation, that's money in Russia's coffers. If the US takes a non-involvement stance when Russia annexes the next Crimea, then that's a load of political pressure that doesn't have to be countered.
Clearly, I'm speculating, but I don't see any intelligent reason for the Russians to contact anyone in Trump's staff. It's not appropriate to assume intelligence, but this one seems like a clear shot to the foot to put anyone on the American side in a position of treason. The potential gains for doing so don't match potential losses if it's revealed.
@Banana: I did not speak about any motives of Trump or his staff. I spoke only about the motives the Russians may have had.
As someone who loves to call other's reading comprehension skills into question, you may wish take a moment to reflect on this.
I'm still right. If you'd rather not be associated with that opinion, that's on you I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
In the end, we are both making the same point. Neither side has anything to gain by collaborating.
You people talking about Russian collusion are like flat earthers or creationists discussing their "ideas".
In all likelihood, the Russians were collaborating with both sides. It's called "hedging your bets". They're not daft.
Fixed your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What we are witnessing here is one of the distasteful unintended consequences of democracy. If an idea is popular enough, it demands government attention. And as long as enough people believe the Trump/Russia propaganda....it will continue to get gov't attention. Currently, the mainstream media seems invested in propagating this idea and keeping it popular. And as long as Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper keep going on prime time TV saying "maybe this happened" and "what if?", then this inquiry will never end.
They will just keep on digging and digging and digging until they find some kind of "evidence". When you consider the massive beauracracy and communications machines required to run a campaign and a presidential administration....it's certainly plausible that some i's didn't get dotted and some t's didn't get crossed. They will keep digging until they can pin one of those mistakes on Trump.
What I find unbelievable is that so far, the evidence has demonstrated two things...
1. Russia reached out to Trump through a very low-level staffer (the guy still had model UN on his resume). Trump refused the meeting.
2. Clinton campaign funds have been tied to a Russian-sourced dossier about Trump being a pee freak.
In other words....the jackpot find in this investigation would be if they could prove that Trump accepted Russian-sourced campaign intelligence from the Russians. Apparently it doesn't matter that Hillary BOUGHT campaign intelligence from the Russians.
That's an absolutely stunning double standard that undermines the credibility of this entire investigation. The investigators are not going where the evidence leads, as they are supposed to do. Instead they are only interested in findings that support their politically motivated goals. That's corruption at the highest level, and people on the left seem to be ok with it. They hate trump so badly that they don't care how badly the justice system needs to be perverted in order to take him down.
Here's the thing: no-one can say for sure which came first - the Russian preference for Trump or the alleged wheeling/dealing. Just saying 'well they must have preferred Trump because of what they did' is an argument from hindsight. We don't know for a fact they always preferred and would have supported him anyways. Point is, we don't know what happened and a lot of things are possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Further, putting someone on the US side in a position of treason would actually be a plus for Russia if their ultimate goal is to undermine democracy. I mean let's be realistic, in the long term, the US and Russia aren't going to be allies. But if the Russians can destabilize and weaken the US and its allies, it gives them a lot more elbow room in Europe and the MidEast.
Banana reads someone's post, sees one sentence that disagree with his world view, and then infers whatever he likes about the rest so he can overreact.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You do realize that the NSA, CIA, and FBI all vehemently disagree with this...right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Always interesting to hear the Fox News version of events. You may want to broaden your net of information gathering just a tiny bit.
from here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.dc3c7396112b
"Three big questions here that keep popping up the more journalists reveal the extent of Russia’s interest in the campaign: If Trump’s campaign was sophisticated enough to decide not to meet with Putin, then why did campaign aides keep meeting with other top Russians? And why didn’t they acknowledge those meetings afterward? And why does Trump refuse to acknowledge Russia’s meddling?"
So what if the intelligence community knew it? It obviously didn't stop the Trump people from talking to Russians.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If Trump really wanted to look like a great American hero, wouldn't the best thing be for him to say "hey, you know what? Putin did try to get to us and help us in the election. But we told him to fuck off, that's how patriotic we are. MAGA!"
Instead its' all "There was no meddling!" "Fake news!" "Witch hunt" "They were talking about adopting Russian babies" " I don't recall meeting any Russians" etc. etc. etc.
Seems a bit fishy, hmm?
Yeah I mean you're singing to the choir here. It's obvious to see. Anyone with half a brain who buys this collaboration crap is doing so purely because it suits their agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
When I say both side are collaborating with Russia, I simply mean in the same way that both parties would be collaborating with any potential international partner. The idea that Trump was Putin's "preferred" choice probably has merit, just as Theresa May would've preferred HRC. I'm sure every leader in the world had a "preferred" candidate. Noone gives a fuck what the leader of Trinidad & Tobago has to say though, right? Probably because T&T are not exactly an important international partner. Russia are, probably more so than the UK, even though they wouldn't say that in the papers.
