American Politics

[xi0]

The fact that the entire accusation stemmed from a completely false dossier backed by Trump's political opposition should tell you that enough.

I've yet to see any evidence that suggests the dossier was "completely false" though. You have some more salacious things in it that most new outlets didn't really even touch on, but the rest of it? Not so much. Of course, he and his supporters can get away with claiming that it's completely fake due to some of the aforementioned ridiculousness included in it, and fair enough (could have even been that way by design, in all honesty). But that doesn't necessarily render everything there as false, and neither does the source.

 

[kkck]

The entire witch hunt is fueled by the assertion that Trump was elected through collusion with Russia, via hacking and other ridiculous claims. It is an accusation not only against his campaign staff but Trump himself.

There is nothing shady about meeting with a Russian lawyer though, not even if it was to acquire information on another candidate (which it was not, as it was about the Magnitsky Act largely, which dozens of people can confirm) and something every single politician does. However, somehow it makes sense to the left that meeting with a Russian = collusion evidence. When it doesn't. And the Russian he met with, Natalia Veselnitskaya, was conveniently not a problem when Loretta Lynch granted her exceptionally rare immigration parole to help a Russian owned business with an asset forfeiture case in NY. Suddenly later, post rig-election failure when a Republican meets with her, its collusion and the deepest shade of criminal.

As for the two indicted, one of them was being investigated years prior to Trump even running. It isn't like Trump can read people's minds to know if they're laundering money for their own interests or is a scumbag criminal.

I have to ask again though how any of this is evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia? You keep saying there is "extraordinary evidence" etc etc but you don't give me anything actually about the collusion. No one who believes this fanfiction ever does. They just say "there's evidence" and point to completely unrelated crimes (such as laundering money) as well as Russians, as if talking to a Russian is in itself a criminal act and always ends in dirty, scandalous collusion efforts because, hey, they're Russian. So the only thing anyone can say is that two people in Trump's campaign are greedy sons of bitches that broke laws but the mere act of laundering money [etc] or talking to a Russian isn't evidence of some big bad plan to collude with a foreign power to rig an election.

There was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The fact that the entire accusation stemmed from a completely false dossier backed by Trump's political opposition should tell you that enough.

What are you talking about? Russia hacking and stealing DNC emails is by no means a ridiculous claim, if anything its the truth. As for trump jr's emails, he published the emails himself which specifically say he was meeting with that russian lawyer over dirt on hillary. And his defense over that was basically "nah, she didn't have anything anyways". So at a bare minimum he went there with every intention of getting dirt on hillary from the russian government. That alone validates the "witch hunt" regardless of whether anyone colluded at all. What does the bit with the russian owned business have anything to do with this? It's one thing if someone meets with a foreign government agent to get dirt on a political opponent and it is another completely different to help with an asset forfeiture... And if there was anything wrong with that then yeah, it should absolutely be investigated.

Yeah, and the guy that pleaded guilty (george papanopolous or whatever his name is) lied about a number of meetings and his connections to a number of people. That alone also justifies the whole thing...

So you have 3 indicted people, all part of trump's campaign, one who was actually it's leader, then another 2 one of whom pleaded guilty to lying about the FBI about his meetings and contacts with russian agents, you have trump jr literally saying he wanted to be in a meeting with a russian agent over dirt on hillary and then god knows how much more stuff and yet there is no evidence whatsoever? Come on, that is asinine, no reasonable person could plausibly believe that. Trump's campaign is at a bare minimum insanely suspicious and absolutely deserves to be investigated. That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with researching your opposition. The issue here would be doing so with a hostile foreign power rather than, say, pretty much anything else.

As for the dossier.... What about it? Say it was as fabricated as you say. How would the FBI find out about that? With an investigation of course... The investigation itself is not an issue. If there is nothing to it then there shouldn't be a single indictment as a result of it. It's not like trump is currently campaigning or anything of the sort.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 3, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 3, 2017 ---

I've yet to see any evidence that suggests the dossier was "completely false" though. You have some more salacious things in it that most new outlets didn't really even touch on, but the rest of it? Not so much. Of course, he and his supporters can get away with claiming that it's completely fake due to some of the aforementioned ridiculousness included in it, and fair enough (could have even been that way by design, in all honesty). But that doesn't necessarily render everything there as false, and neither does the source.

I have skimmed the thing however the main issue with it I see is that it is basically a bunch of hearsay. You can't arrest anyone based on the dossier alone without there being more evidence. That said, there is a bit which in it I ran into that is absolutely true: The bit with carter page. I have no idea if there is more to this as a whole however the dossier does mention the guy having meetings with Russian government agents to which he has admitted to having over the past few days. Still, I haven't read the whole thing but from what I can tell the rest of it is basically hearsay at best.

 

[Styx]

I've yet to see any evidence that suggests the dossier was "completely false" though. You have some more salacious things in it that most new outlets didn't really even touch on, but the rest of it? Not so much. Of course, he and his supporters can get away with claiming that it's completely fake due to some of the aforementioned ridiculousness included in it, and fair enough (could have even been that way by design, in all honesty).

All information presented in the Steele Dossier are unverified allegations. Empty words. If you don't believe me, believe the intelligence community that took up the tab for the dossier and has come out saying it is just empty allegations. The content was created in order to provide reason for the government to destroy Trump as a candidate. There is absolutely no evidence to even slightly suggest anything within the dossier is real. I encourage you to prove me wrong though.

However so far the intelligence community has nothing. The DNC has nothing. The main stream media has nothing. And yet despite all of this nothing, this lack of evidence, I'm supposed to believe a ridiculous dossier is real?

But that doesn't necessarily render everything there as false, and neither does the source.

No evidence exists and was ever given. The dossier itself is not evidence, nor is a man's word. Are you saying you are okay with condemning Trump to unverified accusations of crimes you have no evidence of?

EDIT

What are you talking about? Russia hacking and stealing DNC emails is by no means a ridiculous claim, if anything its the truth. As for trump jr's emails, he published the emails himself which specifically say he was meeting with that russian lawyer over dirt on hillary. And his defense over that was basically "nah, she didn't have anything anyways". So at a bare minimum he went there with every intention of getting dirt on hillary from the russian government. That alone validates the "witch hunt" regardless of whether anyone colluded at all. What does the bit with the russian owned business have anything to do with this? It's one thing if someone meets with a foreign government agent to get dirt on a political opponent and it is another completely different to help with an asset forfeiture... And if there was anything wrong with that then yeah, it should absolutely be investigated.

Only Russia didn't hack them and steal emails. Seth Rich, as confirmed by Wikileaks and private messages who leaked the content, was the one that leaked that content that Hillary lied about a dozen times before changing her story to "Russians! Russians!". It was all another big, fat lie. However, even if I was to believe Russia hacked the emails and spread them around, how does this prove it was collusion between Trump and Russia? There is also no evidence it was Russia that leaked the content (it wasn't).

