Political Roundtable Part XXV

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[Ruzious]

SD, just stop with the BS. We haven't seen the evidence... period, end of story. Eveything you say sounds idiotic when you say the opposite is a fact. I'm not going to read any more of your posts, because you treat facts like shyt. No more second, third, 1,597 chances. Shame on me for giving you so many chances. You're done like Fredo.

[nate33]

Baloney. Name them. Heck, name 20 meetings. There were a couple: the Trump Tower meeting, which was set up by a Russian who was also working with Perkins Coie and probably a setup. There was the meeting arranged by Joseph Misfud who was probably a spook for either CIA or the Brits - another setup. Trump certainly had some discussions with Russians regarding his business interests, but that's not a crime and that occurred before his campaign.

32 here
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/13/all-of-the-known-times-the-trump-campaign-met-with-russians/?utm_term=.0512f8547708
100 here
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/01/13/proof-of-collusion-trump-campaign-had-100-contacts-with-russians.html
102 here

https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/trumps-russia-cover-up-by-the-numbers-70-contacts-with-russia-linked-operatives/
16 here
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6479779/List-Trump-campaign-contacts-Russians-grows-14.html
> 100 here
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-russia-contacts-cap-report_n_5c36e939e4b0c469d76af276


but who's counting?

You have to be in serious denial to believe there is or was nothing
going on between Russia and Trump. Maybe not provable in a court
of law but I think a strong case can be made that that is far above
the standard that should be justifiably applied.

Thanks for taking the time to post those links.

That list of 102 is laughable. So many are blank "reached out" to blank. What does that even mean? Also, the fact that people in the Trump Organization talked to people from Russia in September 2015, or anytime in late 2015 or early 2016 doesn't bother me. Trump runs an international company that had business relations in Russia. The fact that people in the Trump Organization (not the Trump Campaign) spoke to people in Russia is not a crime or even the slightest bit suspicious. And most of the other contacts in that list are totally innocuous. The Trump campaign's foreign policy team actually spoke to people from foreign countries. Shocking! The list is designed to come up with a big number (in this case 102), and then make it look like that Trump personally directed all 102 conversations, specifically with the intent of influencing the election. That is clearly not the case an only a conspiracy theorist nut would think so. None of those 102 conversations involved collusion, and only a handful could conceivably have had anything whatsoever to do with hacked emails or anything like that - and those were set up by spooks for the CIA and foreign intelligence services.

I'm quite certain if you spent 2 years and devoted the entire intelligence community to dig through the Clinton campaign or the Obama campaign in 2008 or 2012, you could find 102 examples of some underling having some communication with somebody with "ties to Russia". Talking to people from foreign countries is not a crime, particularly when you are trying to develop a foreign policy. Russia is one of the most important geopolitical players in the world. Of course there will be communication with them.

All the stuff with Carter Page and Papadopolous was part of a sting operation by the Deep State. They sent operatives to whisper into Papadopolous' ear, saying "hey bud, I heard the Russians were hacking emails". They then sent another guy to talk to Papadopolous to ask, "hey bud, do you hear anything about Russians hacking emails?". When Papadopolous says yes, they then say that Papadopolous is guilty because he knew about the hacked emails.

The only Trump figure in this whole charade who is shady is Paul Manafort. He had worked with the Ukraine and had a bunch of ties and possibly some shady arrangements with them. But he wasn't even part of the Trump campaign at first. He was brought on because the media and the Republican establishment hated Corey Lewandowski and felt Trump needed a pro. Trump hired the wrong guy. As soon as Trump received his first security briefing, he fired Manafort.

That just leaves the Trump Tower fiasco, which was set up by a Russian who was working for Perkins Coie a the time! Another sting operation.

[montestewart]

Hate to sound like a broken record, but not only was Trump a well known quantity long before he showed the slightest interest in politics, but he was a known quantity long before he was a television star with The Apprentice. He has a wanna-be-a-celebrity track record going back to the 70s, attracting attention with conspicuous consumption, flashy lifestyle, and "brashness" what he couldn't attract with anything else. Long before he expressed political opinions, he was established as a compulsive liar, but who cares? Lots of celebrities are compulsive liars.

More important for the current discussion, long before Trump showed an interest in politics beyond his company buying financially opportune political influence, he and his company treated laws like inconveniences to be overcome by his ilk and obeyed only by the little people. You can search through the extensive documentation of his very public life and find virtually nothing indicating he has the slightest interest in the little guys who constitute much of his support.

I know so much of Trump's support is not really, sincerely, support of the man but support against the opposition, a mass trolling of liberals, but it constantly feels bizarre that the elephant in the Oval Office is that our president is a sexually impulsive, compulsive liar with a short attention span and little deep understanding of much of anything. Maybe Bill Clinton just inured us to the first two, and the last two are Trump's unique contributions to political history.