Not in the slightest. If he knew that Russia was trying to shit on Hillary, why wouldn't he just let it happen? What obligation does he have to help the Clinton campaign protect itself? Sure that sounds slimy, and on some level it is. But certainly not any more slimy than any other politician or bureaucrat that's ever existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Denying it later is just standard operating procedure. Employing plausible deniability happens all the fucking time. If it only raises eyebrows when it's someone you hate, like Trump, then you're perverting justice by employing an egregious double standard..
And crying "fake news" fires up Trumps supporting base. Come on man, you know this. Ignoring that obvious answer kind of negates the implication of your question. You're being selectively stupid when it serves your anti-Trump cause.
What's it like going through life with no conviction in any of your own beliefs?
Notice at the top where it says "Analysis". That means that anything in this article is not news...it's merely the interpretations of someone with a heavy political leanings and a stated agenda to undermine the President of the United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What I got from that article
1) The Trump team, apart from Pops, adamantly denied the prospect of any meeting with Russia. In other words, the EVIDENCE shows a narrative that is entirely contrary to the left's preferred outcome. Therefore the evidence must be impugned with INSANE questions like "well we know that the Trump team denied Russia on 7 occassions, but what if there was an 8th inquiry that we don't know about!??" At some point you have to accept what the evidence is telling you, and the evidence is telling you that there was no fucking collusion.
2) The Washington Post clearly has a political agenda and is using their reputation and media gravitas to further a partisan plan to undermine the President. Talking about Sessions meeting with Kislyak is a red fucking herring. By all accounts Kislyak is a real man-about-town in DC and attends shitloads of events with all kinds of political figures. So he and sessions were in the same room once, with 500 other people, and Sessions forgot. That's HARDLY evidence of treasonous diplomatic collusion.
So all this talk about how Trump's team kept meeting with Russia is sensational, salacious, garbage. Even the Washington Post admits...
The only thing that's not "normal" about these circumstances is that the left-wing media fucking hates Trump.Quote:
There’s also nothing unusual about campaigns meeting with foreign officials in normal circumstances.
Does not follow. Your claim is that no one knew for sure which side the Russians were on. You are suggesting that it's possible that the Russians were neutral and were willing to support whichever candidate was most willing to play ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That claim is unequivocally denied by multiple intelligence communities. In fact, they reported that right up until election night....the Russians expected Hillary to win. They were able to show, definitively, that the Russians had queued up ALOT of anti-hillary shit set to be released AFTER the election. In other words, when there would be no one to oppose Hillary, they STILL planned to undermine her.
How you can say what you're saying in light of those facts is a monumental failing of intelligence.
Trump won at a much smaller cost per vote than Hillary. Blame the Russians!
Across an ocean and through pot-smoke as thick as pea-soup, even Ong can see what's going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The Obama holdovers in the deep-state have CLEARLY initiated an agenda to undermine Trump from within. The guy can't even have a phone call with the President of Mexico without it being leaked, word for word, to the Press.
There has been a full-court press investigation into Russian collusion that has turned up zilch.
How do you explain the discrepancy? In a world where Trump can't fart downwind without someone calling for his impeachment....a nearly two year long investigation into potential wrongdoing has yielded zilch. How can that be unless the Russia stuff is categorically untrue??
Here's a fun question. What will it take for the left to accept that Trump didn't collude with Russia?? If Mueller closes his investigation with no findings.....there will just be calls for another investigation!!
With 2018 midterms looming, the democrats are STILL beating this drum of Russia....impeachment....racist....orange face. Meanwhile they have no candidate, no message, and a laundry list of scandals among party leadership. It blows my mind that the media is still chasing this Russia specter when there are is obvious and provable scandalous behavior by democrats.
Watching the left implode is both hilarious and tragic. Their failure to hold their own officials accountable while advocating a party platform of intolerance towards anyone outside of the social-justice groupthink is going to be their undoing. Instead of formulating a message, bolstering a candidate, and driving meaningful discourse about issues....the democrats' plan seems to be to simply point to 2016 and say "UNFAIR", and then hope that the voters give them a make-up call.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whi...russia-n767406Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Point is, if you have meetings that are innocent, you don't deny them later or pretend they were about some implausible thing like adopting babies. What's fishy is that all these people on Trump's team act like they never saw a Russian before in their lives - why go so far out of your way to play innocent? If you are innocent, you don't go to these extremes.
So Sessions meets Kysliak at a party? Why not admit it? Why try to pretend he never met any Russians or 'doesn't recall' as he puts it? Why does he have to recuse himself?
There's no need to deny anything if there's no guilt no shame. You just say 'yeah i met the russian ambassador, so did a lot of other people. so what?'
Exactly. But instead of saying we met them from time to time, shot the breeze, etc., it's all 'Russians? What Russians?'Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
G U I L T Y
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe the media disapproves of him for the same reasons so many other people disapprove of him? Or are you still clinging to that Rasmussen Fantasy Poll that he's almost got half the people on his side?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
To anticipate your brilliant riposte, ya he won the election. A year ago. Now people are seeing what they elected was a charlatan. And they're not happy.