There is absolutely zero evidence that shows Trump colluded with Russia. Zero. You provide, as I said, completely unrelated incidents and crimes as proof of collusion, but it isn't.

Yes, he went for dirt on Hillary, however the main subject of the meeting was about the Magnitsky Act. The lawyer was said to also have information (according to Rob Goldstone in the email via a request from Emin) on Clinton concerning ties to Kremlin, but that turned out to be nothing the moment they sat down (she had lied to talk about the MA). Though I say again; meeting people for oppositional research is not a crime. Every politician does this. A bit dirty and under handed, sure, but not a crime and it certainly doesn't "validate" collusion allegations. You keep mentioning this as if talking to a Russian somehow = collusion. It doesn't. What you are providing is not evidence. Where is the link that ties this meeting to collusion efforts?

I was pointing out how the woman was suddenly trust worthy and unrelated to Putin seeking to harm our country when Loretta Lynch needed her. Basically I was saying it means nothing that Eric met with her. Absolutely nothing.

Yeah, and the guy that pleaded guilty (george papanopolous or whatever his name is) lied about a number of meetings and his connections to a number of people. That alone also justifies the whole thing...

But how? How does it justify accusations of collusion by Trump if there is no evidence? The men are liars and a criminals, definitely, but their crimes have absolutely nothing to do with the collusion accusations. Why? Because you can't link completely unrelated crimes to Russian collusion accusations against Trump without evidence of that ridiculous jump. It doesn't work like that.

(Papadopoulos. Ridiculous name, so just call him Papadappa. )

So you have 3 indicted people, all part of trump's campaign, one who was actually it's leader, then another 2 one of whom pleaded guilty to lying about the FBI about his meetings and contacts with russian agents, you have trump jr literally saying he wanted to be in a meeting with a russian agent over dirt on hillary and then god knows how much more stuff and yet there is no evidence whatsoever? Come on, that is asinine, no reasonable person could plausibly believe that. Trump's campaign is at a bare minimum insanely suspicious and absolutely deserves to be investigated. That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with researching your opposition. The issue here would be doing so with a hostile foreign power rather than, say, pretty much anything else.

Yes...three people were indicted over unrelated crimes. Unrelated. And again...meeting with a Russian, even over oppositional research, is not a crime or a sign of guilt. Why do you keep mentioning it as if it is or absolutely proves collusion? I understand clearly that you and many others think talking to this woman shows collusion, but how? Explain the link between the two and how it works.

You said it. No evidence. If you think it is asinine to look at unrelated crimes and wonder how the hell it connects to Russian collusion allegations without evidence of connection being provided, then go ahead? I only like to condemn a man to a crime when there's hard proof he did the crime, not because he or someone he knows spoke to a Slavic person or tried to dig up intel on his opposition, like any politician will do.

The simple fact is there is nothing to back up these claims.

As for the dossier.... What about it? Say it was as fabricated as you say. How would the FBI find out about that? With an investigation of course... The investigation itself is not an issue. If there is nothing to it then there shouldn't be a single indictment as a result of it. It's not like trump is currently campaigning or anything of the sort.

The indictments ongoing right now are a result of unrelated crimes. They have nothing to do with the dossier's content, at least legally (still the reason they're doing it). The people involved were just found to have lied on other issues during the original questioning.

And how the FBI found out about it? It was passed on from FusionGPS to David J. Kramer through John McCain's request, who then passed it onto the FBI Director James ComeyI. The FBI then decided to pay Christoper Steele to continue the "research" but the plan quickly fell as they couldn't verify any of the content. And the rest is history, so to say.

 

[xi0]

No evidence exists and was ever given. The dossier itself is not evidence, nor is a man's word. Are you saying you are okay with condemning Trump to unverified accusations of crimes you have no evidence of?

How is it not evidence? Evidence for what? I think it completely justifies an investigation, but I didn't ever say it was justification for charging anyone with a crime, did I? That's what Mueller's investigation is for, no? Or is there some reason for you to doubt Mueller's intentions as well? I'm simply stating that there is information in the dossier that's been corroborated, and will admit that this could be intentional in order to make the total of it appear true. But even still, that's not something you look at and just shrug off either.

I just don't see how any neutral party can label this entire thing a "witch hunt", when it was supported by the GOP-controlled congress. And whether this investigation has any merit or not has next to nothing to do with the Democrats, so I'm not sure what the point of bringing them up is. Investigate them all, fuck it.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 3, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 3, 2017 ---

And boiling down Trump's opposition to "Drumpf's a meanie" teeters a bit too far into "intellectual dishonesty" territory for my tastes. You can be rightfully skeptical of the mainstream media and anti-establishment and still regard Trump as a failure as a statesmen in nearly every sense. Is there anything you actually oppose Trump on, or are you too busy criticizing the media to get into that? Because I'm not sure I've ever seen you mention anything like that.

 

[M3J]

Just imagine how much of a proud and enthusiastic dullard you have to be to use your poor kid as a prop to try (and fail) to make a point about "socialism", when the entire premise of Halloween is knocking on doors and asking for handouts.

Not to mention, I'd rather take socialism where everyone benefits over capitalism, where only the wealthy benefit. That's the gist I get from Junior, that he seems unable to understand that the hypothetical kid may have stayed home due to a bad injury, important homework, or responsibilities even though he wanted to go trick or treating.

Just curious are most of you who posted Americans? I just read today that their are more rumors of impeachment.

I am an American. And there's usually rumors but nothing is done because republicans would rather see US get destroyed than bother impeaching Trump; the only way that'd happen is if Trump starts going more to the left or starts doing things that helps the non-wealthy Americans.

 

[Styx]

Mother Russia ran out of vodka for their agents, so my exhaustion might have slipped into my post in the form of grammatical errors. Forgive them, or I'll hack all your computerz.

EDIT

Oh sheet, Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile have come out to confirm Hillary Clinton rigged the Democratic primary! I don't know how anyone could deny it at this point, given all the emails and election cheating Donna did for Hillary but uh...okay.

Donna and Elizabeth are just as corrupt and disgusting. They're just trying to save their own skins. Otherwise...

How is it not evidence? Evidence for what? I think it completely justifies an investigation, but I didn't ever say it was justification for charging anyone with a crime, did I? That's what Mueller's investigation is for, no? Or is there some reason for you to doubt Mueller's intentions as well? I'm simply stating that there is information in the dossier that's been corroborated, and will admit that this could be intentional in order to make the total of it appear true. But even still, that's not something you look at and just shrug off either.

Hmm? The dossier's existence is not evidence of collusion. The dossier itself is the unverifiable allegation of collusion, not the evidence. Evidence would be something that proves the content within the dossier is absolutely true and undeniable. Which simply doesn't exist.