I guess a lot of conservatives are just tired of being told that they should be apologizing for this or that, and having a president who embraces offense, is unable to apologize for anything, and is always able to direct failure elsewhere, a president with unrelenting chutzpah, is the right man for the job. Trump's support has surpassed the Clinton and Obama cults of personality, and is to me the most extreme case yet of "look, the information is right there, right in front of you, how can you not see it?" Like the scene in Westworld where Bernard Lowe can't see the door because he's programmed not to see it.

It's hard to have a political discussion when the other side will not concede the slightest bit on anything, even the color blue. On the other hand, its foolish to pretend the opposition is nothing but an abstract, to be ignored. Maybe an anti-Trumper might get a pro-Trumper to concede that Trump is nothing more than an unpleasant vehicle, and the conversation can get to something, if not more pleasant, at least more substantive. Hard to separate politicians from policy, but I grew up in DC and from my perspective, politicians, all of them, are not very interesting.

And leave cuss words, lewd language, name calling, etc. for other sites.

[nate33]

Hate to sound like a broken record, but not only was Trump a well known quantity long before he showed the slightest interest in politics, but he was a known quantity long before he was a television star with The Apprentice. He has a wanna-be-a-celebrity track record going back to the 70s, attracting attention with conspicuous consumption, flashy lifestyle, and "brashness" what he couldn't attract with anything else. Long before he expressed political opinions, he was established as a compulsive liar, but who cares? Lots of celebrities are compulsive liars.

More important for the current discussion, long before Trump showed an interest in politics beyond his company buying financially opportune political influence, he and his company treated laws like inconveniences to be overcome by his ilk and obeyed only by the little people. You can search through the extensive documentation of his very public life and find virtually nothing indicating he has the slightest interest in the little guys who constitute much of his support.

I know so much of Trump's support is not really, sincerely, support of the man but support against the opposition, a mass trolling of liberals, but it constantly feels bizarre that the elephant in the Oval Office is that our president is a sexually impulsive, compulsive liar with a short attention span and little deep understanding of much of anything. Maybe Bill Clinton just inured us to the first two, and the last two are Trump's unique contributions to political history.

I guess a lot of conservatives are just tired of being told that they should be apologizing for this or that, and having a president who embraces offense, is unable to apologize for anything, and is always able to direct failure elsewhere, a president with unrelenting chutzpah, is the right man for the job. Trump's support has surpassed the Clinton and Obama cults of personality, and is to me the most extreme case yet of "look, the information is right there, right in front of you, how can you not see it?" Like the scene in Westworld where Bernard Lowe can't see the door because he's programmed not to see it.

It's hard to have a political discussion when the other side will not concede the slightest bit on anything, even the color blue. On the other hand, its foolish to pretend the opposition is nothing but an abstract, to be ignored. Maybe an anti-Trumper might get a pro-Trumper to concede that Trump is nothing more than an unpleasant vehicle, and the conversation can get to something, if not more pleasant, at least more substantive. Hard to separate politicians from policy, but I grew up in DC and from my perspective, politicians, all of them, are not very interesting.

And leave cuss words, lewd language, name calling, etc. for other sites.

I realize Trump has a lot of faults and character flaws. Unfortunately, the only way to elect somebody who isn't part of the Republican Establishment is to find somebody with sufficient independent wealth to run without being beholden to the same core group of donors that run the Republican party. And that someone has to be just crazy enough to sacrifice his wealth and his brand name in the process. Trump is the only guy we have.

For the most part, I'm pleased with the results.

I like the judges that have been appointed. I like that we bailed on the disastrous Paris climate treaty. I like the progress we are making against ISIS and the fact that we haven't been sucked into any other wars (though Venezuela is a concern). I like the stronger protectionist stance which has increases the incomes of the lowest wage bracket by far more than any other time in recent memory. I like low unemployment and labor shortages. I like that Trump is slowly but surely leading us to the right kind of "conversation" on immigration, rather than one that says "Open borders or you're a bigot". I like that Trump has revealed the totally partisan nature of the media, that they are the PR wing of the Democrat Party.

I'm not thrilled that the tax cuts include a cut for the top bracket, and I think we are still spending way too much on the military, but you can't get everything you want.

[gtn130]

I'm quite certain if you spent 2 years and devoted the entire intelligence community to dig through the Clinton campaign or the Obama campaign in 2008 or 2012, you could find 102 examples of some underling having some communication with somebody with "ties to Russia". Talking to people from foreign countries is not a crime, particularly when you are trying to develop a foreign policy. Russia is one of the most important geopolitical players in the world. Of course there will be communication with them.

Cool dude but remember when Trump asked Russia to help him hack Clinton's emails and then they did? You're acting like the full extent of Russian interference was that they had meetings with Trump campaign officials lmao.

They stole data from Hillary Clinton and the DNC and then strategically leaked it for maximum political harm. And then Trump fired Comey for investigating this, and you want to say it's a Witch Hunt Deep State Sting Operation when the FBI made zero noise about this until after the election.

And none of this even addresses the fact that 1) Manafort gave internal polling data to Russians and 2) Trump was trying to negotiate a Trump Tower Moscow, secretly, and was lying about this through 2017. Those are literal examples of collusion! Trump won't ever be charged because it's impossible to prove anyone works for the Russian government and that's why Barr said in his letter that they didn't prove Trump conspired with the Russian government.