That's an insane leap of logic. Every reporter in the universe is trying to nail you to a wall with Russia stuff.....I'd deny everything, play dumb, and exploit plausible deniability whenever I could.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Let me ask you this.....now that this has gone on for TWO YEARS.....with ZERO RESULTS.....what's Trump's incentive to make it stop? Isn't it better if he lets the insane left conjure up all kinds of nonsense accusations and then be ready with a totally benign answer?
I mean, why would Trump say what you're suggesting? He said "I'd like the US to have a good relationship with Russia" and THAT is being construed as evidence of guilt. If I were Trump, I wouldn't say shit. I'd let my enemies embarrass themselves inventing sensational salacious bullshit and then shutting it down with a totally benign, and factual, rebuttal.
You can't have it both ways Poop. You can't say "Why doesn't Trump say X" while at the same time engaging in a propaganda campaign where anything Trump says is evidence against him.
Honestly, you MUST know this. You truly can't be this stupid or this politically un-savvy. You know that if you were in Trump's shoes you'd do the exact same thing. Yet, since that narrative is not useful to your propaganda campaign, suddenly you've morphed your morals and ethics where you expect every politician to be George Washington and "cannot tell a lie"
Come back to earth poop.
You say "so many other people" like it's common knowledge or something. You're missing the fact that you, and people like you, live in an anti-trump echo chamber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
How come polls that don't support your position are "fantasy"? Real Clear Politics had him at 41% at the same time.Quote:
Or are you still clinging to that Rasmussen Fantasy Poll that he's almost got half the people on his side?
How in the world are you presuming to speak on behalf of Trump voters, and what evidence do you have that says they're not happy??Quote:
To anticipate your brilliant riposte, ya he won the election. A year ago. Now people are seeing what they elected was a charlatan. And they're not happy.
He successfully implemented an immigration pause from notable terrorist hotspots. Illegal immigration has PLUMMETTED. He's passed a tax bill that lowers taxes for everyone, while stimulating business and the economy (more jobs). He's stood up to the UN. He's systematically pulling apart Obamacare. He got Gorsuch confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Those are all things he promised to do. And he's either done, or is doing them successfully.
Where are you getting the word "charlatan"???
LOL....hey Poop....do you like irony??
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/0...ssier-desantis
Quote:
He said many "simple" questions from House committees remain unanswered by the Justice Department, including when the government obtained the dossier, whether it was paid for and how they used it.
"I think if the answers were innocuous, we would have gotten them a long time ago," he said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Sure sure, explain it all away and call me an idiot besides.
Here's a question for you: just hypothetically speaking, if Trump were guilty how would he act?
No, I hear all the pro-Trump rhetoric, I just don't buy into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I've given up trying to explain stats to people who don't want to listen.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Cherry-picking poll results is stats fail 101. The average poll result for Trump's approval rating was around 39% last time I checked. Let's say it's now 41%. In layperson's terms, he's not popular.
The polls, I just told you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Did he? I thought that got shot down by the courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I will give him credit for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
In the short term, in the long term it benefits the wealthy disproportionately. I guess you could argue America doesn't have enough wealth disparity already if you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Hard to believe that's happened a year before it even comes into effect. Most causal relationships go cause --> effect, this one you have going the other way.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I agree it takes guts to alienate most of the world. Not sure that's a popular move with the majority of your countrymen though.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And I hear he's going to replace it with 'something really really really...terrific' (his words). As I recall that plan's already failed a couple of times when his own party wouldn't support the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
As if no president has ever managed to appoint a SCJ before, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
... that reminds me of some judge he tried to appoint who came before the committee and couldn't answer the most basic questions like 'have you ever tried a case in court?' or some such. I'll have to go find that video.
Is that it?
Ah here it is. Such a great pick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-zvNnFjk3Q
So you refuse to acknowledge facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I've given up on people who cling to polls that slightly favor their political narrative as if they're fact, when Trump has pretty much proved that polls don't apply to him.Quote:
I've given up trying to explain stats to people who don't want to listen
You could say the same thing about Obama after his first year. He was only a few points higher than Trump. Pointing to these polls as if they are heralding the demise of Republican leadership is really just wishful thinking.Quote:
Cherry-picking poll results is stats fail 101. The average poll result for Trump's approval rating was around 39% last time I checked. Let's say it's now 41%. In layperson's terms, he's not popular.
You mean the same polls that said Hillary would skate to victory? Find a credible source!!Quote:
The polls, I just told you.
Yeah.....CNN doesn't report on Trump's successes all that much, so I'm not surprised you missed this one. It was big news when an activist judge in Hawaii did some legal somersaults to deny this executive order....but in the end, ACTUAL justice prevailed.Quote:
Did he? I thought that got shot down by the courts.
Good.Quote:
I will give him credit for [immigration plummeting].