Oh, sure, investigate it. I'm not saying they should stop, all things like this should be thoroughly discredited or proven. That way when they come up with nothing again people can hopefully let the fabricated lies put out by the DNC go. Unlikely though, given the way people are reacting to the allegations given currently without evidence.

Of what are you talking about being corroborated, and by whom? The very people who funded and created the lie? Do these corroborations come with evidence, or just someone's word that it happened?

I just don't see how any neutral party can label this entire thing a "witch hunt", when it was supported by the GOP-controlled congress. And whether this investigation has any merit or not has next to nothing to do with the Democrats, so I'm not sure what the point of bringing them up is. Investigate them all, fuck it.

Because it is. At the moment all anyone has against Trump is an accusation. There is no evidence to prove that accusation. The fact that the dossier has now been confirmed to be created by the DNC (and passed about many of Hillary's cohorts within the government) to ruin Trump should prove it started out as a witch hunt and still is and is nothing more than that.

Until the day actual evidence comes out to prove the accusations within the dossier are real, from golden showers to Russian collusion, that's all this is. A baseless witch hunt to discredit Trump's victory and character.

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 3, 2017, Original Post Date: Nov 3, 2017 ---

And boiling down Trump's opposition to "Drumpf's a meanie" teeters a bit too far into "intellectual dishonesty" territory for my tastes. You can be rightfully skeptical of the mainstream media and anti-establishment and still regard Trump as a failure as a statesmen in nearly every sense. Is there anything you actually oppose Trump on, or are you too busy criticizing the media to get into that? Because I'm not sure I've ever seen you mention anything like that.

Strangely enough I don't see such complaints in this thread when Hillary/Bernie/anti-Trump opposition is constantly boiled down to nothing but "racist, sexist, unintelligent scum" or "ignorant/uninformed puppets" etc etc. In fact, the thread is basically a safe space for a specific kind of political belief. Besides all that, I was largely just poking fun at liberals sensitivities resulting in asking for impeachments.

I take my media corruption and incompetency seriously, I apologize, but yes there are many things I oppose Trump on. I believe I have mentioned it before, but I could be wrong. To answer you: I don't agree with the Keystone, his general disinterest with Net Neutrality and disregard of human impact on the climate. I also don't approve, entirely, of lifting restrictions on coal mining etc etc.

Is there anything you agree with Trump on? Somehow I feel the question will get a "no", but I'm curious now.

 

[Franckie]

The entire witch hunt is fueled by the assertion that Trump was elected through collusion with Russia, via hacking and other ridiculous claims. It is an accusation not only against his campaign staff but Trump himself.

There is nothing shady about meeting with a Russian lawyer though, not even if it was to acquire information on another candidate (which it was not, as it was about the Magnitsky Act largely, which dozens of people can confirm) and something every single politician does. However, somehow it makes sense to the left that meeting with a Russian = collusion evidence. When it doesn't. And the Russian he met with, Natalia Veselnitskaya, was conveniently not a problem when Loretta Lynch granted her exceptionally rare immigration parole to help a Russian owned business with an asset forfeiture case in NY. Suddenly later, post rig-election failure when a Republican meets with her, its collusion and the deepest shade of criminal.

As for the two indicted, one of them was being investigated years prior to Trump even running. It isn't like Trump can read people's minds to know if they're laundering money for their own interests or is a scumbag criminal.

I have to ask again though how any of this is evidence of collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia? You keep saying there is "extraordinary evidence" etc etc but you don't give me anything actually about the collusion. No one who believes this fanfiction ever does. They just say "there's evidence" and point to completely unrelated crimes (such as laundering money) as well as Russians, as if talking to a Russian is in itself a criminal act and always ends in dirty, scandalous collusion efforts because, hey, they're Russian. So the only thing anyone can say is that two people in Trump's campaign are greedy sons of bitches that broke laws but the mere act of laundering money [etc] or talking to a Russian isn't evidence of some big bad plan to collude with a foreign power to rig an election.

There was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The fact that the entire accusation stemmed from a completely false dossier backed by Trump's political opposition should tell you that enough.

Donald Trump Jr. met with the Russians to verify whether they really had dirt on Clinton or not. There were other undisclosed meetings between Trump allies + Russian figures as passed on by European intelligence agencies during the 2016 campaign. What matters is the willingness of US officials to engage a hostile foreign regime to conduct political espionage against their respective political opponent. Key members of Trump's campaign (cough*Manaford*cough) have now been charged by Mueller's legal team for acts like conspiring against the United States. Unfortunately, the murky legal term for collusion isn't defined enough to account for everything happening out in broad daylight. Believe it or not, none of these guys have to literally meet with each other to understand one another and how to use the other toward their advantage.

Probably the only other high Trump official who'll be charged with anyone is Flynn. Regardless, it doesn't change what happened. The current president of the United States asked on live television for the Russians to conduct political espionage against Clinton. He then fired the FBI Director over said investigation, which he said on live television, and will probably fire Mueller to prevent further investigations into Trump's murky finances.

Putin has made decisions in recent years that have come to bite him in the rear end (cough*‎having Sergei Magnitsky killed*cough), but I have to admit how he and his subordinates played our gullible media for a fiddle is one for the history books.

P.S. Your avatar isn't really helping your case. People will think you're a Russian stooge like Trump and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher.

 

[kkck]

Gotta love the donna brazille bit. Unfortunately nothing of what she has revealed will get anyone in prison (because it being illegal as career manchild trumpy says is untrue) but hopefully it will be enough to jumpstart the democrat party purge of every clinton bought person there.

 

[M3J]

Trump could literally admit that he colluded with Russia and made sure Hillary lost, and his supporters would still say fake news or that he's just kidding, in the same sentence mentioning he "says it like it is." There are countless of proof that Trump is a lying piece of crap, but his supporters don't believe it because he's brainwashed them into thinking any criticism against him is fake, and for some reason no Trump supporter is suspicious of that.

I mean, most of them are same people who said Obama divided America or made it racist even though Trump and the Blue Lives Matter/anti-anthem-kneeling people are the ones who are actually dividing America and making racists bolder.

 

[Styx]

Gotta love the donna brazille bit. Unfortunately nothing of what she has revealed will get anyone in prison (because it being illegal as career manchild trumpy says is untrue) but hopefully it will be enough to jumpstart the democrat party purge of every clinton bought person there.

Rigging a primary and stealing the position itself is not the illegal part, it would be how she did it. For example, if there was an investigation to see the extent of this scandal, a feasible place to look first would be Financial Records to see if any of it violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. It could also tell us if she also violated campaign finance reporting laws, which if Brazile can be trusted (which admittedly, alone, she cannot) Hillary Clinton did during her take over.

