-
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
So if I'm reading this right, we've got Trump supporters saying that past elections have had nefarious goings on, despite there being no evidence. Then we've got Trump supporters saying that nothing nefarious happened with Trump Jr because there's no evidence of it happening?
It's all rather confusing.
It isnt confusing at all unless you are trying to spin this into something terrible, then of course it would get tricky getting all the threads you fantasise about into something.
For example. I am still waiting for anyone to tell me what Trump jnr did that was illegal. Pretty vital BEFORE he is accused of treason and put to death. Yes really... Democrats senators have gone that far. Let that sink in for a minute.
I'm not trying to spin anything, just trying to understand why Trump has done nothing wrong because there's no evidence, yet all other elections have done something wrong even though there's no evidence. And we'd be stupid to think otherwise?
That just doesn't seem like very sane logic to me.
Maybe if you didn't make up things you wouldnt be so confused? Nobody has said anyone doing this in previous elections were doing anything wrong. So yeah I think you were spinning.
Hah, so defensive. What am I trying to spin? I'm not making things up, I couldn't give a shit either way, I'm finding the whole discussion interesting and I'm sure you know what I meant, but be pedantic and pick up not having the exact wording if you want.
I just don't understand the logic where evidence is required of Trump's wrongdoing but we can say it's happened loads in the past without any evidence. That sounds like conspiracy theorist logic.
Now you are changing what you are saying. Get specific about who said it has happened loads in the past and that it was wrong and failed to provide evidence. You clearly do give a shit because you are trying really hard to find an issue with something nobody said.
It is not pedantic to point out that the whole key to your supposed confusion is based on something that nobody said.And it isn't defensive to call someone out for making stuff up.
I find it more strange that people still cannot tell me what he did that was illegal, if you really want to be confused.. try that. It is working for me.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
So if I'm reading this right, we've got Trump supporters saying that past elections have had nefarious goings on, despite there being no evidence. Then we've got Trump supporters saying that nothing nefarious happened with Trump Jr because there's no evidence of it happening?
It's all rather confusing.
It isnt confusing at all unless you are trying to spin this into something terrible, then of course it would get tricky getting all the threads you fantasise about into something.
For example. I am still waiting for anyone to tell me what Trump jnr did that was illegal. Pretty vital BEFORE he is accused of treason and put to death. Yes really... Democrats senators have gone that far. Let that sink in for a minutebolded text.
have you got a link for that nothing shows up in my news feeds
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I'm sure we can all read back in the thread where @Rancid-Schnitzel is saying that previous election campaigns have had meetings with foreign representatives to gather dirt on the opposition and that it's naive to think otherwise, despite there being no evidence.
Yet nothing illegal happened in Trump's meeting because there's no evidence.
-
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I'm sure we can all read back in the thread where @Rancid-Schnitzel is saying that previous election campaigns have had meetings with foreign representatives to gather dirt on the opposition and that it's naive to think otherwise, despite there being no evidence.
Yet nothing illegal happened in Trump's meeting because there's no evidence.
Except he never said there was anything wrong with it when previous campaigns did it. He was pointing out the hypocrisy. So call your faux confusion is based on bollox.
-
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I'm sure we can all read back in the thread where @Rancid-Schnitzel is saying that previous election campaigns have had meetings with foreign representatives to gather dirt on the opposition and that it's naive to think otherwise, despite there being no evidence.
Yet nothing illegal happened in Trump's meeting because there's no evidence.
Excuse me? If you'd actually read, you'd see that my argument was that any candidate who was offered the dirt on an opponent would at least find out what that dirt was. Again if you could read, you would see that the naive part relates to the claims that they wouldn't and would immediately call the feds.
So please address that rather than make ignorant cracks from the sideline.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
@Bones said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I'm sure we can all read back in the thread where @Rancid-Schnitzel is saying that previous election campaigns have had meetings with foreign representatives to gather dirt on the opposition and that it's naive to think otherwise, despite there being no evidence.
Yet nothing illegal happened in Trump's meeting because there's no evidence.
