You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/254852337-story
I believe Clinton killed him. I don't have any facts, but I know it in my heart. Where there's smoke there's fire. Wikileaks reported a DNC staffer was the source of the leaks. The DNC refused to let the FBI look at their servers knowing that vital information would have been collected.
No, I don't believe any of that. Just showing you how ridiculous it sounds.
You're actually comparing the two? Seriously?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/254852337-story
I believe Clinton killed him. I don't have any facts, but I know it in my heart. Where there's smoke there's fire. Wikileaks reported a DNC staffer was the source of the leaks. The DNC refused to let the FBI look at their servers knowing that vital information would have been collected.
No, I don't believe any of that. Just showing you how ridiculous it sounds.
You're actually comparing the two? Seriously?
Yes. The amount of evidence to support either claim is entirely circumstantial. Those advocating a position for either are entirely partisan.
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/254852337-story
I believe Clinton killed him. I don't have any facts, but I know it in my heart. Where there's smoke there's fire. Wikileaks reported a DNC staffer was the source of the leaks. The DNC refused to let the FBI look at their servers knowing that vital information would have been collected.
No, I don't believe any of that. Just showing you how ridiculous it sounds.
You're actually comparing the two? Seriously?
Yes. The amount of evidence to support either claim is entirely circumstantial. Those advocating a position for either are entirely partisan.
But if our president operates in this manner (as he currently is) then why do we all have to take the high road?
Trump created this game. He said false things through out his whole campaign. He says intentionally false things as president. Because he won the election, he set that precedent.
You can see it in all the things he's attacking. He uses falsehoods to create motivation to eliminate the EPA. Perception is reality, and he tries to create and fabricate perception. The best part about his strategy is that you can create perception out of thin air. It doesn't have to be based in facts.
I've been trying to convince you of this over the past 5 months since he won. His ability to completely fabricate an alternate universe and get people to buy into it is how he won. His ability to get people to think that "if this didn't happen....we'd all be better off...." If there weren't any Mexicans here, the jobs would be available. "if Obama wasn't such a fuck up, none of these problems would exist." "If you know how to negotiate, you'll get everything you want."
It's all stupidly absurd but that's where we're at...he's not dealing in facts and I believe that in order to beat him, you have to play that game with him.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:misterID wrote:You're actually comparing the two? Seriously?
Yes. The amount of evidence to support either claim is entirely circumstantial. Those advocating a position for either are entirely partisan.
But if our president operates in this manner (as he currently is) then why do we all have to take the high road?
Trump created this game. He said false things through out his whole campaign. He says intentionally false things as president. Because he won the election, he set that precedent.
You can see it in all the things he's attacking. He uses falsehoods to create motivation to eliminate the EPA. Perception is reality, and he tries to create and fabricate perception. The best part about his strategy is that you can create perception out of thin air. It doesn't have to be based in facts.
I've been trying to convince you of this over the past 5 months since he won. His ability to completely fabricate an alternate universe and get people to buy into it is how he won. His ability to get people to think that "if this didn't happen....we'd all be better off...." If there weren't any Mexicans here, the jobs would be available. "if Obama wasn't such a fuck up, none of these problems would exist." "If you know how to negotiate, you'll get everything you want."
It's all stupidly absurd but that's where we're at...he's not dealing in facts and I believe that in order to beat him, you have to play that game with him.
I'm not saying take the high road. Call Trump a fucking moron who can't stand it if anyone who reports to him gets more media attention than him. Call out how embarrassing it is that our leader spends more time on Twitter than he does meeting with members of congress. Or anything else you deem concerning. I'm just saying "you" can't make shit up and claim it's true based on hearsay.
What Trump is doing isn't new. Clinton did it, Obama did it and every other politician since the radio has done it. They have an agenda, they cite stories or examples that support it, and hand waive those that don't. How many people from a Muslim background have immigrated to the US since 1990. I don't have a clue, but I'm sure it's in the millions. But less than 50 have ever harmed anyone in the name of Allah. When Democrats talk about guns, what guns do they pull out and use as an example? Assault weapons. What percent of gun crime is committed with an assault weapon? Less than 1%. Sure you can name a dozen shooters over the past 30 years that have used a 30 round magazine to inflict harm, but those account for a statistically insignificant amount of shooters. We're talking 1000th of a percent, if that.
And what do you think the media and Democrats are doing? Name one news organization outside of Fox who might as well be considered a government propaganda tool at times, who has ran a positive story on Trump. You're telling me that in 4 months, nothing can be written from a positive point of view? Everyday it's a new crisis. Yes, the Republicans and Fox were complete dipshits at times under Obama, just as the Democrats were under Bush. But we've progressively gotten worse and I don't know where the boiling point is. The amount of hysteria over Trump is unprecedented. Minus the media, if Clinton had won, Ryan and McConnell would be doing the same thing Pelosi and Schumer are doing now. Do you think the GOP would have quickly voted on all of her nominees? I don't. I don't think it would have been full on obstruction, but a few of her picks would have been shot down. That's why i voted for her. I knew that the GOP wasn't losing congress and hoped they'd take their stand on her SCOTUS nominee. Then she could have governed from the middle and found moderate Republicans and Democrats to largely support her agenda.
