|
new phone who dis posted:Also, I use left and right
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Kjoery posted:im not sure if you noticed, but you actually just use "the left" (8 instances of "the left", 2 of "the right", in a thread (theoretically) focused on a republican president. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm) There are lots of subfactions within both parties and naming all of them is exhausting so referring to them with political shorthand isn't a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Both sides of the establishment hate him for not being one of them. The Russia thing is a bipartisan effort from the IC for that reason. Personally, I think the "Trump isn't the establishment" narrative is bunk so long as he keeps putting elites in his cabinet and pushing anything from the GOP platform through. If people are looking for a champion who will fight for the people against the political class, they're pretty wrong to be backing the billionaire who dines with Guiliani and Sessions and writes off constituents at local town halls as "paid protesters." Same with the "voting for Trump is like rolling the dice" line, when he's been just as terrible as he's been promising he would be. These are patently false perspectives that benefit Trump. Knight fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Molestationary Store posted:The Russia stuff otoh can very possibly justify his removal from office. Everyday he's still in is surprising, there's so much poo poo on this dude. Hahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Knight posted:Why do you think the IC is more concerned with him "not being one of them," rather than being a narcissistic clown who ignores briefings over his fickle feelings and Fox & Friends bylines? There's a long tradition of presidents only being culled from certain circles and Trump threw that out the window completely. The IC knows he wasn't in bed with the Russians, but they're continuing to beat the drum regardless because not only is Trump not from their preferred circles, if the Russians really did hack Podesta it makes the IC look lovely there, too. It's an entire gaggle of losers throwing a huge fit because they all got beat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Molestationary Store posted:While Clinton being a loving rear end in a top hat to brown people is certainly not a good thing in the eyes of many folks, she's not really doing anything illegal there. The Benghazi stuff otoh can very possibly justify her removal from office. Everyday she's still in is surprising, there's so much poo poo on this lady. f'd up if true
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
lmao at all the people itt who still think things matter
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
So according to 'new phone who dis', we've got Trump on one side and the repubicans, democrats, 17 intelligence agencies and the entire media on the other because he didn't come from the right elites.... ... and not because there are literally dozens of unanswered questions about his and his campaign's ties to Russia (which they've consistently been caught lying about).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:So according to 'new phone who dis', we've got Trump on one side and the repubicans, democrats, 17 intelligence agencies and the entire media on the other because he didn't come from the right elites.... Trump will bring the pedo illuminati from wall street and hollywood down That's why everyone is attacking him
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:There's a long tradition of presidents only being culled from certain circles and Trump threw that out the window completely. The IC knows he wasn't in bed with the Russians, but they're continuing to beat the drum regardless because not only is Trump not from their preferred circles, if the Russians really did hack Podesta it makes the IC look lovely there, too. It's an entire gaggle of losers throwing a huge fit because they all got beat. What kind of traditional circle did Barack Obama come from? How much mileage is Trump going to get out of the "This is a distraction because Hillary Clinton lost the election" tweets with you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:So according to 'new phone who dis', we've got Trump on one side and the repubicans, democrats, 17 intelligence agencies and the entire media on the other because he didn't come from the right elites.... What you're seeing is the IC running a public relations and destabilization operation on the sitting president of the US and his administration. They know there's no substantial connection between the Trump campaign and Russia, but as long as they can continue to imply it through friendly media sources, hopefully administration members will continue to slip up and lie or omit petty details they can nail them for. Nobody involved actually thinks Trump was involved with the Russians, they're just taking out election angst on him and his people. The cover-up being worse than the crime is an old political trope and the people wielding this investigation know the Trump team isn't experienced or savvy enough to not get caught up in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Knight posted:Again, why do you think that is the deciding factor? So much that you keep steering the conversation in that direction to avoid the obvious: that he hates intelligent briefings and thinks he knows everything from watching cable news. Obama came right out of the meat grinder that is Chicago Democrat politics. The intel community shouldn't be in the business of destabilizing and undermining elected officials it doesn't like. They work for the government, they shouldn't be holding them hostage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:Obama came right out of the meat grinder that is Chicago Democrat politics. The intel community shouldn't be in the business of destabilizing and undermining elected officials it doesn't like. They work for the government, they shouldn't be holding them hostage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Knight posted:And why would coming out of Chicago make the IC respect him as "one of them"? I really don't understand why you think that would impress them. He's been 100% produced and vetted by the established system. He's Ivy-League and a known commodity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
IC IC baby
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:What you're seeing is the IC running a public relations and destabilization operation on the sitting president of the US and his administration. They know there's no substantial connection between the Trump campaign and Russia, but as long as they can continue to imply it through friendly media sources, hopefully administration members will continue to slip up and lie or omit petty details they can nail them for. Nobody involved actually thinks Trump was involved with the Russians, they're just taking out election angst on him and his people. The cover-up being worse than the crime is an old political trope and the people wielding this investigation know the Trump team isn't experienced or savvy enough to not get caught up in it. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/trump-teams-many-many-denials-contacts-russia/98625780/ USA Today has a list of 20 times they've denied any contacts and now it's been made clear they've been lying about those contacts. They were involved with the russians, as of today March 3rd that is beyond denying. The only question is how deeply and why.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
so which political side in america is the one that isn't xenophobes lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/02/trump-teams-many-many-denials-contacts-russia/98625780/ What you're seeing are fairly innocuous meetings standard to most politicians being blown out of proportion because of the hacking narrative. That's why there was so much insistence that the hacking narrative be accepted without proof, so they can then dig through benign meetings and assign malignant intent for the sake of political assassination when people either lie or dismiss them as unimportant. Even Flynn, who resigned, turned out to not be discussing anything of import in his meetings. He lied about it, but the IC has loving recordings and logs of them and admitted outright they were fairly unsubstantial. The only reason any of these meetings with ambassadors and such are creating this many waves is because of the entire media narrative being put forth about the election being hacked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Please stop linking to the USA Today. It is a bad paper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