Excuse me? If you'd actually read, you'd see that my argument was that any candidate who was offered the dirt on an opponent would at least find out what that dirt was. Again if you could read, you would see that the naive part relates to the claims that they wouldn't and would immediately call the feds.
So please address that rather than make ignorant cracks from the sideline.
Address what was actually said instead of what they wished you said? Unlikely.
-
@Frank as Ben Shapiro said, now we just need The Rock to run and we'll be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
-
I don't disagree with your point in general, but there isn't much evidence of it - in fact, there's actually refutable evidence of past candidates turning over potentially useful information which was sourced in dodgy ways (perhaps @phoenetia mentioned it and it was brought up in @canefan 's video too I think). My guess is that's what @Bones is referring too.
I've been staying out of this discussion, because I don't really care about the ruskies - except as a strategy by Dems (and probably some GOPs) to make Trump's presidency get embattled. And, it's working. I think that we get process stories with drip drops of new information, where - either way you look at it - things appear to be mismanaged. I thought the video posted above set it out really well. It's hard to be an effective president - or at least be seen to be one - when you are fighting off this shit all day long. Mostly, that's due to new information coming out - so something the Trump team could have dealt with months ago. I don't get that.
Overall, I think the GOP are now playing the game they perfected in the last few years. Don't get involved, just sling as much shit as you can. They are certainly being helped by most of the media too. What's amazing to me is that the GOP can hardly get its shit together when they have both houses and the presidency. That's fucked up and the story that should be being told more is how fucked up they are. I think MConnell is doing his level best - but he's fucked now that he has to pass something rather than fight it. There are too divided - like three parties in one. I'm interested t see what happens next.
In summary, the place is a fucking joke. Funny to watch, but really only a cautionary tale to me - I'd rather have our system and various deals than that shit. We should demand and try to make sure that we don't fall into that in NZ. That's my biggest concern.
By the way, I have a bet with my colleagues that Trump will get reelected. Anyone else think so?
-
Results on Russian interference show how attitudes about political issues can harden. Even though U.S. intelligence agencies have reported “with high confidence” that Russia sought to influence the 2016 election, four in 10 Americans either don’t think it happened (31 percent) or are unsure (9 percent), and recent disclosures haven’t changed that.
Amongst other findings, I found this astounding. I can guess to the reasoning most would put up behind this position (WMoD! Deep State! The Emails! The Runway! Benghazi! The Memo! The Letter! The Kenyan!) but on the balance of actual evidence, its far more likely that the intelligence agencies are telling the truth and not being directed purely by political motives.
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
Results on Russian interference show how attitudes about political issues can harden. Even though U.S. intelligence agencies have reported “with high confidence” that Russia sought to influence the 2016 election, four in 10 Americans either don’t think it happened (31 percent) or are unsure (9 percent), and recent disclosures haven’t changed that.
Amongst other findings, I found this astounding. I can guess to the reasoning most would put up behind this position (WMoD! Deep State! The Emails! The Runway! Benghazi! The Memo! The Letter! The Kenyan!) but on the balance of actual evidence, its far more likely that the intelligence agencies are telling the truth and not being directed purely by political motives.
Intelligence agencies are very political beasts, so not sure that guess is a good one. Until we see the evidence or someone actually gets prosecuted it's just hot air.
I'm way more interested in if Kushner has been making any head way on updating the IT infrastructure in the US, particularly cyber defence. We are in a new Cold War with numerous daily attacks happening, and it's only a matter of time before one of these attacks is on important infrastructure.
Russia has been practising some of their techniques in the Ukraine, and that's not to mention China, or even bloody North Korea.
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
Results on Russian interference show how attitudes about political issues can harden. Even though U.S. intelligence agencies have reported “with high confidence” that Russia sought to influence the 2016 election, four in 10 Americans either don’t think it happened (31 percent) or are unsure (9 percent), and recent disclosures haven’t changed that.