Lastly, investigation could reveal whether or not she violated campaign contribution limits set by the aforementioned Act or reporting requirements and if she then channeled the proceeds from one source to another, which is money laundering.

Of course no investigation will come of this, because Hillary Clinton is never held up to the law, but I too hope the DNC is purged from her taint. Without it, I'm sure she'll run again and steal the nomination again.

Donald Trump Jr. met with the Russians to verify whether they really had dirt on Clinton or not. There were other undisclosed meetings between Trump allies + Russian figures as passed on by European intelligence agencies during the 2016 campaign. What matters is the willingness of US officials to engage a hostile foreign regime to conduct political espionage against their respective political opponent. Key members of Trump's campaign (cough*Manaford*cough) have now been charged by Mueller's legal team for acts like conspiring against the United States.

Yes yes, we all know he met for dirt on Hillary, but I'll say again; meeting with a Russian isn't a crime and neither is conducting oppositional research with a Russian and nor does it conclude to guilt of "willingness to collude with a foreign power".

Lastly, Manafort's 12 charges are related to laundering, failure to disclose their financial assets, and false statements regarding their work for the government of Ukraine and a Ukrainian political party. None of his charges have anything do with the central search of "Russian collusion" in the 2016 election, as it all mostly predates Manafort's time in the campaign. The only Slavic government they worked with and is charged to have been working with was the Ukraine, but despite what some MSM will tell you, Ukraine and Russia are not one and the same. So while yes the statutory allegations of "conspiracy against the United States" are in the list of charges, actual felony violation of FARA does not automatically result in the conclusion you and many are hoping for.

If you don't believe me about his charges, just google them. Manafort, nor Gates, have anything to do with the collusion allegations. Mueller is hoping to get Manafort etc to "turn" on Trump and confirm the collusion allegations with the present unrelated charges. At the moment...they simply have nothing on the collusion claims.

However, if this is damning to you and anyone else, I hope you are quite so willing to stand by this accepted "evidence" of a crime and support such an investigation into the DNC and involved parties. Why? Well, because the dossier was retained by the DNC and Clinton Foundation through FusionGPS, a heavily Kremlin tied business, to gather this information. We know for a fact they paid for it. The crime comes from the information's alleged sources, a Russian agent within the Russian government, as they are mentioned as a source by Steele himself, who you should know as one of the dossier's later authors (whom was also paid by the DNC). The crime committed here would be paying a foreign governmental agent (the Russian) for oppositional research.

And unlike the dossier, which itself is not evidence for Trump's collusion allegations, the dossier itself is evidence to the DNC and Clinton's collusion with a foreign government to subvert our democracy by spreading this information, whether or not the contents within the dossier are true.

Unfortunately, the murky legal term for collusion isn't defined enough to account for everything happening out in broad daylight. Believe it or not, none of these guys have to literally meet with each other to understand one another and how to use the other toward their advantage.

And so he doesn't have to be legally charged, nor charged with actual evidence, to be condemned on charges of collusion? The simple act of talking with a Russian and committing unrelated crimes to that accused against him and the Trump campaign is simple enough?

Rather unfortunate to be an American these days. Guilty (on no evidence) until proven innocent.

Probably the only other high Trump official who'll be charged with anyone is Flynn. Regardless, it doesn't change what happened. The current president of the United States asked on live television for the Russians to conduct political espionage against Clinton. He then fired the FBI Director over said investigation, which he said on live television, and will probably fire Mueller to prevent further investigations into Trump's murky finances.

Oh...you're referring to his statement/instance, joke or not, right?

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."

Okay, so let me get this straight. This statement is "evidence" of collusion or willingness to collude? That's almost as ridiculous as CNN's hosts claiming reading Wikileaks was illegal and that all information had to be passed to you from CNN. And of course, still not evidence of anything. Try using this in a court and see where it'll get ya, which evidently enough, Mueller would have if it was feasible evidence.

He fired Comey because Comey was a corrupted, dirty little snake that refused to investigate not one but multiple scandals committed by Clinton and the DNC on actual evidence (that he lied about and covered up) the FBI itself came across and built but quickly and not only leapt on but funded a false dossier crafted by Kremlin tied FusionGPS with Russian gov't agents as "sources" with no evidence behind its allegations whatsoever to ruin Trump for Clinton, but sure...he fired Comey because he was investigating him.

There's no reason for Mueller to be fired, but I suspect that if the man shows a willingness to conduct one sided justice as Comey had (he has not so far but hey, wouldn't be the first time a governmental agency did), no one but the Democrats will cry over his termination. That's to be expected of that outcome, though.

You're right though; none of this changes the simple fact that you/anyone in this thread, Mueller, Comey and almost two years worth of "political research" (fanfiction) on Trump, with the aid of Obama's admin and all of our investigative agencies via various wiretaps and the paying of actual Kremlin tied companies, have come up with nothing. Well...not nothing. You guys caught Manafort and Gates in a massive money laundering scheme and the devilish crime of working with the Ukrainian government to help fund their lavish lifestyles.

Putin has made decisions in recent years that have come to bite him in the rear end (cough*‎having Sergei Magnitsky killed*cough), but I have to admit how he and his subordinates played our gullible media for a fiddle is one for the history books.

It is quite easy to play our media as fools. They do it themselves constantly.

P.S. Your avatar isn't really helping your case. People will think you're a Russian stooge like Trump and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher.

And what if I am Russian? Yours and or any other's prejudices and asinine fears of Russians isn't something I make a habit of caring about.

 

[kkck]

Rigging a primary and stealing the position itself is not the illegal part, it would be how she did it. For example, if there was an investigation to see the extent of this scandal, a feasible place to look first would be Financial Records to see if any of it violated the Federal Election Campaign Act. It could also tell us if she also violated campaign finance reporting laws, which if Brazile can be trusted (which admittedly, alone, she cannot) Hillary Clinton did during her take over.

Lastly, investigation could reveal whether or not she violated campaign contribution limits set by the aforementioned Act or reporting requirements and if she then channeled the proceeds from one source to another, which is money laundering.

Of course no investigation will come of this, because Hillary Clinton is never held up to the law, but I too hope the DNC is purged from her taint. Without it, I'm sure she'll run again and steal the nomination again.



Yes yes, we all know he met for dirt on Hillary, but I'll say again; meeting with a Russian isn't a crime and neither is conducting oppositional research with a Russian and nor does it conclude to guilt of "willingness to collude with a foreign power".

Lastly, Manafort's 12 charges are related to laundering, failure to disclose their financial assets, and false statements regarding their work for the government of Ukraine and a Ukrainian political party. None of his charges have anything do with the central search of "Russian collusion" in the 2016 election, as it all mostly predates Manafort's time in the campaign. The only Slavic government they worked with and is charged to have been working with was the Ukraine, but despite what some MSM will tell you, Ukraine and Russia are not one and the same. So while yes the statutory allegations of "conspiracy against the United States" are in the list of charges, actual felony violation of FARA does not automatically result in the conclusion you and many are hoping for.