Any good tax policy encourages investment, growth, and hiring. You can't do that by beefing up people's welfare checks. If you wanna whine about how rich people have more money than you.....I suggest you take up your complaints with a doorknob. Because I promise you the doorknob cares more about your entitled griping more than any human being on earth.Quote:
In the short term, in the long term it benefits the wealthy disproportionately.
I thought we've been over this. Income inequality DOES NOT MEAN SHIT!!!! It's income MOBILITY that matters, and America fucking kicks ass at that.Quote:
I guess you could argue America doesn't have enough wealth disparity already if you want.
No, we have 200 years of history from which to extrapolate expected results of economic policy. It was proven definitively 30 years ago during Reagan's administration that as the tax rate goes down...tax revenue goes up.Quote:
Hard to believe that's happened a year before it even comes into effect. Most causal relationships go cause --> effect, this one you have going the other way.
I would speculate that your speculation is entirely false.Quote:
I agree it takes guts to alienate most of the world. Not sure that's a popular move with the majority of your countrymen though.
I'm glad the Republican party didn't turn into an army of automatons marching in step with the president. That's how we GOT Obamacare. Why is it a bad thing if Trump is challenged by the legislative branch? Do you really think it's better if two parties declare their entire agenda, and then every member of that party rigidly stays the course?? Would that be an example of representative government?Quote:
And I hear he's going to replace it with 'something really really really...terrific' (his words). As I recall that plan's already failed a couple of times when his own party wouldn't support the bill.
Fixing Obamacare is a work in progress. They've already eliminated the individual mandate. That's something. Just because he didn't get everything he wanted on day 1, doesn't mean that Trump is a failure.
With judicial activism on the rise, appointing a strict conservative judge will have a profound impact on American policy for DECADES to come. Don't write this off as a trivial accomplishment.Quote:
As if no president has ever managed to appoint a SCJ before, lol.
So? That's your case cracker? that's the mistake that proves Trump's incompetence? Jesus man, he got one wrong, and the system of checks and balances provided by the constitution prevented that mistake from affecting the American judicial system. That's WHY these checks and balances exist. Because humans are fallible. If you're laser focused on a single sample of one incompetent judge....that's stats fail 101Quote:
... that reminds me of some judge he tried to appoint who came before the committee and couldn't answer the most basic questions like 'have you ever tried a case in court?' or some such. I'll have to go find that video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So you've given up on yourself? Well, good that's a good move I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
According to someone who repeatedly shows they don't understand polling and statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Don't forget that the entire MAH RUSSIA shit started during the general election. It was just Clinton's camp throwing shit at the wall hoping that something would stick. The only reason it's even being talked about now is because it gets clicks.Quote:
There has been a full-court press investigation into Russian collusion that has turned up zilch.
I feel like you're minimizing the events here.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Based on a link I posted earlier, it appears that the Russia-shit originated from one of two places. One story says it was Popadopoulous running his drunk mouth at a london bar about Russia having dirt on Hillary. That was overheard by Australian intelligence, who relayed the message to his US counterparts, and that initiated the inquiry into Russian meddling.
The other story says that the Clinton campaign bought a salacious dossier and shared it with the Obama administration. This initiated an investigation into the Russian meddling, and in the process Obama thought it was ok to leak all of the dirty details, with no corroborating evidence, in the midst of an election.
By all accounts, most people seem to think the second story is more credible. A presidential candidate, and former secretary of state, BOUGHT salacious secrets from a foreign government. Then her most powerful political ally (POTUS at the time) used that information to initiate an investigation. But rather than have the investigation target Russia and protect the integrity of the election, they aligned the narrative to target Trump and conjured up this specter of collusion to divert attention from the fact that Russia was pulling shenannigans right under your nose. THEN, that administration intentionally LEAKED disgusting personal details, of highly dubious origin, to the American public in the midst of an election.
Reducing that to "clinton threw shit against the wall" is a gross miscategorization of facts. That SHOULD BE the scandal of the century.
I'm still dumbfounded that people hate trump that much, that they can ignore the PROVABLE egregious government corruption like that.
Yeah I was. The whole bullshit dossier thing was a tremendous abuse of power, but Trump still took it to their crybaby asses UNDER BUDGET AND AHEAD OF SCHEDULE. MAGA AS FUCK. #MAGA #LOCKHERUPQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Alan Dersh is still right. No crime has been committed. It's unfortunate that the media is channeling the Soviets: "find me a man and I'll find you a crime."
You must be horribly mistaken. I've heard many members of the media say quite emphatically that they are anti-fascist.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Spoiler:Ive said it many times before, and I'll say it again. It's a good thing that irony is not lethal
He Dems.....if Trump is guilty....who would know?
Answer: Manafort
As far as I can tell Manafort is in a mountain of shit for some shady dealings he had before Trump ever thought of running for president. That seems like the kind of thing you might bail yourself out of by calling in a mega favor, blackmailing the president, or simply making a deal for immunity with Prosecutors.