Amongst other findings, I found this astounding. I can guess to the reasoning most would put up behind this position (WMoD! Deep State! The Emails! The Runway! Benghazi! The Memo! The Letter! The Kenyan!) but on the balance of actual evidence, its far more likely that the intelligence agencies are telling the truth and not being directed purely by political motives.
Intelligence agencies are very political beasts, so not sure that guess is a good one. Until we see the evidence or someone actually gets prosecuted it's just hot air.
I'm way more interested in if Kushner has been making any head way on updating the IT infrastructure in the US, particularly cyber defence. We are in a new Cold War with numerous daily attacks happening, and it's only a matter of time before one of these attacks is on important infrastructure.
Russia has been practising some of their techniques in the Ukraine, and that's not to mention China, or even bloody North Korea.
I agree that the intelligence agencies are politicized. Where we perhaps don't agree is just how much. Using this example, do I think the intelligence agencies have concocted this Russia story as some sort of political power play ? No - theres no evidence of it and it seems unlikely to me that this would be the best they could come up with.
Yes, the US is very exposed. Its worrying to think that if the Russians/Chinese/NK were successful in causing a significant incident in USA just how Trump might react. That being said, he's been given evidence of Russian meddling and he seemed ok with that so perhaps Im making a mountain out of a mole hill...
-
@gt12 said in US Politics:
I don't disagree with your point in general, but there isn't much evidence of it - in fact, there's actually refutable evidence of past candidates turning over potentially useful information which was sourced in dodgy ways (perhaps @phoenetia mentioned it and it was brought up in @canefan 's video too I think). My guess is that's what @Bones is referring too.
I've been staying out of this discussion, because I don't really care about the ruskies - except as a strategy by Dems (and probably some GOPs) to make Trump's presidency get embattled. And, it's working. I think that we get process stories with drip drops of new information, where - either way you look at it - things appear to be mismanaged. I thought the video posted above set it out really well. It's hard to be an effective president - or at least be seen to be one - when you are fighting off this shit all day long. Mostly, that's due to new information coming out - so something the Trump team could have dealt with months ago. I don't get that.
Overall, I think the GOP are now playing the game they perfected in the last few years. Don't get involved, just sling as much shit as you can. They are certainly being helped by most of the media too. What's amazing to me is that the GOP can hardly get its shit together when they have both houses and the presidency. That's fucked up and the story that should be being told more is how fucked up they are. I think MConnell is doing his level best - but he's fucked now that he has to pass something rather than fight it. There are too divided - like three parties in one. I'm interested t see what happens next.
In summary, the place is a fucking joke. Funny to watch, but really only a cautionary tale to me - I'd rather have our system and various deals than that shit. We should demand and try to make sure that we don't fall into that in NZ. That's my biggest concern.
By the way, I have a bet with my colleagues that Trump will get reelected. Anyone else think so?
Phonetia mentioned a video of Bush debating which is hardly the same as incriminating information and could quite easily have been a plant. There was huge risk and not necessarily any reward from using it.
-
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@phoenetia said in US Politics:
Results on Russian interference show how attitudes about political issues can harden. Even though U.S. intelligence agencies have reported “with high confidence” that Russia sought to influence the 2016 election, four in 10 Americans either don’t think it happened (31 percent) or are unsure (9 percent), and recent disclosures haven’t changed that.
Amongst other findings, I found this astounding. I can guess to the reasoning most would put up behind this position (WMoD! Deep State! The Emails! The Runway! Benghazi! The Memo! The Letter! The Kenyan!) but on the balance of actual evidence, its far more likely that the intelligence agencies are telling the truth and not being directed purely by political motives.
Intelligence agencies are very political beasts, so not sure that guess is a good one. Until we see the evidence or someone actually gets prosecuted it's just hot air.
I'm way more interested in if Kushner has been making any head way on updating the IT infrastructure in the US, particularly cyber defence. We are in a new Cold War with numerous daily attacks happening, and it's only a matter of time before one of these attacks is on important infrastructure.
Russia has been practising some of their techniques in the Ukraine, and that's not to mention China, or even bloody North Korea.
I agree that the intelligence agencies are politicized. Where we perhaps don't agree is just how much. Using this example, do I think the intelligence agencies have concocted this Russia story as some sort of political power play ? No - theres no evidence of it and it seems unlikely to me that this would be the best they could come up with.
Yes, the US is very exposed. Its worrying to think that if the Russians/Chinese/NK were successful in causing a significant incident in USA just how Trump might react. That being said, he's been given evidence of Russian meddling and he seemed ok with that so perhaps Im making a mountain out of a mole hill...
I guess the concern is if he is already reacting. Considering the press seem focused on just one thing, it's not like we'd ever hear about it.
-
And the whole argument that even if he dud receive information it was illegal turns out to be bullshit. No shock really. This guy is a left wing Hilary supporter.....
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And the whole argument that even if he dud receive information it was illegal turns out to be bullshit. No shock really. This guy is a left wing Hilary supporter.....
Can you explain why you treat this persons opinion as fact while other 'legal experts' hold an opposing view?
Opposing views are the reason that any possible illegality would require testing in court which is why no one can provide a definite answer to your question of 'what has he done that is illegal?'Putting aside the question of illegality the main point in this episode is that once again someone connected with the Trump campaign has had a changing story about contact with Russia which they have only admitted to when painted into a corner.
While that doesn't necessarily prove anything illegal has happened it adds fuel to the investigation around Russian influence in the election. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And the whole argument that even if he dud receive information it was illegal turns out to be bullshit. No shock really. This guy is a left wing Hilary supporter.....
Can you explain why you treat this persons opinion as fact while other 'legal experts' hold an opposing view?
Opposing views are the reason that any possible illegality would require testing in court which is why no one can provide a definite answer to your question of 'what has he done that is illegal?'Putting aside the question of illegality the main point in this episode is that once again someone connected with the Trump campaign has had a changing story about contact with Russia which they have only admitted to when painted into a corner.
While that doesn't necessarily prove anything illegal has happened it adds fuel to the investigation around Russian influence in the election.His track record is pretty good. His credentials are outstanding. .. he is a democrat who heavily supports Hilary. Plus his arguments are great.
Feel free to point out a counter argument to his point. Some experts and doctors also support homeopathy.....
And no not everything has be decided in courts just because a political party throws a tantrum because they lost.
The main point in this is the left just carrying on about an issue most voters have low down the priority queue as it is beltway bullshit. -
collusion is fake news, it never happened. the mere suggestion is ridiculous, as is the investigation. it's the greatest witch hunt in political history. all because the democrats lost and the MSM is biased.
that was what we were told, repeatedly. by trump, by the white house, by don jr.
then donald trump jr - in his own words - on a proposal of collusion with the russian government: 'if it's what you say it is, i love it'.
and we are expected to gobble up this 'yeah sure he lied about all that, and loves the idea of collusion, but what about these goalposts i've shifted?' it's not even that bad, collusion. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
And the whole argument that even if he dud receive information it was illegal turns out to be bullshit. No shock really. This guy is a left wing Hilary supporter.....
Can you explain why you treat this persons opinion as fact while other 'legal experts' hold an opposing view?
Opposing views are the reason that any possible illegality would require testing in court which is why no one can provide a definite answer to your question of 'what has he done that is illegal?'Putting aside the question of illegality the main point in this episode is that once again someone connected with the Trump campaign has had a changing story about contact with Russia which they have only admitted to when painted into a corner.
While that doesn't necessarily prove anything illegal has happened it adds fuel to the investigation around Russian influence in the election.His track record is pretty good. His credentials are outstanding. .. he is a democrat who heavily supports Hilary. Plus his arguments are great.
Feel free to point out a counter argument to his point. Some experts and doctors also support homeopathy.....
And no not everything has be decided in courts just because a political party throws a tantrum because they lost.
The main point in this is the left just carrying on about an issue most voters have low down the priority queue as it is beltway bullshit.Are you forgetting the very legitimate investigation into Russian interference in the election?
US Politics