If you don't believe me about his charges, just google them. Manafort, nor Gates, have anything to do with the collusion allegations. Mueller is hoping to get Manafort etc to "turn" on Trump and confirm the collusion allegations with the present unrelated charges. At the moment...they simply have nothing on the collusion claims.

However, if this is damning to you and anyone else, I hope you are quite so willing to stand by this accepted "evidence" of a crime and support such an investigation into the DNC and involved parties. Why? Well, because the dossier was retained by the DNC and Clinton Foundation through FusionGPS, a heavily Kremlin tied business, to gather this information. We know for a fact they paid for it. The crime comes from the information's alleged sources, a Russian agent within the Russian government, as they are mentioned as a source by Steele himself, who you should know as one of the dossier's later authors (whom was also paid by the DNC). The crime committed here would be paying a foreign governmental agent (the Russian) for oppositional research.

And unlike the dossier, which itself is not evidence for Trump's collusion allegations, the dossier itself is evidence to the DNC and Clinton's collusion with a foreign government to subvert our democracy by spreading this information, whether or not the contents within the dossier are true.



And so he doesn't have to be legally charged, nor charged with actual evidence, to be condemned on charges of collusion? The simple act of talking with a Russian and committing unrelated crimes to that accused against him and the Trump campaign is simple enough?

Rather unfortunate to be an American these days. Guilty (on no evidence) until proven innocent.



Oh...you're referring to his statement/instance, joke or not, right?



Okay, so let me get this straight. This statement is "evidence" of collusion or willingness to collude? That's almost as ridiculous as CNN's hosts claiming reading Wikileaks was illegal and that all information had to be passed to you from CNN. And of course, still not evidence of anything. Try using this in a court and see where it'll get ya, which evidently enough, Mueller would have if it was feasible evidence.

He fired Comey because Comey was a corrupted, dirty little snake that refused to investigate not one but multiple scandals committed by Clinton and the DNC on actual evidence (that he lied about and covered up) the FBI itself came across and built but quickly and not only leapt on but funded a false dossier crafted by Kremlin tied FusionGPS with Russian gov't agents as "sources" with no evidence behind its allegations whatsoever to ruin Trump for Clinton, but sure...he fired Comey because he was investigating him.

There's no reason for Mueller to be fired, but I suspect that if the man shows a willingness to conduct one sided justice as Comey had (he has not so far but hey, wouldn't be the first time a governmental agency did), no one but the Democrats will cry over his termination. That's to be expected of that outcome, though.

You're right though; none of this changes the simple fact that you/anyone in this thread, Mueller, Comey and almost two years worth of "political research" (fanfiction) on Trump, with the aid of Obama's admin and all of our investigative agencies via various wiretaps and the paying of actual Kremlin tied companies, have come up with nothing. Well...not nothing. You guys caught Manafort and Gates in a massive money laundering scheme and the devilish crime of working with the Ukrainian government to help fund their lavish lifestyles.



It is quite easy to play our media as fools. They do it themselves constantly.



And what if I am Russian? Yours and or any other's prejudices and asinine fears of Russians isn't something I make a habit of caring about.

Information about that is already out there. Unfortunately campaign donation laws are way too lax to begin with and there is also the issue of the clintons actually being competent when it comes to money. It would be amazing if the clintons could be arrested for all of this but the bulk of it seems largely legal. It is grotesquely unethical and perhaps in a country with less lax donation rules it would be very much illegal but as it is there likely is nothing there. The important thing is that now that the extent to which the clintons own the democrat party is known each and every clinton politician gets identified and voted out of office with their reputations so deep in the gutter that it's very mention is toxic.

 

[Styx]

Information about that is already out there. Unfortunately campaign donation laws are way too lax to begin with and there is also the issue of the clintons actually being competent when it comes to money. It would be amazing if the clintons could be arrested for all of this but the bulk of it seems largely legal. It is grotesquely unethical and perhaps in a country with less lax donation rules it would be very much illegal but as it is there likely is nothing there. The important thing is that now that the extent to which the clintons own the democrat party is known each and every clinton politician gets identified and voted out of office with their reputations so deep in the gutter that it's very mention is toxic.

It is? Would you mind pointing me towards that information? As I have it, we don't know anything beyond the leaks and accounts given by Donna etc etc. Though I agree it would be hard to find given how competent a criminal she is.

I also doubt any of this coming to light is going to change anything, but hopefully.

 

[xi0]

Strangely enough I don't see such complaints in this thread when Hillary/Bernie/anti-Trump opposition is constantly boiled down to nothing but "racist, sexist, unintelligent scum" or "ignorant/uninformed puppets" etc etc. In fact, the thread is basically a safe space for a specific kind of political belief. Besides all that, I was largely just poking fun at liberals sensitivities resulting in asking for impeachments.

I take my media corruption and incompetency seriously, I apologize, but yes there are many things I oppose Trump on. I believe I have mentioned it before, but I could be wrong. To answer you: I don't agree with the Keystone, his general disinterest with Net Neutrality and disregard of human impact on the climate. I also don't approve, entirely, of lifting restrictions on coal mining etc etc.

Is there anything you agree with Trump on? Somehow I feel the question will get a "no", but I'm curious now.

Well, I don't think you're paying enough attention to the thread then IMO. I'd say I was more of a devil's advocate than most during the election. You're also not really privy to any sort of moderator action. The environment here is as open as I can possibly make it. Just because you're outnumbered in your support doesn't make this thread a "safe space". Or is r/The_Donald somehow not a safe space/echo-chamber by your definition? I don't personally take part in the discussion here just so I can get reconfirmation on my stances. It's a discussion/debate, after all. I don't mind being challenged.

It's hard to say with him. There probably is, but it's not like he's bothered on touching on much of a variety of things. Like any other politician he has an agenda. I will say that the things he's cared to focus on since being in office are things I've pretty much universally disagreed with him on, yeah. And I think it's obvious he spends way too much time waging a PR war instead of actually being a head of state. I suppose him trying to publish the full JFK files is something I agree with him on, even if it's only a recent thing.

 

[Styx]

I'm caffeine deprived tonight, please forgive any grammatical errors. I haven't the time to properly proof read my content.

Franckie:

Spoiler

Manafort and Gates were charged with 12 counts of the following: "conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA statements, false statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts." I'm not sure how familiar you are with the technical aspects of the investigation. There is no legal term for collusion because collusion itself is not a federal crime (save antitrust laws). The word “collusion” essentially oversimplifies the criminal and counterintelligence aspects of what we know.