He still did highly unethical collusiony stuff that is publicly documented. The quid pro quo is all out in the open - it just isn't something they can prosecute him for.

[nate33]

I'm quite certain if you spent 2 years and devoted the entire intelligence community to dig through the Clinton campaign or the Obama campaign in 2008 or 2012, you could find 102 examples of some underling having some communication with somebody with "ties to Russia". Talking to people from foreign countries is not a crime, particularly when you are trying to develop a foreign policy. Russia is one of the most important geopolitical players in the world. Of course there will be communication with them.

Cool dude but remember when Trump asked Russia to help him hack Clinton's emails and then they did? You're acting like the full extent of Russian interference was that they had meetings with Trump campaign officials lmao.

They stole data from Hillary Clinton and the DNC and then strategically leaked it for maximum political harm. And then Trump fired Comey for investigating this, and you want to say it's a Witch Hunt Deep State Sting Operation when the FBI made zero noise about this until after the election.

And none of this even addresses the fact that 1) Manafort gave internal polling data to Russians and 2) Trump was trying to negotiate a Trump Tower Moscow, secretly, and was lying about this through 2017. Those are literal examples of collusion! Trump won't ever be charged because it's impossible to prove anyone works for the Russian government and that's why Barr said in his letter that they didn't prove Trump conspired with the Russian government.

He still did highly unethical collusiony stuff that is publicly documented. The quid pro quo is all out in the open - it just isn't something they can prosecute him for.

Trump asking Russia to turn over the emails was an obvious joke. And he was referring to the 30,000 emails that Clinton "lost" on her private server, not the actual emails that were allegedly (not proven) hacked by Russians.

Wikileaks leaked the information, not Russians. And who is to say that they timing caused maximum harm?

Trump fired Comey for lying to him. You can't lie to your boss' face and expect to keep your job.

I did address Manafort. I think he is shady. I also think that Trump dumped him as soon as he had reason to suspect that Manafort was shady.

And there is no quid pro quo. Trump's actual policies have been extremely tough on Russia. He actually bombed Russians in Syria at one point.

[gtn130]

I'm quite certain if you spent 2 years and devoted the entire intelligence community to dig through the Clinton campaign or the Obama campaign in 2008 or 2012, you could find 102 examples of some underling having some communication with somebody with "ties to Russia". Talking to people from foreign countries is not a crime, particularly when you are trying to develop a foreign policy. Russia is one of the most important geopolitical players in the world. Of course there will be communication with them.

Cool dude but remember when Trump asked Russia to help him hack Clinton's emails and then they did? You're acting like the full extent of Russian interference was that they had meetings with Trump campaign officials lmao.

They stole data from Hillary Clinton and the DNC and then strategically leaked it for maximum political harm. And then Trump fired Comey for investigating this, and you want to say it's a Witch Hunt Deep State Sting Operation when the FBI made zero noise about this until after the election.

And none of this even addresses the fact that 1) Manafort gave internal polling data to Russians and 2) Trump was trying to negotiate a Trump Tower Moscow, secretly, and was lying about this through 2017. Those are literal examples of collusion! Trump won't ever be charged because it's impossible to prove anyone works for the Russian government and that's why Barr said in his letter that they didn't prove Trump conspired with the Russian government.

He still did highly unethical collusiony stuff that is publicly documented. The quid pro quo is all out in the open - it just isn't something they can prosecute him for.

Trump asking Russia to turn over the emails was an obvious joke. And he was referring to the 30,000 emails that Clinton "lost" on her private server, not the actual emails that were allegedly (not proven) hacked by Russians.

Wikileaks leaked the information, not Russians. And who is to say that they timing caused maximum harm?

Trump fired Comey for lying to him. You can't lie to your boss' face and expect to keep your job.

I did address Manafort. I think he is shady. I also think that Trump dumped him as soon as he had reason to suspect that Manafort was shady.

And there is no quid pro quo. Trump's actual policies have been extremely tough on Russia. He actually bombed Russians in Syria at one point.

[montestewart]

Hate to sound like a broken record, but not only was Trump a well known quantity long before he showed the slightest interest in politics, but he was a known quantity long before he was a television star with The Apprentice. He has a wanna-be-a-celebrity track record going back to the 70s, attracting attention with conspicuous consumption, flashy lifestyle, and "brashness" what he couldn't attract with anything else. Long before he expressed political opinions, he was established as a compulsive liar, but who cares? Lots of celebrities are compulsive liars.

More important for the current discussion, long before Trump showed an interest in politics beyond his company buying financially opportune political influence, he and his company treated laws like inconveniences to be overcome by his ilk and obeyed only by the little people. You can search through the extensive documentation of his very public life and find virtually nothing indicating he has the slightest interest in the little guys who constitute much of his support.