Whistleblowing on Trump would be the the Holy Grail for ANYONE with knowledge of Trump/Russia collusion. Think of the accolades. Think of the book deals you would get. Think about how much you could charge CNN to be a guest commentator.
Instead, the guy is looking at alot of federal prison time. Explain how that's possible if he has an ace in the hole?
Oh, the outrage!Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Of course buying dirt on your opponent from an ally it's not right, but it's hardly comparable to having dirt handed to you by an enemy power like Russia, taking it, and doing favours for them in return (and there's good evidence that they've been 'thanking' Putin in various ways).
Hating Trump does not mean you have to like the other guys. As far as I'm concerned, most if not all politicians are scumbags, in it mainly for personal gain. You dreamers seem to think that since Trump is not a career politician, he's somehow immune to the corruption and he's here to 'save' you. I hate to burst your bubble, but he's just as selfish and dickheaded as the other guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
In fact, Trump is way worse than most politicians because he doesn't know wtf he's doing in government, he's mentally unstable and probably going senile, he has no moral compass (he openly wants to fuck his daughter for crying out loud), and he says and does stuff that makes America look like a country going back to some age where being racist and a cunt to women is ok.
He does?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Forget Trump for a minute, and just re-read the factual account of Clinton/Obama behavior and explain to me why you react sarcastically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Explain why you aren't willing to hold Democrat corruption to the same standard you seem to demand from republicans, and in particular, Trump.
Are you high right now? Hillary bought that shit FROM RUSSIA. Trump is alleged to have colluded with RUSSIA.Quote:
Of course buying dirt on your opponent from an ally it's not right, but it's hardly comparable to having dirt handed to you by an enemy power like Russia,
in one narrative, Russia is an ally. In another narrative, Russia is an enemy power. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Again, your obvious double standard makes it REALLY hard to take you seriously. You basically just said that Russia's status as an enemy or ally depends on whether or not they are talking to your pet politician.
Prove this happened. Furthermore, explain how absolutely no evidence has come forward in the last two years to support this claim if it were true. How is it possible to keep something like that a secret?Quote:
taking it, and doing favours for them in return
Your definition of "good" evidence seems to swing wildly depending on which politician is impugned by that evidence. Being non-adversarial with a world military and economic power is NOT evidence of quid pro quo collusion.Quote:
(and there's good evidence that they've been 'thanking' Putin in various ways).
It really bothers me that you're an educator.
No, but you don't have to give them a pass on corruption, ignore provable crimes, and basically hold non-Trumpers to a ridiculously forgiving standard.Quote:
Hating Trump does not mean you have to like the other guys.
You clearly have Trump Derangement Syndrome dude. You should get therapy.
I don't totally disagree, but I'm at least a little less cynical. I do believe there are some authentic patriots working in government. In Trump's case, it's a little easier to believe since he really has nothing to personally gain by being president. He has more money than god and he's in the twilight of his life. He didn't NEED to run for office.Quote:
As far as I'm concerned, most if not all politicians are scumbags, in it mainly for personal gain.
No, I exercise LOGIC and I can wrap my brain around the idea that Trump is LESS SUSCEPTIBLE to corruption because he has no material motivation. He already has all the money.Quote:
You dreamers seem to think that since Trump is not a career politician, he's somehow immune to the corruption and he's here to 'save' you.
No argument here. But I'll say this.....do you know another way to get 10 billion dollars??Quote:
I hate to burst your bubble, but he's just as selfish and dickheaded as the other guys
I'm not a violent person. I haven't been in a fist fight since the eighth grade. I've never hit a woman, and I don't spank my kids.Quote:
In fact, Trump is way worse than most politicians because he doesn't know wtf he's doing in government, he's mentally unstable and probably going senile, he has no moral compass
But if you were standing in front of me right now, and said this, I would punch you right in the fucking face. And you would deserve it.
If you're suggesting that someone who built a massive empire of wealth, achieved monumental celebrity, earned the love and respect of his family and friends, and has spent his entire life being the iconic symbol of business success is somehow "unstable" or "doesn't know what the fuck he's doing", then someone should sock you square in the friggen teeth.
Do you realize how fucking retarded you sound when you point to someone a million times more successful than you are and say "he's dumb"
yeah, a dirty joke on the howard stern show, taken out of context, is irrefutable evidence of an incestuous malfunction of a moral compassQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Didn't you know that??
The only instance I know of is what he said on the view.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Which is the exact kind of thing I would say. Or maybe I wouldn't say it because I would recall that some people get hard on manipulating normal things into bad things.
Lol, ok tough guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Well I'm saying it, and I'm not the only one. So suck it up.
Lol, it's not 'normal' to talk about dating your daughter. It's not normal to touch her on the hips. It's fucking creepy. Does your dad do that to your sister?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Anyways we've been through this before. If you want to defend that kind of behaviour, then go right ahead. But it's wrong, plain and simple.
I'm not trying to be tough. I'm trying to explain to you that your brain is somehow out of balance, and as a last resort, a vicous blow to head might put the loose screw back in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Think about what you're saying....
You're calling someone stupid despite the fact that he is clearly the most successful human being ever. If you think that's true, then you are hopeless.
Just because there are alot of other stupid people out there saying stupid things...doesn't mean you aren't stupid for joining them.
You should wake up to the fact that the other people saying what you're saying, are also unadulterated morons. You are associating yourself with whiny crybaby snowflakes who are pissed off that their progressive socialist agenda got derailed by way of a fair election. They are delusional retards inventing specters of evil Russian operatives. They are in tremendous denial about the fraud and corruption that has infected their own political party. And they've engaged in an immature, and misguided smear campaign designed to take down their enemy, yet in an ironic twist.....it just makes him stronger. And in an even further ironic twist, they use labels like racist, sexist, and xenophobic to describe anything they don't like while simultaneously declaring themselves anti-facist.
Just because those people exist, doesn't mean they're smart.
No, you are trying to be tough. And this is where you fall down. You seem to have great difficulty providing an argument without attaching some kind of personal insult to it. Like that's supposed to convince me or others that you're right. You get told this time and again by people here and you still keep it up. Maybe you think it makes you seem funny, but really it just makes you look like a juvenile who can't carry on a mature conversation without resorting to being a dick to anyone who disagrees with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
FWIW, I stop taking your posts seriously after I read the first insult. If you can learn to play without kicking sand in others' faces, maybe we can have a big boy conversation. Until then, fuck off.
If you think that the most successful human being in history is dumb.....I hope you got sand in your eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you think that someone who has promoted and empowered women in business for decades is sexist.....I hope you got sand in your eye
If you think that enforcing the border = racism.....I hope you got sand in your eye
If you think that Trump colluded with teh Russian government to get them to do something they were gonna do anyway....I hope you got sand in your eye.
Don't pretend like you're some kind of hero cause you use less insults. The insults I've sent your way are honest, sincere, and wholly deserved based on your behavior. I'm not sorry, and if it makes you feel bad....good, I'm glad. You should feel tremendous shame for the ideas you've put forward in this thread.
If you think its tough to take something seriously when it contains insults.......imagine how tough it is to take seriously when it's full of insane, hopelessly moronic, and provably false bullshit.
lol, thanks for the essay. Maybe I'll read it someday - but then again probably not.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ya but when are they going to arrest Hillary?
That was a very scandalous and compelling headline with very little payoff.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
By all accounts Bannon is a salty, cantankerous, hyperbolic, ranting angry ass hole. Everything he's said has been categorized as such and dismissed as the ass hole rantings of a ranting ass hole.
The guy was fired from the most powerful job he'll ever hope to hold after less than a year. So it's not surprising he's turned his ass hole rantings toward the family that fired him. So now, a known ass hole turned disgruntled employee says some ass hole stuff about Trump....and suddenly he has all the credibility in the world??
This is sad. Truly sad.
The opinions of a ranting ass hole are not the same as laws.
If Bannon knew ANYTHING truly incriminating.....Trump would be gone already. What incentive does Bannon have to keep Trump's secret?
Keep in mind that a very large number of the stories given to Fake News are fake. The results of so many of them ending up being wrong speak for themselves, but we also know some insiders into the Trump camp have said the camp plants fake news frequently, and Trump has publicly alluded to it as well.
Lots of people say similar things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Though that's not the story here. The story is why something that clearly was meant as a way to compliment his daughter exclusively was taken to mean something else? Probably because The View has nothing but retards who can't imagine that there are millions of people who are not as retarded as them.
That's a real slippery slope wuf. You can really fuck yourself up trying to play out all these 3d chess scenarios in your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
At face value, the Bannon quote appears merely to be the salty, cantankerous, hyperbolic rantings of a disgruntled fired employee. There's really no reason to read anything more into it than that.
Plus, he didn't exactly say it to the news media. He was quoted in a book. A book that includes the contents of extensive and exhaustive interviews with Trump's inner circle, and Trump himself. And in this expose into the inner workings of the Trump white house....this Bannon quote appears to be the most nefarious anecdote. In other words, this book seems really fucking boring and full of nothing.
Occams razor is your friend wuf.
Sounds like the author has a history of falsifying quotes.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
On a more interesting note, believe me, I'm very conservative about 3d chess stuff. The vast majority of 3d chess claims are not 3d chess. Yet, if we're playing Werewolf, Trump's response to Bannon is classic wolf. Makes ya think.
Please elaborate?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I don't know what that is. I doubt Trump doesQuote:
Yet, if we're playing Werewolf,
I didn't know he gave a response? Most Trump related news today has to do with triggered snowflakes bitching about Trump violating twitters's terms of use and trying to get his account banned. Apparently talking about nuclear buttons makes some whiny cunts think Trump is trying to incite nuclear war, or glorifying mass death, or something ridiculous of that nature.Quote:
Trump's response to Bannon is classic wolf. Makes ya think
Just saw the news about Trumps response to Bannon. Probably a little over the top. I would have played it cooler. Bannon's doing a good enough job embarrassing himself (dude...fucking shave!!!). Trumps opponents will flock and fawn over anything Trump denounces, so in a weird way, by lashing out, he's giving Bannon some credibility.