On the criminal side, collusion means "conspiracy" because it is the best word to describe an agreement, between the Trump Campaign and Russia to commit (this includes willingness) any number of crimes (e.g., breaking federal laws on elections). Donald Trump, Jr.'s email chain demonstrates intent and agreement to violate laws like the Federal Election Campaign Act, which makes it explicitly clear that it is illegal to solicit campaign contribution materials from foreign nationals. So yes, it is a crime for US officials to meet with Russian officials and solicit oppositional material from them. Other crimes that fall under the "conspiracy" umbrella include obstruction of justice, making false statements, and wire fraud. Often in conspiracy cases there are cover-ups, which are just as bad as the original crimes. Lying to the federal government in your registration forms or your security application is a false statement. Using the wires to perpetrate your crime is often wire fraud. So on and so forth.[

As I said before, felony violation of any presented in FARA is filed on charges as "conspiracy against the United States" and any crime it discusses is considered a conspiracy against the country. My point is that it is not a sign of guilt to the crimes you and Mueller are seeking, e.i that the Trump campaign willingly or not colluded with Russia concerning our election. One crime does not relate to the other.

Here is the list of the charges. Read the document very carefully please.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ment-paul-manafort-rick-gates-indictment.html

The only crimes he and Gates are guilty of boils down to laundering and unregistered work under the foreign government of Ukraine, which under federal violation is chalked under "conspiracy against the United States". There is not any evidence of Russian collusion, of any such kind, as the collusion itself would have to be criminal and involved with the government etc. Simply breaking laws that involve a Russian is not evidence of what you and everyone else is seeking. This is why the current investigation is going on, to try and find it [that missing evidence] and convince Manafort/Gates to flip on Trump to provide what they so desperately need.

So no, it isn't a crime. The crime would be if they solicited this information with money, as the DNC did. Which they [Trump campaign] didn't. It is not a crime within this country to get oppositional research on a political enemy, not even with a Russian as the source.

Or do you really think that what they did, speaking with unrelated Russians and Ukrainians to launder money, is feasible evidence of what Mueller needs to prove this allegation? If it was, you do realize this whole show would have ended months ago because the FBI already knew about all of this and would apparently have the damning evidence to impeach Trump, right? They didn't because this is nothing but the reveal of a few criminals within the campaign acting on their own interests for their own benefits unrelated to the election or our government.

On the counterintelligence side, collusion is best described by the word “recruitment.” The aim of a foreign intelligence service is to find and convince individuals to help them achieve intelligence objectives. In the case of the election, the question is whether Russia was able to recruit American citizens, including people in the Trump campaign, to help them sway the outcome in Donald Trump’s favor. We are less likely to get direct public evidence of this since most of the information obtained by the FBI about Russia’s network and tactics will be classified unless someone is prosecuted for a crime. But we have evidence that Russia was successful, such as Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn officially registering as foreign agents under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. We now know Manafort was on the payroll of a Russian oligarch allied with Putin and didn't disclose this (plus other matters), which has now provided the grounds for conspiracy + counterintelligence acts initiated against Manafort.

We are not arguing whether or not Paul Manafort is guilty of the crimes officially charged against him. I am aware he/they did these things. The issue is that his crimes are not related to the main allegation of Russia collusion influencing our election by Trump's go-ahead. And no, you don't have evidence Russia was successful in undermining our election because Manafort and Flynn were registered as foreign agents. How in the world do you make such a jump? You are assuming that because his crimes involved Russians that it somehow concludes the search for evidence that Russia influenced our election, which is not the case.

At best you can say Manafort's etc etc's crimes provide ground to look deeper for the potential evidence needed to conclude Russia influenced our election, but you cannot say his unrelated crimes—which Mueller and the FBI have even said proves nothing and so is the reason they keep digging—proves Russia meddled in our election, succeeded and swung it to Donald Trump's favor. E.i, their crimes are not evidence of the larger crime being painted here.

These are sideshows to the bigger issue at hand, however. The simple fact is that US officials of a major US political party were willing to conduct political espionage against a domestic opponent. Politically, it's an epic disaster that could have been easily avoided if the Trump Campaign had a sliver of impulse control. It's the Vichy Syndrome, where hatred of (perceived) domestic opponents is so great that domestic figures partner with hostile foreign powers to uproot them. It's a troubling symptom of how the US nowadays is like Great Britain in 1945: overextended, impotent, and politically stagnant. Divisions have increased to such a degree now that even traditional allies are growing increasingly weary of the US' political stability because today's current political drama is a reminder of the insanity surrounding the Bush years.

Politically, it happens all of the time, so I say so what? There is legally nothing wrong with what he did. Even the DNC's dossier would have been perfectly fine if they hadn't been caught paying foreign agents (that are not our allies) for that fictional information.

Originally the project was funded by Republicans, and then when Trump became the nominee it was picked up by Democrats. The Steele dossier doesn't contain anything "Earth-shattering", save unverified items like the pee-pee tape. Donald Trump being openly reliant on Russian money has been known since the 1980s. Trump having an open fascination with Russia has been known since the 1980s. Trump attempting to extend his international presence into Russian has been known since, you guessed it, the 1980s. Other things that have been known for decades about Trump include, but are not limited to, the following: perjury, making false statements, money laundering, racial discrimination, sexual assault, fraud, embezzlement, and racketeering. It's amazing what you can find in the ~3,500 lawsuits by and against this guy. Heck, just look at his incessant Twitter use!

Well, not entirely true, but I guess that doesn't matter so much. Though I do have to say the following otherwise it'll bug me: the main content of the dossier was built a year after The Washington Free Beacon concluded its research, when the general counsel to Hillary Clinton (Marc Elias) took over it on the behave of the DNC and the Clinton Foundation. And then later handled by Steele, who claims his contacts were Russian governmental agents (a crime). Prior to Marc taking up the funding, it was practically empty, only finding information on Trump businesses that could not lead anywhere.

Nothing is wrong with having a relationship with Russia or being "fascinated" with the country though. I don't know about you, but I want to mend our relationship with Russia, not start a damn war because someone or some people in our government fears them so thoroughly it borders Russophobia.

Oh my, the very original "Trump's a racist sexist etc" argument.

The allegations by Fox News, the Trump Administration, etc. are laying the groundwork for Trump to fire Mueller.

If he's been caught being two-sided or dirty in his supposed journey for justice, then cool, bye bye. However, Trump's not going to fire Mueller over what anyone in the media believes. If he fires Mueller, it will be over the man's willingness for corrupted one-sided justice and willingness to participate in a witch hunt built on no actual evidence.

Comey was dismissed for refusing to squash the Russian investigation and is currently under investigation by Mueller's legal team for obstruction of justice. This has been confirmed repeatedly by independent inquiries. It also happens to be the one charge that gets presidents in trouble as showcased by Clinton and Nixon.