I know so much of Trump's support is not really, sincerely, support of the man but support against the opposition, a mass trolling of liberals, but it constantly feels bizarre that the elephant in the Oval Office is that our president is a sexually impulsive, compulsive liar with a short attention span and little deep understanding of much of anything. Maybe Bill Clinton just inured us to the first two, and the last two are Trump's unique contributions to political history.

I guess a lot of conservatives are just tired of being told that they should be apologizing for this or that, and having a president who embraces offense, is unable to apologize for anything, and is always able to direct failure elsewhere, a president with unrelenting chutzpah, is the right man for the job. Trump's support has surpassed the Clinton and Obama cults of personality, and is to me the most extreme case yet of "look, the information is right there, right in front of you, how can you not see it?" Like the scene in Westworld where Bernard Lowe can't see the door because he's programmed not to see it.

It's hard to have a political discussion when the other side will not concede the slightest bit on anything, even the color blue. On the other hand, its foolish to pretend the opposition is nothing but an abstract, to be ignored. Maybe an anti-Trumper might get a pro-Trumper to concede that Trump is nothing more than an unpleasant vehicle, and the conversation can get to something, if not more pleasant, at least more substantive. Hard to separate politicians from policy, but I grew up in DC and from my perspective, politicians, all of them, are not very interesting.

And leave cuss words, lewd language, name calling, etc. for other sites.

I realize Trump has a lot of faults and character flaws. Unfortunately, the only way to elect somebody who isn't part of the Republican Establishment is to find somebody with sufficient independent wealth to run without being beholden to the same core group of donors that run the Republican party. And that someone has to be just crazy enough to sacrifice his wealth and his brand name in the process. Trump is the only guy we have.

For the most part, I'm pleased with the results.

I like the judges that have been appointed. I like that we bailed on the disastrous Paris climate treaty. I like the progress we are making against ISIS and the fact that we haven't been sucked into any other wars (though Venezuela is a concern). I like the stronger protectionist stance which has increases the incomes of the lowest wage bracket by far more than any other time in recent memory. I like low unemployment and labor shortages. I like that Trump is slowly but surely leading us to the right kind of "conversation" on immigration, rather than one that says "Open borders or you're a bigot". I like that Trump has revealed the totally partisan nature of the media, that they are the PR wing of the Democrat Party.

I'm not thrilled that the tax cuts include a cut for the top bracket, and I think we are still spending way too much on the military, but you can't get everything you want.

Thanks for the response. Pre-extreme polarization, these were the kind of posts I was used to seeing here (in my rare trips to the politics thread). I tend to take more of a middle view on a lot of the issues, so maybe the polarized debate is just leaving me on the sidelines.

Regarding Trump's pleasing conservative supporters, he kind of reminds me of the Bill O'Reilly phenomenon. Whenever you see Bill O'Reilly outside of his show, having a conversation with someone who doesn't parrot his views, O'Reilly sounds like a fairly well-reasoned and reasonable give-and-take conservative, quite capable of taking in new information and modifying views accordingly. On his own show and in any other medium wherein he is promoting his brand to his followers, he sounds much different, a captive to his paying audience, parroting expected views in slam dunk terminology. Trump seems similar, perhaps lacking as well-formed an ideology, but a captive to the adulation offered late in life in exchange for delivering a particular type of message. I don't doubt that many wanted to hear that message, but I don't see anything fundamentally sincere about the messenger.

Regarding Trump's character, I'm not very middle. I don't think for a second Trump ever intended his venture into politics to be a sacrifice. It was all about brand building and ego massaging, the two virtually indistinguishable in his public life. The discussion regarding financial losses seems polluted by partisanship, with both liberals and conservative arguing variously that he has gained or lost, to suit whatever argument is being made. The primary sacrifice I see is that he has to live in the White House, where he can't freely apply gold paint to suit his tastes, and he is subject to more negative press than he has ever been before. Big time politicians, regardless of politics, are usually pretty thin skinned, but he appears to be the worst, or at least the worst at hiding it.

As far as the media, I've never argued against the general liberal leanings, only that bias alone doesn't negate facts. I do, however, think that Trump, the man and the brand, as a ratings phenomenon, is perhaps the most newsworthy politician ever. That he was a magnet for coverage helped him get elected, but that same media fascination has also fueled the negative coverage, and his own impulsiveness in tweets and interviews gives ample material to work with.

[doclinkin]

SD, just stop with the BS. We haven't seen the evidence... period, end of story. Eveything you say sounds idiotic when you say the opposite is a fact. I'm not going to read any more of your posts, because you treat facts like shyt. No more second, third, 1,597 chances. Shame on me for giving you so many chances. You're done like Fredo.