For what it's worth, I believe the Bannon quote is accurate, and I agree with him that the way the meeting was handled was not optimal.
But it's big leap from that, to "treason".
Werewolf is a game where you try to figure out who is not telling the truth based on what they write. As this forum's best Werewolf player (just ask anybody), Trump's response post to Bannon smells like he is not telling the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Did some posts disappear??
Yes.
Shame, too. I was particularly proud of the Putin gif. Perfect reply to his comment for this thread.
it was perfect!
https://i.imgur.com/3d221C2.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If you're implying that Jamie Gold is dumb, or that you're a better poker player than he is, you should have warned me.
A man my age can hurt himself shaking his head that much.
I'm grunching a bit here, but regarding MMM's question about Russia's motives to make contact with the Trump campaign:
Their motives are chaos. If they can get the Trump team in a room with Russian operatives, it doesn't matter if there is actual collusion or not, the appearance alone will cause absolute havoc. The thing is, the Russians hedged with bread crumbs leading to Clinton as well. And even better, Trump's ties to Russia and the Clinton's past dealings with Trump (however limited) are enough to spin conspiratorial stories about Trump being a stooge meant to weaken the Republican's primary candidates, and if he wins the primary against all odds, he's and easy knock down for Clinton. They just happened to hit the jackpot with Trump winning the general too.
I think this is the most plausible story about the Russians involvement. They sewed the seeds of chaos, and here they are reaping their harvest. If the Trump team did in fact open themselves up to legal jeopardy via collusion, great-- if not, there's still enough to cause an investigation. With an investigation, even if there is no guilt, it necessarily has to dig deep, which means any dirt that is there could be found. This explains an innocent, with regards to Russian collusion, Trump committing obstruction, further feeding the chaos.
And you people call me a troll.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ha, I guess I was assuming you were a slightly competent poker player and/or aware of Gold's (at the time of winning the bracelet) lack of skill.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
But to your point, whether or not I am a better poker player than Gold, or a better businessman than Trump is irrelevant.
What is the evidence of Trump colluding with Russia?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Wuf, your reasoning that Trump is innocent because he is allowing Mueller to continue doing his job is erroneous and does not encapsulate the interests and incentives for all the pieces on the board.
If Trump fires Mueller now, there is no way it can look good. A significant portion of the electorate will see it as obstruction. This is bad for everyone. It puts the republican congress in a tough spot, etc.
Sessions moves all point towards him thinking impeachment or a failed bid at a second term are likely. He's doing just enough to appease Trump and the base and otherwise staying out of it.
Mueller has all the incentive to take down a president. That is how he makes it into the history books. Nothing about him says he's interested in anything Trump, or pretty much anyone else has to offer. He is not climbing the ladder, this is the top. This is his moment.
The truth is, Trump is playing 3D chess, as is everyone else involved. The question though is who is a fish? Who understands basic strategy and who is a grandmaster? The fun thing with this view is that it doesn't put all its weight on an assumption of anyone's ability except that the Russians probably have to be Grandmasters and I've got no qualms about this being where my money lies.
This question makes me think you misread or misunderstood my post. The theory at the root of my post does not hinge on whether or not there is evidence of Trump's collusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I am both. Though I think he gets a bad rap. Are the bad plays we saw the result of a lack of skill, or the result of a mistake, lapse of judgement, or other unusual circumstance. I also kind of think that at the time, poker fans expected the big names to win the big games. I think poker audiences at the time were alot more casual, and didn't really understand that a tournament with a field of thousands requires a tremendous amount of luck to win, no matter how good you are. People just thought that Ivey and the gang would be at the final table every year. So when Jamie fucking gold showed up....they were like...."look at this loser".Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
I mean, right there in the picture he's wearing a hat for a poker business with his name on it. Regardless of his performance in one tournament, the man knows a thing or two about poker, and has made a career in it. A career successful enough to make him a household name to people like you.
You simply can not accomplish that without "skill"
If you want to talk about "skill" relative to his peers, maybe that's a different discussion. Though as I said, skill can go fuck it self in tourneys with 5000+ runners.
Ok, so we ARE talking skill relative to peers then? So why bring up Jamie Gold?Quote:
But to your point, whether or not I am a better poker player than Gold, or a better businessman than Trump is irrelevant.
Anyway, let's play this game. Trumps peers:
Obama: Dismal economic growth, a health care plan that's already coming apart, and notorious corruption
Bush 2: Blew all the economy's money on wars and left america broke
Clinton: Fucked around in the white house.
Trump: Plummetted illegal immigration, stopped immigration from terrorist countries, cut taxes, eliminated the individual mandate, and a bunch of other shit I've listed in this thread already. All while brushing off silly rumors turned humongous investigation.