No, that's just what you want to believe because you despise Trump so thoroughly, which also leads you to believe, despite not having evidence, that Trump allowed or asked Russia to influence our election to allow him to win. He terminated Comey because the man was incompetent and corrupted, who lied time and time again about many Clinton scandals and helped to cover them up.

Confirmed? By the very same scum that created this dossier and scream helplessly into the sky that it is real? That have lied time and time again about Trump since the day he started running? I don't really care what some rat-fink Democratic lackey says, to be honest. I want actual evidence, not a whole bunch of hearsay and unrelated trash.

There's no legal reason to fire Mueller. There are plenty of political reasons to fire him, however. Namely to prevent further investigations into the murky finances surrounding Trump and company.

Trump, just as Obama, have the right not to be surrounded by people willing to turn a blind eye to certain crimes because it involved their friends or politics but attack him over absolutely nothing, using unrelated crimes to tarnish his image or people who are political puppets to opposition.

Do I support firing Mueller for that "reason" though? No. I want this country to continue to see how disgustingly corrupt the government is and how the big wig Democrats and Republicans have run amok for far too long, but I wouldn't shed a single tear for him if it happened should he continue to show he prefers turning away when his friends/preferred politicians commit a crime or do some shady shit.

That said, I very much doubt Trump will fire Mueller. Considering is hardly doing it.

Enough material was collected to charge Manafort and Gates with what I mentioned at the top of this post. There are more charges to surely come. Michael Flynn is also under investigation for similar charges and is facing an Army inquiry to what extent, if any, he violated Army ethics rules and the Constitution's Emoluments Clause.

Yes, I never denied Manafort and Gates are guilty of certain crimes. I'm arguing that their crimes do not relate, nor prove, the "Russian rigged/influenced our election with Trump's support" allegation.

Also, being under investigation isn't an immediate sign of guilt, so I do not know why you are mentioning it as if it is.

Will they be convicted of said charges? Who knows. But there is clearly enough evidence for probable cause, hence the investigations and criminal charges.

If there's actual evidence found via this investigation, and I'm not talking about crap like the dossier, then go ahead. Charge the bastards, which will happen if they are actually found to be guilty of said further crimes. However, even if you say it, this is not evidence.

I never said you were Russian, and most people are unlikely to state what they personally think of you. I, on the other hand, am not so daft. Honestly, I think you're in denial about what's going on. This isn't surprising though for people whose social identities revolve around their political identities. Further debating will go nowhere because it'll only cause you to double-down on your viewpoints. I see this all the time with people who've been in denial regarding Trump, Obama, Bush, etc. You understand very well how Republicans think, but I can tell after a couple of exchanges that you're not used to dealing with people from across the political spectrum. You'll become a more effective debater in the future if you're willing to learn how Democrats, ex-Republicans, and the like really speak, think, and act.

I know you didn't. You insinuated that someone would think I was a Russian because of my set, as if that is a bad thing in and of itself, and that being identified as such means one is a stooge. I merely countered with a question and then a statement that I don't give two turds what people would think because they are quite content with presumption and generalizations where it fits them. It is quite clear what you and many others believe of the Russian people, and Trump supporters.

Oh boy, the "I'm deluded yadda yadda" argument because I deign to question the sanity of your argument and provided, ahem, "evidence". With a condescending attitude like that please know that it will get you nowhere except a comfy spot in an echo chamber.

If that is how you wish to leave it, fine. Just please don't use such lousy excuses as a reason not to direct me or my posts any further. I will conclude it here with you, then, with:

So far not a single person here, or any other Democrat, can provide me or another with actual evidence that Russia influenced this country's democracy with Trump's support while many hilariously avoid the very real evidence of the same crimes done by the DNC, Hillary Clinton and many others. Citing unrelated crimes, or crimes that happened to involve Slavic people, is not feasible evidence of the dossier's main allegation, not in any rational legal discussion at least. If it was, and thank Baby Jesus it is not, Mueller and foaming-at-the-mouth Democrats would have staked Trump up and burnt him alive already.

xi0:

Spoiler

Well, I don't think you're paying enough attention to the thread then IMO. I'd say I was more of a devil's advocate than most during the election. You're also not really privy to any sort of moderator action. The environment here is as open as I can possibly make it. Just because you're outnumbered in your support doesn't make this thread a "safe space". Or is r/The_Donald somehow not a safe space/echo-chamber by your definition? I don't personally take part in the discussion here just so I can get reconfirmation on my stances. It's a discussion/debate, after all. I don't mind being challenged.

I lurk quite often and while not every post is as I have described, a good portion of the thread is lately. I have appreciated many posts within this thread before by many of you as you lot are very intelligent people, you can search through them, but generally it is an unwelcoming environment to the minority political belief. For such, I am almost always discouraged in attempting to speak here by how some here talk about Trump supporters, Trump, Republicans (even though I am not one) etc.

That itself is not something I worry about though, it is the difficulty in maintaining a discussion when one side is constantly cutting into their own posts to remind you that you are inferior in some fashion or another because all else gets forgotten in that murkiness. For example...just look above. Unfortunately though, that's just politics now. A mud slinging contest or an continuous effort to quiet the other with frustration and unwillingness to sit through mud being slung at their faces.

Oh no, the r/The_Donald is most definitely a safe place. It doesn't and has never been indicated to be otherwise. It is not a neutral discussion zone, it is a ground where they [DJT supporters] can retreat away from the very real mistreatment of the site and its staff. And the rest of the world, really. Why do you think T_D was created in the first place? They were, and I kid you not, treated like absolute scum by the rest of the community (we are placed on a list so that subreddits will know who supports Trump when spez the spaz isn't editing our content) and were not, and still are not, allowed to talk and share their political beliefs within supposedly "politically neutral sub-reddits" without being ban-hammered for their views as they are labeled as "racist etc" as justification, negged out of sight (posts get deleted passed a certain score) and were allowed to have their lives be threatened without penalty. They needed a place because it was deprived of them elsewhere.

This thread, however, is not aimed at a particular political group, is it? However, the people within are all heavily one particular group and couple that with the general attitude of the thread, it makes oppositional political beliefs being fairly and reasonably discussed practically impossible. A place becomes a safe place when oppositional thought is non-existent. And no, being outnumbered is not the issue here. It is the attitude here sometimes, which can and will discourage others from participating.

I had not wished to point this out, because it will serve nothing in the end because it is basically impossible to change a person, but it is getting to be difficult to not say anything about it.

It's hard to say with him. There probably is, but it's not like he's bothered on touching on much of a variety of things. Like any other politician he has an agenda. I will say that the things he's cared to focus on since being in office are things I've pretty much universally disagreed with him on, yeah. And I think it's obvious he spends way too much time waging a PR war instead of actually being a head of state. I suppose him trying to publish the full JFK files is something I agree with him on, even if it's only a recent thing.