For me its less the BS, and more the clusterposts and spamming the board. I realize I never read him any more since there are literally six posts in a row, not of his own cockeyed ramblings, but links and videos I will never watch. I am interested in peoples opinions, even those I disagree with or scoff and or snort in derision over. But only from you crew, not from the uncurated world of loopy right wing web sites. I have nobody on ignore, I don't believe in it, but I've said to STD way too many times: he needs to quit with the spam since it makes the board unreadable. Guess I'm done now. Even three or four posts in a row is too many. But he will commonly drop six or seven on any page in the thread. And for gods sake: have your own opinion, don't just 'Flava Flav' every loopy wingnut you stumble across and repeat what they said. It's tedious.

it's too bad, when he is on a rant it can be funny to me. But if I wanted to watch those videos I'd follow those twitter feeds. Sorry stilldrop, It's too much. This site ought not to be just for one dude to let his demons out or beg for attention, but for community conversation and debate. It's too bad. Used to be even in basketball conversation you had give and take, but with these cluster posts you turn this thread into an infomercial for ignoramuses. I can't, man.

[FAH1223]

Democrats have a huge rural problem and a lot of it is monopoly and the failures of the Obama administration.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[pancakes3]

"how can it be obstruction of justice when it just invites investigation of obstructing justice" is next level galaxy brain

[stilldropin20]

SD, just stop with the BS. We haven't seen the evidence... period, end of story. Eveything you say sounds idiotic when you say the opposite is a fact. I'm not going to read any more of your posts, because you treat facts like shyt. No more second, third, 1,597 chances. Shame on me for giving you so many chances. You're done like Fredo.

For me its less the BS, and more the clusterposts and spamming the board. I realize I never read him any more since there are literally six posts in a row, not of his own cockeyed ramblings, but links and videos I will never watch. I am interested in peoples opinions, even those I disagree with or scoff and or snort in derision over. But only from you crew, not from the uncurated world of loopy right wing web sites. I have nobody on ignore, I don't believe in it, but I've said to STD way too many times: he needs to quit with the spam since it makes the board unreadable. Guess I'm done now. Even three or four posts in a row is too many. But he will commonly drop six or seven on any page in the thread. And for gods sake: have your own opinion, don't just 'Flava Flav' every loopy wingnut you stumble across and repeat what they said. It's tedious.

it's too bad, when he is on a rant it can be funny to me. But if I wanted to watch those videos I'd follow those twitter feeds. Sorry stilldrop, It's too much. This site ought not to be just for one dude to let his demons out or beg for attention, but for community conversation and debate. It's too bad. Used to be even in basketball conversation you had give and take, but with these cluster posts you turn this thread into an infomercial for ignoramuses. I can't, man.

when the 8-10 loony leftists stop lying and spamming the board with trump hate, i'll stop. simple as that. Mueller report is out and they wont stop lying about this president nor his followers. They aren't deplorable. Nor any more bigots and racists than what you will find on the left.
And nobody is perfect. But if the lefty libs on here cant debate on here honestly why should I be held ot a different standard? And for every post i post, pointgod, GTN, jwiz, wizpride, jamal, ruz, and others make at least 2. Ford days, and weeks at a time I am the only one posting on behalf of conservatives. So frankly, get over it. (or get over yourself?) To that end, i challenge anyone to add up the posts of the last 27 months. You'll find lib posts easily out numbering conservatives 2 or 3:1. If you prove these ratios wrong I'll retire from posting for 1 year.

more frankness...nearly all these posts by our liberal posters have been lies. We can literally sum up all the liberal posts in 4 categories:

1. trump is traitor and puppet to putin. (lie). no president since reagan has been harder on russia.
2. Trump colluded or conspired to collude. (lie). Mueller found zero evidence of either.
3. Trump is a racist. (lie). Minorities have never prospered more under any other president. and in no other time in history have more brown and black combined immigrants entered this country. ever.
4. Those who support trump are racists, bigots, zenophobes, mysogiynists, ets. (all lies).

All of these lies have been posted and spread in attempt to ruin the trump presidency. Or ruin the trump brand. Which is an attempted coup as far as I'm concerned. The deep state lied to congressional democrats...and some democrats who are on the gang of 8 like schiff knew better. he knew he was spreading lies. But he didn't care. They all thought Trump would have been impeached by now. Really, they did. So did the liberal posters on here if they are being honest with themselves. I stuck around to stand up for Trump. To stand up for what is right. The rule of law and equal justice under the law. Things that the left stopped caring about a long time because they just want to be in power because when they are in power they enrich themselves, america be damned! Clinton's enriched themselves. The obama's have enriched themselves. And the left doesn't care. they want trump to fail so they can run on his failures in 2018 and 2020 and take back power. American people be damned. American economy be damned.

No president has ever endured 93-98% negative coverage 24/7. Trump has. And thrived in it. The country is doing quite well no thanks to the liberals.

Like Nate said, I wish trump didn't give a tax break to the elites. But almost everything else?? A frickin plus!!!!

look folks, like MNate said above, you cant always get what you want but if you try sometime you just might find that you can get what you need. Sometimes you need a tender and juicy pulled pork sandwich fresh off the smoker! And that's what trump is...the guy with the most pork. He might not give you all that you want but he will give you what you need and on both ends if thats what you need. And some people need it. want it. badly. Trump is the guy to give it you.