i look forward to a democratic future where governance decisions including impeaching the president are determined entirely by clickbait
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
If the many meetings Trump's people had with Russia are no big deal, then why do they keep lying about them? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:If the many meeting Trump's people had with Russia are no big deal, then why do they keep lying about them? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ maybe they're trying to say they haven't had contact with any shady russians, just the russians they were supposed to have contact with, like ambassadors
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:maybe they're trying to say they haven't had contact with any shady russians, just the russians they were supposed to have contact with, like ambassadors Sort of like Clinton didn't have sex with that woman, he just got a blow job?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:If the many meetings Trump's people had with Russia are no big deal, then why do they keep lying about them? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I think a lot of it is the context. People keep asking them if they met with the Russians in the context of fixing the election or discussing policy and they're like "no, never", and then someone finds an instance where somebody talked to an ambassador about nothing and thinks it's some sort of smoking gun. Meanwhile you have Claire McCaskill obviously doing the same drat thing and making the same mistakes in her big rush to jump on the bandwagon. It's fairly obvious that there's a lot of innocuous contact between Russian intermediaries and US politicians at that level that has little to do with nefarious election plots and is also easily forgotten because of it's lack of substance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Pence used an AOL email and it got hacked. loving lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:Sort of like Clinton didn't have sex with that woman, he just got a blow job? i dunno but that sure does make it sound like some sort of revenge plot by the dems to impeach a president over stupid poo poo in revenge for the same happening to their president a long long time ago lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Trump should get everyone a blowie, that would be a good president thing. You can't notice the president be bad if your body feel so good make your eyes cross. A lickin in every cot!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:i dunno but that sure does make it sound like some sort of revenge plot by the dems to impeach a president over stupid poo poo in revenge for the same happening to their president a long long time ago lmao It's 100% revenge for Wikileaks clowning on Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:the entire media narrative being put forth about the election being hacked. No one is actually saying this aside from right-wing commentators claiming that the left is saying it. What the rest of the media is actually saying is that Russia worked to influence the election, possibly with individuals within the US government, to get their desired result, Trump, or if not that destabilize and undermine Clinton, had she won.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:No one is actually saying this aside from right-wing commentators claiming that the left is saying it. What the rest of the media is actually saying is that Russia worked to influence the election, possibly with individuals within the US government, to get their desired result, Trump, or if not that destabilize and undermine Clinton, had she won. there has definitely been a lot of people saying russia outright hacked the election among the boys and girls who support them dems actually much like there have been a lot of people who support the republicans saying trump is not a great choice president
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:No one is actually saying this aside from right-wing commentators claiming that the left is saying it. What the rest of the media is actually saying is that Russia worked to influence the election, possibly with individuals within the US government, to get their desired result, Trump, or if not that destabilize and undermine Clinton, had she won. "Election hacking" is the terminology used regularly all over the political spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Well, republicans did keep that nonsense Benghazi stuff up for 4 years. I find it hard to believe that they would be acting with any more restraint than the democrats if the situations were reversed. In fact, I think it's safe to assume they would be making a bigger deal out of it than the democrats are doing now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:Well, republicans did keep that nonsense Benghazi stuff up for 4 years. I find it hard to believe that they would be acting with any more restraint than the democrats if the situations were reversed. In fact, I think it's safe to assume they would be making a bigger deal out of it than the democrats are doing now. yeah i think we established long ago the republicans had a flip out of similar proportions when obummer got elected but they also admit they were poo poo and learned from it, which the dems don't seem to wanna do what with the dnc chair stuff and no campaign post mortem lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:No one is actually saying this aside from right-wing commentators claiming that the left is saying it. What the rest of the media is actually saying is that Russia worked to influence the election, possibly with individuals within the US government, to get their desired result, Trump, or if not that destabilize and undermine Clinton, had she won. Actually, republicans, including the president, have been saying there was wide scale voter fraud.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:I think a lot of it is the context. People keep asking them if they met with the Russians in the context of fixing the election or discussing policy and they're like "no, never", and then someone finds an instance where somebody talked to an ambassador about nothing and thinks it's some sort of smoking gun. Meanwhile you have Claire McCaskill obviously doing the same drat thing and making the same mistakes in her big rush to jump on the bandwagon. It's fairly obvious that there's a lot of innocuous contact between Russian intermediaries and US politicians at that level that has little to do with nefarious election plots and is also easily forgotten because of it's lack of substance. Weird, if I didn't know better I'd say it's like we've just had a two-term president attempting to "reset" relations with a typically adversarial country and sustained communications with them is to be expected if we're to grow closer. But only Soviet boot lickers would say such a thing. Cold War II woot woot! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
What did Republicans learn from their tantrum other than to double down on it and tantrum harder?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
new phone who dis posted:He's been 100% produced and vetted by the established system. He's Ivy-League and a known commodity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:Actually, republicans, including the president, have been saying there was wide scale voter fraud. yeah but they're saying mexico hacked the election tho they managed to somehow penetrate the air gapped US electoral network with sheer manpower
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:yeah i think we established long ago the republicans had a flip out of similar proportions when obummer got elected but they also admit they were poo poo and learned from it, which the dems don't seem to wanna do what with the dnc chair stuff and no campaign post mortem lmao Obama was elected in 2008. Benghazi happened in 2012 and some republicans would like to continue investigating it today. When exactly did they learn?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
NotWearingPants posted:Obama was elected in 2008. Benghazi happened in 2012 and some republicans would like to continue investigating it today. When exactly did they learn? tea party *drops massive turd*
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 17:04
|
|