He often talks about other issues at rallies, through small meetings, some reddit AMAs etc due to the media constantly recording and twisting what he says. Otherwise, he gets a question and, before Twitter, had his team send it out. I do wish he'd be more vocal about what else he believes so the rest of the country can understand his position better.

And yes, he has an agenda, but not all agendas are bad. They can be good. It is unfortunately usually not good, though.

EDIT

Anyone see the supposed coup attempt in Saudi Arabia? One of the most liberal minded princes there, Al-Waleed bin Talal, was arrested for "corruption". Though, if true, we all know it is because he isn't a Islamic fanatic and his politics are too westernized for their tastes.

That isn't all though. Dozens of others, from princes to ministers, have been detained by King Salman for the same reasons. Who else? Miteb bin Abdullah. The guy who headed the National Guard and was thought to be the top contender to the throne.

Shit's happening over there, it seems.

 

[M3J]

Well, I don't think you're paying enough attention to the thread then IMO. I'd say I was more of a devil's advocate than most during the election. You're also not really privy to any sort of moderator action. The environment here is as open as I can possibly make it. Just because you're outnumbered in your support doesn't make this thread a "safe space". Or is r/The_Donald somehow not a safe space/echo-chamber by your definition? I don't personally take part in the discussion here just so I can get reconfirmation on my stances. It's a discussion/debate, after all. I don't mind being challenged.

To back up what xi0 was saying, he edited my post for baiting/rudeness, while some of my other posts attacking Trump/his supporters have been deleted as they did not contribute anything. So yeah, the environment on the staff's behalf is neutral.

I'm curious to see what will cause old Donny to lose support. He claimed he'd drain the swamp, but he's filling it up even more, but he's still supported. He said he'd do things for the people, but he's doing the opposite and screwing them over, and yet he still gets support. At this point, I think Donny going even a bit to the left will be what would cause him to lose support, otherwise he could literally destroy the economy and people and still get support.

 

[Styx]

I hadn't meant to imply the moderators or staff turn a blind eye to violations of the forum rules or such, only that generally this place is very uninviting to oppositional thought due to the beliefs some here possess towards Trump and his supporters. I mean, why would anyone want to hang out in a place they are very clearly thought ill of? Though there's a long gap from being rude, which itself should not be an actionable offense, and being an arsehat bigot, which should be handled whenever it sprouts up.

I also do not see how he is filling the government with more swamp creatures. The revelation that some among him were/are corrupt is not an indication of backtracking on swamp drainage or a show of support of the swamp. He is also doing exactly what he said he'd do for us. What you mean to say is he isn't doing Democratic things for those who voted against him, such as Open Border policies etc etc, right? As I'm quite content with the job he's doing, bringing back billions of jobs, securing our border and so on. I'm also very sure that the rest of his supporters feel the same way. The only thing I'm left questioning is how he is going to be able to put forth a good Tax Reform when the Republicans are at his throat for unrealistic additions and the Democrats simply don't want it. I suspect the details will be tragic.

 

[z.5]

However, the people within are all heavily one particular group and couple that with the general attitude of the thread, it makes oppositional political beliefs being fairly and reasonably discussed practically impossible. A place becomes a safe place when oppositional thought is non-existent. And no, being outnumbered is not the issue here. It is the attitude here sometimes, which can and will discourage others from participating.

Well, this is kinda out of our hands.

It's hard to dictate which members post here and we can't really force people with a contrasting viewpoint to post - nor should anyone feel they have to play devil's advocate to a viewpoint they don't agree with, just to draw out those who are afraid to post.

Nor can we really force a poster's attitude in a direction which everyone feels comfortable with - and even if we could, would anyone really want that?
People are, and should be, free to post however they feel comfortable, so long as they don't break any rules or do anything which a god mod deems unhelpful/threatening/toxic.

Best thing that mods can do is to come down heavily on anyone who unhelpfully and unfairly labels someone as a racist or bigot, solely because they have a conflicting stance on something/someone - I'd like to think that this has been done rather impartially thus far.

At the risk of derailing this thread further, I'd ask what you think should be done to help draw in hesitant posters?
Or couse, [I feel] it's in everyone's interests to have a wide and varied discussion in all topics.

I, for one, appreciate well-voiced and thought out posts from people I disagree with - I mean, what's the point of 'discussing' in any real depth with people you already agree with 100%?

 

[xi0]

I hadn't meant to imply the moderators or staff turn a blind eye to violations of the forum rules or such, only that generally this place is very uninviting to oppositional thought due to the beliefs some here possess towards Trump and his supporters. I mean, why would anyone want to hang out in a place they are very clearly thought ill of? Though there's a long gap from being rude, which itself should not be an actionable offense, and being an arsehat bigot, which should be handled whenever it sprouts up.

Politics are always going to be one of those subjects, I guess. I might disagree with you over the current political situation, but that doesn't mean I think ill of you really (it's the opposite in mostly any other setting). And I know you might not have been directing that sort of sentiment towards me in the first place, but I just wanted to mention it anyway. Having a difference of opinion on a certain subject isn't really an invitation for negativity. At least, it shouldn't be. But that sort of thing is a two-way street oftentimes as well. Your political position isn't you. At least, that sort of tribal-thought process doesn't really sit well with me.

It might be frustrating to feel like you're outnumbered, but at least you're not being ignored? Dunno. You're not the only person posting here who isn't anti-Trump, they were just more numerous during the election cycle than they are now, I guess.

 

[M3J]

My experiences with Trump supporters are why I think badly of them and have little to no respect. What else can one think about someone who considers anything criticizing Trump as fake news while readily believing anything that praises him, no matter how false it is? What else can one think about someone who still believes Trump even after his lies have been exposed or proven to be lies? I can respect Trump supporters, but very few of them put up decent arguments or counters that doesn't constantly involve fake news or YouTube videos from accounts that say "HILLARYSUCKS" or "LiberalismMentalAffliction" or whatnot.

I'd treat the lefties same as well, and I'm a left wing. Hell, I've even defended Trump on more than one occasion just because his words got twisted or because he was criticized for something that others do.

 

[Nemispelled]

I would consider myself as a Trump supporter. I voted for him during the election and I still agree with his tough stance on illegal gang members in the US, fighting terrorism in the Middle East, handling threats from NK (like increase spending on the military and honoring them), reforming education, making deals that benefit the US, and increasing border security.

Not to mention, he seems to be doing well with economic reform, which is not really a surprise considering he's been a successful businessman for most of his life. And at least he's trying to do something about the healthcare plan; although, I'm well aware that issue may be the toughest to fix.

Also, other world leaders seem to have a lot of respect for Trump. Which is good when it comes to establishing a relationship between the US and other foreign countries.

I always support cooperation over opposition.