Instead we have Trump who regardless of his position or comments, is portrayed as a fucking idiot on every topic. Despite Atari's disbelief, I had some very candid conversations at the White House Saturday. None of them had a clue Comey was let go. They found out the same way we did, through the news. There are genuine problems that I think could be resolved if it wasn't a constant cry from Chicken Little everyday. But the hysteria from the left creates one loud bellow that prevents any real attention being given to any event. We've moved on from Comey to Trump sharing intel with Russia. What will happen tomorrow that will change the story once again?
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/254852337-story
I believe Clinton killed him. I don't have any facts, but I know it in my heart. Where there's smoke there's fire. Wikileaks reported a DNC staffer was the source of the leaks. The DNC refused to let the FBI look at their servers knowing that vital information would have been collected.
No, I don't believe any of that. Just showing you how ridiculous it sounds.
You're actually comparing the two? Seriously?
Yes. The amount of evidence to support either claim is entirely circumstantial. Those advocating a position for either are entirely partisan.
No, not even close.
Russians helped his election.
He refuses to criticize Putin or accept Russian involvement in the hacks.
Putin arranged white house meeting.
Trump agrees to meeting with enemy who just cyber attacked our country for his benefit.
Trump fired lead investigator into his Russia ties.
His campaign had dealings with Russia and lied about it.
Trump contradicts American intelligence agencies over Russia.
Compared to...
Randall's weak ass, lame ass attempt to compare a nothing story with no evidence.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:misterID wrote:You're actually comparing the two? Seriously?
Yes. The amount of evidence to support either claim is entirely circumstantial. Those advocating a position for either are entirely partisan.
No, not even close.
Russians helped his election.
He refuses to criticize Putin or accept Russian involvement in the hacks.
Putin arranged white house meeting.
Trump agrees to meeting with enemy who just cyber attacked our country for his benefit.
Trump fired lead investigator into his Russia ties.
His campaign had dealings with Russia and lied about it.
Trump contradicts American intelligence agencies over Russia.Compared to...
Randall's weak ass, lame ass attempt to compare a nothing story with no evidence.
I'm not saying on their face they're equal. I'm saying that after 9 months and anyone with any credibility calling Trump's involvement a complete bullshit story, anyone peddling the "TRUMP WORKED WITH PUTIN" narrative is no different than the yahoo claiming Clinton clipped an intern. If you're still convinced Trump collaborated with Putin, you're not relying on evidence.
Re: US Politics Thread
You do realize they will not give up evidence until the investigation is over, which could take a really long time, right? I've said that I don't expect him to have directly worked with Putin. What I believe is that people on his campaign did so on his behalf and now he's making moves to obstruct the investigation. He could be completely innocent in the initial conspiracy but his stupidity is tying him into it.
There are right wingers who are convinced he will be impeached over Russian money laundering, but I have no clue what evidence they say is going to explode so I haven't mentioned it here. This on the other hand is enough in plain sight for me to see that I think there was collusion and now obstruction.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
You do realize they will not give up evidence until the investigation is over, which could take a really long time, right? I've said that I don't expect him to have directly worked with Putin. What I believe is that people on his campaign did so on his behalf and now he's making moves to obstruct the investigation. He could be completely innocent in the initial conspiracy but his stupidity is tying him into it.
There are right wingers who are convinced he will be impeached over Russian money laundering, but I have no clue what evidence they say is going to explode so I haven't mentioned it here. This on the other hand is enough in plain sight for me to see that I think there was collusion and now obstruction.
Right, and anyone with actual ties to the investigation has denied that anyone in Trump's campaign coordinated with Putin. Did Flynn take money in an unrelated endeavor, possibly. But no one with an ounce of credibility or knowledge has said there's any evidence ANYONE on Trump's campaign coordinated in any capacity with Russia.
Yea, Watergate took a year. They also didn't have computers and data forensic evidence. The FBI is looking into Russia's involvement in our election. A small part of that investigation included a cursory glance at Trump's campaign and NOTHING has been found or leaked suggesting anyone did anything illegal in this capacity. The MO of the left is to blur the line of the actual FBI investigating into Russia and make it about Trump.
Trump didn't fire Comey to cover anything. It's an absurd and ridiculous argument to make. No one who doesn't have a (D) next to their name and a camera in front of them have even suggested it. Pelosi herself told her townhall that impeaching Trump isn't going to happen because the man hasn't done anything illegal.
I'm sorry you don't see it, but your devotion to this conspiracy is entirely partisan and stems from your disdain for the man. You're the birther dude.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Apparently the Times is reporting that Trump tried to make Comey stop the Flynn investigation.
See, that is plausible. Claiming Trump fired Comey to make the investigation into him go away isn't.