[stilldropin20]

Hate to sound like a broken record, but not only was Trump a well known quantity long before he showed the slightest interest in politics, but he was a known quantity long before he was a television star with The Apprentice. He has a wanna-be-a-celebrity track record going back to the 70s, attracting attention with conspicuous consumption, flashy lifestyle, and "brashness" what he couldn't attract with anything else. Long before he expressed political opinions, he was established as a compulsive liar, but who cares? Lots of celebrities are compulsive liars.

"you can keep your doctor" . you're ok with those lies, right?
"no new taxes." Thats ok too, right?
deleting evidence(emails) and busting up blackberries...all that's ok too...but not that Trump!!! he said he was worth 8 billion when it was only 4 billion!!!!! (based on the evaluation of someone that want to make him out to be a liar no less!!

More important for the current discussion, long before Trump showed an interest in politics beyond his company buying financially opportune political influence, he and his company treated laws like inconveniences to be overcome by his ilk and obeyed only by the little people. You can search through the extensive documentation of his very public life and find virtually nothing indicating he has the slightest interest in the little guys who constitute much of his support.

all hog wash and doesn't matter. his policies in office are helping the little guy!

I know so much of Trump's support is not really, sincerely, support of the man but support against the opposition, a mass trolling of liberals, but it constantly feels bizarre that the elephant in the Oval Office is that our president is a sexually impulsive, compulsive liar with a short attention span and little deep understanding of much of anything. Maybe Bill Clinton just inured us to the first two, and the last two are Trump's unique contributions to political history.

call it whatever you want. the trump economy is working and I dont look to politicians for moral compass. neither should you or anyone else.

I guess a lot of conservatives are just tired of being told that they should be apologizing for this or that, and having a president who embraces offense, is unable to apologize for anything, and is always able to direct failure elsewhere, a president with unrelenting chutzpah, is the right man for the job. Trump's support has surpassed the Clinton and Obama cults of personality, and is to me the most extreme case yet of "look, the information is right there, right in front of you, how can you not see it?" Like the scene in Westworld where Bernard Lowe can't see the door because he's programmed not to see it.

i dont believe in victimhood. in life, just like sports...sometimes somone "wins" in a moment, or game, or event, or gets the job, or gets in school. But that hardly constitutes victimhood for the loser. In fact most of the losses i took in life resulted in my biggest wins as those loses made me a better person or motivated me to try harder. No one should ever appologize for winning. Everyone should embrace a victor mentality instead of a victimhood mentality.

It's hard to have a political discussion when the other side will not concede the slightest bit on anything, even the color blue. On the other hand, its foolish to pretend the opposition is nothing but an abstract, to be ignored. Maybe an anti-Trumper might get a pro-Trumper to concede that Trump is nothing more than an unpleasant vehicle, and the conversation can get to something, if not more pleasant, at least more substantive. Hard to separate politicians from policy, but I grew up in DC and from my perspective, politicians, all of them, are not very interesting.

the answer is simple. Mod the other side into better behavoir. Call out their lies too. and everyone should be forced to look in the mirror and post truths and facts instead of opinions. If liberals are going to keep posting hate based opinons i will too. simple as that. You wanna ban me for doing exactly what you are allowing them to do? Then ban me. I can live with that. I cant live with laying down to the liars and fake news and promulgation of lies purposefully spread to hurt this presidency because in the end it is the american people that are hurt. The poor, and working poor, and middle-middle class were hurt the most by the obama presidency and subsequently they are thriving the most nder the trump presidency. all economic indicators say so!!

[montestewart]

STD, politics is hard work, and ideologically opposing viewpoints have differing interpretations and presentations of the same facts. These are not lies per se. Terms like prism, opinion, spin, etc. apply. What you call lies are really viewpoints contrary to your own. This is a political thread, and I don't moderate based on viewpoint, else why are you here? If someone posts something that no concrete source whatsoever supports, fabricates quotes, or assigns an opinion to a mod that has never in fact been expressed, yeah, they might get some moderating. Sound familiar?

You are still here here, regardless of your view. As I have mentioned in the past, mods previously banned a high volume and vocal liberal poster, not for his views, but for his style of posting and interacting on the board. I was against that ban, but my experience here is informing my understanding of what all the mods, liberal and conservative, were dealing with then. There are quite a few regular conservative posters on the CA board that have managed not to get banned. Ask yourself what, beyond ideological viewpoint, might get you banned from a politics thread?

I don't have time to personally research every fact posted here, but I've looked up possibly questionable facts posted by Pointgod, GTB, Nate, and Zonker, to name a few. Where there is legitimate disagreement on fact sources or interpretations, that's for posters themselves to hash out. If I notice patently, objectively false information posted by a liberal or anyone, I will call it out, as I did several times with the aforementioned, now banned liberal poster.

I have tried to rein in the bad mouthing, broad brush attacks, lewd references, thread derailing, spam bombing, etc. Some posters do these things more than others. I have not found cause to call out anyone but you for posting outright FAKE NEWS in several years. Making up a quote, putting quotation marks around it, and attributing it to someone is, objectively speaking, a lie. I have seen high school and college students get academic warnings or F grades for the like, and they are kids. Adults know better.