The dynamic between Trump and Mueller is a useful tool to evaluate how intelligent it is to believe Mueller is going after Trump in the landscape of scant evidence. It isn't itself evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Sure, and it would be significantly better for Trump than not firing Mueller if Trump's hands are dirty. Also, the current status is already well beyond where these rationale became important. If Trump is dirty, it is very unlikely he lets it get this far in the first place. Still, that isn't evidence. It's one of those "if it doesn't look like a duck or walk like a duck, it probably ain't a duck" things.Quote:
If Trump fires Mueller now, there is no way it can look good. A significant portion of the electorate will see it as obstruction. This is bad for everyone. It puts the republican congress in a tough spot, etc.
Larry Schweikart has inside sources in the Trump administration, one of which included Bannon. Schweikart claims that Bannon told him that the Sessions recusal was planned by the Trump administration. Additionally, the back and forth heat between Trump and Sessions is one of the most likely scenarios of intended fake news on the part of the Trump administration.Quote:
Sessions moves all point towards him thinking impeachment or a failed bid at a second term are likely. He's doing just enough to appease Trump and the base and otherwise staying out of it.
Is Schweikart right? Who knows. But his claim is the most credible of anything public I've seen on this issue. Everything else is some "sources familiar with their thinking" nonsense.
Why are you hedging your case for Gold's skill with things likeQuote:
Though as I said, skill can go fuck it self in tourneys with 5000+ runners.
You've made a reasonable case for why onlookers underrated Gold, but you have not done so with regards to Gold being a skilled player. You've actually made my case, which really has nothing to do with Gold. Gold being a skilled player or not is irrelevant to the veracity of my critique of your claims regarding Poop's derision towards Trump's accomplishments. I'll even concede that Gold is a highly skilled poker player. Instead just substitute "Gold" with an unskilled player who has lucked his way to a win in a large tournament or gone on an extended heater. Such a player could easily be mistaken for a skilled player by many onlookers who are not qualified to judge a player's skill.
You may not be one of those onlookers with regards to Trump (you are with Gold (ok, ok.. I know I said I concede, but lolyouretrippin)) but you have only displayed arguments which would lead us to believe you are. By this, I mean, you may have the ability to evaluate the talents of a businessman, but you have not put this ability on display-- instead you've made the arguments of an impressed layman.
Here's one way of examining the landscape by taking a step back.
In the beginning of Muh Russia, 100% of the focus was on Trump as chief baddy and the media were 100% on board with Mueller. Since then a significant amount of the focus has moved to others not Trump (with noticeable relations to the Clintons and others), and the media has turned on Mueller to a noticeable degree. This tells us something useful. And, from the beginning, some of us who don't live inside the ctrl-left universe have been saying this is a slow burn that will reveal no dirt on Trump and will ultimately fall on others. So far we're under budget ahead of schedule.
Wuf, your scenarios insist on more people being masters or grand masters. That or you're relying on the assumption that team Trump (including Sessions in this case) is in lockstep. The idea that Mueller (again, on team Trump and in lockstep in your scenario), Sessions, etc, are not playing their own game is near absurd. Especially after we've seen time and again members of team Trump to be shown to be playing their own game.
They can play whatever game they want, but there's only one king.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
You're extrapolating a lot from vague measurements.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This is what your above scenario rests on. Not only does it hinge on this, but layered on that is an assumption about this vague metric, the assumption that it means what you need it to mean.Quote:
the media has turned on Mueller to a noticeable degree.
Trump and Sessions are certainly on the same page. It's some real mental gymnastics to think that a President's AG is ever not on the President's page.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Regarding Mueller, we just don't know. My personal opinion is that Trump was looking for the person best for the job of special counsel of all things Russia and government corruption related such that they will follow the evidence and do so with credibility and expertise. Mueller is a possible candidate for that. Mueller being hired the day after Trump interviewed him is the kind of thing that signals this or something like this.
Also, some of the "own game" stuff played by members of the administration is fake news. Not all but some.
What extrapolations? I have watched this on the regular. The behavior of the media literally went from all pro-Mueller to some calls for Mueller to resign, and from Trump only being exposed to several others being exposed while nothing has changed on Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
You're giving the the Russians way too much credit here.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Yes, they sought to cultivate chaos. But, they did it all with the assumption that Clinton would win. The chaos was meant to be a distraction/annoyance to Clinton. Who knows what the endgame there was, but I assume it was something like "Clinton fights back with sanctions or something, Russia cries foul and villainizes the US, etc etc etc."
But the point is, the Russians never imagined that they would be THIS successful.
If Clinton won, the Russian meddling and ensuing pissing contest would be a C or D headline before fizzling out entirely in time for 2020.
It would have slightly more attention had Clinton lost to Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz, but ultimately would never be the massive hysterical story that it is now.
But since it's TRUMP, the Left had a stroke on election night. They used the Russian stuff in this deranged attempt to take trump down.
I doubt very very much that Russia ever anticipated the intensity of this hysteria