[dobrojim]

[snip]

I know so much of Trump's support is not really, sincerely, support of the man but support against the opposition, a mass trolling of liberals, but it constantly feels bizarre that the elephant in the Oval Office is that our president is a sexually impulsive, compulsive liar with a short attention span and little deep understanding of much of anything. Maybe Bill Clinton just inured us to the first two, and the last two are Trump's unique contributions to political history.

This is why George Will wrote a column, probably in Trump's first year, saying (paraphrasing) he doesn't
know what it is to know something.

[stilldropin20]

Baloney. Name them. Heck, name 20 meetings. There were a couple: the Trump Tower meeting, which was set up by a Russian who was also working with Perkins Coie and probably a setup. There was the meeting arranged by Joseph Misfud who was probably a spook for either CIA or the Brits - another setup. Trump certainly had some discussions with Russians regarding his business interests, but that's not a crime and that occurred before his campaign.

32 here
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/13/all-of-the-known-times-the-trump-campaign-met-with-russians/?utm_term=.0512f8547708
100 here
https://www.politicususa.com/2019/01/13/proof-of-collusion-trump-campaign-had-100-contacts-with-russians.html
102 here

https://themoscowproject.org/explainers/trumps-russia-cover-up-by-the-numbers-70-contacts-with-russia-linked-operatives/
16 here
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6479779/List-Trump-campaign-contacts-Russians-grows-14.html
> 100 here
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-russia-contacts-cap-report_n_5c36e939e4b0c469d76af276


but who's counting?

You have to be in serious denial to believe there is or was nothing
going on between Russia and Trump. Maybe not provable in a court
of law but I think a strong case can be made that that is far above
the standard that should be justifiably applied.

Thanks for taking the time to post those links.

That list of 102 is laughable. So many are blank "reached out" to blank. What does that even mean? Also, the fact that people in the Trump Organization talked to people from Russia in September 2015, or anytime in late 2015 or early 2016 doesn't bother me. Trump runs an international company that had business relations in Russia. The fact that people in the Trump Organization (not the Trump Campaign) spoke to people in Russia is not a crime or even the slightest bit suspicious. And most of the other contacts in that list are totally innocuous. The Trump campaign's foreign policy team actually spoke to people from foreign countries. Shocking! The list is designed to come up with a big number (in this case 102), and then make it look like that Trump personally directed all 102 conversations, specifically with the intent of influencing the election. That is clearly not the case an only a conspiracy theorist nut would think so. None of those 102 conversations involved collusion, and only a handful could conceivably have had anything whatsoever to do with hacked emails or anything like that - and those were set up by spooks for the CIA and foreign intelligence services.

I'm quite certain if you spent 2 years and devoted the entire intelligence community to dig through the Clinton campaign or the Obama campaign in 2008 or 2012, you could find 102 examples of some underling having some communication with somebody with "ties to Russia". Talking to people from foreign countries is not a crime, particularly when you are trying to develop a foreign policy. Russia is one of the most important geopolitical players in the world. Of course there will be communication with them.

All the stuff with Carter Page and Papadopolous was part of a sting operation by the Deep State. They sent operatives to whisper into Papadopolous' ear, saying "hey bud, I heard the Russians were hacking emails". They then sent another guy to talk to Papadopolous to ask, "hey bud, do you hear anything about Russians hacking emails?". When Papadopolous says yes, they then say that Papadopolous is guilty because he knew about the hacked emails.

The only Trump figure in this whole charade who is shady is Paul Manafort. He had worked with the Ukraine and had a bunch of ties and possibly some shady arrangements with them. But he wasn't even part of the Trump campaign at first. He was brought on because the media and the Republican establishment hated Corey Lewandowski and felt Trump needed a pro. Trump hired the wrong guy. As soon as Trump received his first security briefing, he fired Manafort.

That just leaves the Trump Tower fiasco, which was set up by a Russian who was working for Perkins Coie a the time! Another sting operation.

It can NOT be said enough that trump only hired Manaforte as he was accepting the GOP nomination. The GOP specifically instructed Trump to hire manaforte and most reports are that his nomination and unified support was tied to hiring manaforte. Think about that. Say it over and over until it sinks in. The only "bad guy" in this whole ordeal was manaforte. Whom the GOP instructed trump to hire as part of their nomination and unified support.

So i'm left wondering...how many rinos were on that GOP committee? Reince seemed to have full support for Trump so I doubt he was involved. At the same time, between Reince and Bannon...the early white was leaking early and often to the detriment of trump.

As nate and I have pointed out for 2.5 years. The entire thing stinks to high heaven. Trump did none of the stuff Schiff et al have claimed he did. None of it. All (1) of those "meetings" with russians were a set up. Those russians met with glen simpson's firm both directly before (2 hours) and directly after (1 day) the trump tower meeting. So it was a set up. Just like papadopoulous was set up.

This thing stinks to high heaven and anybody still clinging to it is doing so solely to damage the trump presidency and Brand.

And we've had evidence of the deep state working this treasonous angle in order to keep their jobs and squeeze Trump into future fortune has been reported on for over 1 year. Each and every one of you needs to understand that both Comey and Mueller have made a fortune moving in and out of the DOJ and private sector. Mueller and Comey specifically have appointed each other to the DOJ. Comey went in and out of lockhead martin and HSBC holding (making millions in the process) and then back to the DOJ. Subsequently the DOJ approved clearences to Lockhead and were awarded substantial government contracts as Comey went back to the DOJ and his stock holdings increased as lockhead got the approval. Tell me that doesn't stink!!?? Who's the criminal? Comey or trump?

I'm guessing that Comey is nothing more than a swamp creature. he already had "dirt" on HRC in the form of emails, blackebrries, "grossly negligent" etc. In his mind, he could control HRC (if she won) and continue moving in and out of the DOJ and keep gaining wealth along the way. For example...it was reported (now forgetten like everything else) that Mueller was going to the private sector for a financial windfall. and then be brought back to the DOJ by comey. But Trump won. and other than operation hurricane...the DOJ and intel community had nothing on trump. No leverage.

So Comey kept investigating Trump. and lying to trump about it. In order to find that Dirt and get that leverage. leaking to CNN and MSNBC and the NYTime early and often. Trump new something wasn't right. and then proceeded to gut this fish from the inside out. To clean out this swamp. and Comey is nothing more than a swamp creature. So is mccabe. Rosenstein. and mueller. All swamp creatures. And Trump is slowly exposing them all for what they are and what they did. They have attempted to run our government by way of dirt and leverage of investigations. Its sick. its disgusting. they were not elected by the american people.

[dobrojim]

Thanks for taking the time to post those links.

That list of 102 is laughable. So many are blank "reached out" to blank. What does that even mean? Also, the fact that people in the Trump Organization talked to people from Russia in September 2015, or anytime in late 2015 or early 2016 doesn't bother me. Trump runs an international company that had business relations in Russia. The fact that people in the Trump Organization (not the Trump Campaign) spoke to people in Russia is not a crime or even the slightest bit suspicious. And most of the other contacts in that list are totally innocuous. The Trump campaign's foreign policy team actually spoke to people from foreign countries. Shocking! The list is designed to come up with a big number (in this case 102), and then make it look like that Trump personally directed all 102 conversations, specifically with the intent of influencing the election. That is clearly not the case an only a conspiracy theorist nut would think so. None of those 102 conversations involved collusion, and only a handful could conceivably have had anything whatsoever to do with hacked emails or anything like that - and those were set up by spooks for the CIA and foreign intelligence services.

I'm quite certain if you spent 2 years and devoted the entire intelligence community to dig through the Clinton campaign or the Obama campaign in 2008 or 2012, you could find 102 examples of some underling having some communication with somebody with "ties to Russia". Talking to people from foreign countries is not a crime, particularly when you are trying to develop a foreign policy. Russia is one of the most important geopolitical players in the world. Of course there will be communication with them.

All the stuff with Carter Page and Papadopolous was part of a sting operation by the Deep State. They sent operatives to whisper into Papadopolous' ear, saying "hey bud, I heard the Russians were hacking emails". They then sent another guy to talk to Papadopolous to ask, "hey bud, do you hear anything about Russians hacking emails?". When Papadopolous says yes, they then say that Papadopolous is guilty because he knew about the hacked emails.

The only Trump figure in this whole charade who is shady is Paul Manafort. He had worked with the Ukraine and had a bunch of ties and possibly some shady arrangements with them. But he wasn't even part of the Trump campaign at first. He was brought on because the media and the Republican establishment hated Corey Lewandowski and felt Trump needed a pro. Trump hired the wrong guy. As soon as Trump received his first security briefing, he fired Manafort.

That just leaves the Trump Tower fiasco, which was set up by a Russian who was working for Perkins Coie a the time! Another sting operation.

You don't actually need the intelligence community (reminds me of Redford in Day of the Condor)
to do this research or investigation. Lots of choice quotes to be had.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-sad-embarrassing-wreck-of-a-man/2018/07/17/d06de8ea-89e8-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html?utm_term=.35126017f62c

Jeane Kirkpatrick, a Democrat closely associated with such Democratic national security stalwarts as former senator Henry Jackson and former senator and former vice president Hubert Humphrey, was President Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the United Nations. In her speech at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, she explained her disaffection from her party: “They always blame America first.” In Helsinki, the president who bandies the phrase “America First” put himself first, as always, and America last, behind President Vladimir Putin’s regime.

Contrast Graham’s mush with this on Monday from McCain, still vinegary: “Today’s press conference in Helsinki was one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.” Or this from Arizona’s other senator, Jeff Flake (R): “I never thought I would see the day when our American president would stand on the stage with the Russian President and place blame on the United States for Russian aggression.” Blame America only.

Yeah, the intelligence agencies conspired to make Trump look bad because they're all
a bunch of snowflake libtards out to get Trump because he is non-trad Pub who
is disrupting their comfy place in the great scheme of things.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter