You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:TheMole wrote:He was told a foreign national had info that would've been illegal for him to obtain from a foreign national and he still accepted the meeting in order to obtain that information. Let the alleged fact that he did not receive any information not get in the way of the very real fact that he has confirmed, in writing, that he was going into that meeting with the very specific intention of committing the crime of receiving information from a foreign national.
What law was broken? You say taking information from a foreign national was illegal. How so?
I'm not saying I agree with. I think it's sleazy. But how is it illegal? And why is this illegal but Clinton's team meeting with bonafide, indisputable agents of the Ukrainian government to get info on Trump isn't?
I already did repeatedly....
1) Clinton didn't win.
Now how about you answer someone else's question for a change.
Why doesn't Trump and Co answer questions honestly about supposed 'legal' activities the first time that they've been asked.
I wasn't talking to you, but that's not an answer. That's the typical "I lack any consistency and only care what my enemies do." Is meeting with a foreign official illegal? yes or no? Or do you only think it's illegal in this particular instance because you hate Trump. Winning an election doesn't negate legality. That's a typical Mitch non-answer.
I don't know what you're asking or suggesting with your 2nd question. You have great difficulty creating coherent, intelligent arguments. If you're able to ask a direct question that doesn't make assumptions or require an esoteric knowledge of your thoughts, go for it. If you're asking why Jr. lied and said the meeting was about adoption, I don't have an answer. My assumption would be that coming out and saying "I met with a Russian to get dirt on Clinton" doesn't look very good.
All we know is that Jr met with a Russian citizen because a friend said she had dirt on Clinton. I don't believe that this act alone is illegal. Again, Clinton's team met with a Ukrainian agent to get info on Trump. The GOP didn't cry Treason. None of you posted outrage over it. So why does this matter based on what we know at this time?
If this woman was a Russian agent and offered illegally gained material, that changes the entire discussion. But we don't know any of that. That's my point.
If you want to discuss how stupid and sleazy it was for Jr to take the meeting, go for it. I sure as hell won't argue with you on that point. But if "you're" going to argue we have evidence of anything illegal, let alone treason, I'm going to ask what statute and what evidence you're referring to.
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:What law was broken? You say taking information from a foreign national was illegal. How so?
I'm not saying I agree with. I think it's sleazy. But how is it illegal? And why is this illegal but Clinton's team meeting with bonafide, indisputable agents of the Ukrainian government to get info on Trump isn't?
I already did repeatedly....
1) Clinton didn't win.
Now how about you answer someone else's question for a change.
Why doesn't Trump and Co answer questions honestly about supposed 'legal' activities the first time that they've been asked.
I wasn't talking to you, but that's not an answer. That's the typical "I lack any consistency and only care what my enemies do." Is meeting with a foreign official illegal? yes or no? Or do you only think it's illegal in this particular instance because you hate Trump. Winning an election doesn't negate legality. That's a typical Mitch non-answer.
I don't know what you're asking or suggesting with your 2nd question. You have great difficulty creating coherent, intelligent arguments. If you're able to ask a direct question that doesn't make assumptions or require an esoteric knowledge of your thoughts, go for it. If you're asking why Jr. lied and said the meeting was about adoption, I don't have an answer. My assumption would be that coming out and saying "I met with a Russian to get dirt on Clinton" doesn't look very good.
blah blah blah...
I'm just telling you why people don't care what Clinton did...not whether it's illegal...
but again...blah blah blah....more nothing from you
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/12/chu … stitution/
Good article on the "constitutional scholar" and helps debunk the notion Republicans/Rubio are to blame for Obamacare's failure.
Re: US Politics Thread
You would lose your shit if someone quoted an article from DailyKOS.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
You would lose your shit if someone quoted an article from DailyKOS.
You think the federalist is on par with the dailykos?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
You would lose your shit if someone quoted an article from DailyKOS.
So you finally admit that the Democrats created a garbage bill? And that Rubio prevented Obama from illegally taking money from the general fund to pay for a failure that experts identified when the Democrats passed the bill 5 years earlier? Did both chambers of Congress pass this bill? Did the President sign it?
I'm still waiting for the "concessions" Democrats gave to Republicans that destroyed Obamacare from the start. Just own that your party was in a rush to pass healthcare reform and created a bad bill. The Clintons have certainly acknowledged it. Schumer acknowledged Obama's attempt to take money not earmarked for it was unconstitutional. When does your party own the responsibility for any of its failures. You're already trying to blame Republicans for Russia hacking the DNC. Is there ever an instance where Democratic stupidity is to blame or have you drank Mitch's kool-aid? (Hint: I'm pretty sure is Angel Dust mixed with anti-psychotics)
Re: US Politics Thread
I am so worn out over this shit. Every fucking night Brian Williams acts like he has the bombshell.. Donald Trump Jr. is an idiot..
I still don't see how this is a big deal but the Ukraine thing is not.
I just looked into this and holy shit this makes Trump look even WORSE. The person who's email was hacked and released by wikileaks was reporting on Russia BEFORE Trump ran for President and was giving her information to an American Ambassador to Ukraine, specifically on Manafort. She literally said if Russia was really working with Trump he would hire Manafort, and he fucking did. That's why she was contacted. Damn.... The difference here, she was trying to get a congressional hearing on this.
Manafort was heavily involved in corruption and destabilization in Ukraine sponsored by Russia... There was a reason Ukraine was worried.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
This article is fantastic. It's almost as if the author observed most of you talk the past few days.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/12/wha … dishonest/
----
Donald Trump Jr. is not only a crook, but this now points to treason!
Well, unless new information emerges, it doesn’t look like Donald Trump Jr. broke any laws. Taking a meeting with a foreign national might be shady and scandalous and stupid, but it’s almost surely not illegal, unless there was quid quo pro, etc. And the meeting doesn’t meet even the broadest interpretation of “treason.” By using this kind of over-the-top rhetoric, you’re taking a legitimate political scandal and overplaying your hand — as you have numerous times in your quest for impeachment.
Look at the Trumpkin with his ready-made talking point. So nothing that is technically illegal can be wrong? ‘It’s horrible but not treason.’ You go with that!
Of course a lack of criminality doesn’t mean there was a lack of corrupt behavior. No one should excuse the actions of the Trump administration. But neither should we expect Trump voters to embrace a standard that Democrats dismissed only a few months ago. When James Comey found that Hillary Clinton had broken laws related to the handling of classified information — then attempted to conceal the evidence from investigators — she escaped because prosecutors were supposedly unable to prove intent. We were repeatedly lectured that the only thing that mattered was that Hillary had been legally cleared. She was ready to lead, and so on. Many of us pointed out that her defense was setting a corrosive precedent — which is more than we can say for the majority of Democrats.
Because the election is over, dude. When Hillary is president you can impeach her. Concentrate on what’s happening now.
It’s both happening right now. Condemning Trump’s bad behavior shouldn’t inhibit anyone from pointing out the duplicity and partisan aims of those attempting to gain back power. Those people are part of the equation. In the same way the past doesn’t excuse Trump’s actions, his actions don’t excuse the hypocrisy and corruption of his antagonists. Charges of whataboutism are often used to shut that discussion down. Moreover, the idea that Americans should contemplate politics without any historical context is a brand new, and utterly absurd, demand. Despite what you have heard, history did not start on January 21.
The two are not comparable. This isn’t about hypocrisy, this is about collusion with RUSSIA, America’s number one geopolitical foe!
If this is so why did Russia to get away with murder over the past decade? The problem is, your newfound concern regarding Russia’s role in the world isn’t very convincing. Mine is consistent. And if you were truly worried about collusion and kompromat, then you would have been concerned about Hillary’s foundation engaging in favor-trading with a number of hostile and illiberal powers — including, The New York Times has reported, Russian oligarchs. You would have been concerned that Democrats were shopping that Steele dossier, which came directly from Russian sources, to anyone who would listen. And not only did the media bite on this fictitious intel, but the dossier may well have been used to unmask American citizens. Was this treason? Collusion?
But whataboutism is mostly used to excuse Donald Trump.
I’d say it’s used as much for excuse-making by Trump’s fans as it is to circumvent uncomfortable debates. Take, for instance, NPR’s narrow definition of whataboutism. It says, “’whataboutism’ is an attractive tactic for populists allowing them to be vague but also appear straight-talking from what’s happening now.” Yes, it’s also an attractive word for partisans to throw around when they realize their positions undermine their credibility.
So that makes it okay for Trump to steal our democracy.
Attempted Russian meddling in the American election system should be investigated fully and dealt with. But no one has stolen democracy or an election. Not one American vote was hijacked by a Russian. Not one American was fooled by anything the Russians were saying or doing. That is transparent mythmaking meant to cast doubt on the validity of the electoral system. It’s tactically similar to what Democrats engaged in after George W. Bush won, and I suspect it will be similar to what you’ll do after any other Republican wins the presidency.
This is worse. What Trump is doing is unprecedented.
Folks who complain to me about “whataboutism” have a weird propensity to lecture me about historical precedents. Can we talk about the past or not? Take Paul Begala — a guy who led the mocking of Mitt Romney when the candidate called out Barack Obama’s Russian appeasement — who recently asserted that in his “34 years of campaigns, [he] never, ever heard of getting help from a hostile foreign power.” Never? He’s never heard of Charlie Trie, the man who was funneling millions to the Clintons on behalf of Chinese interests? He’s never read the leaked emails that showed the Clinton campaign working with Ukrainians to find information damaging to Trump? Never?
At the end of the day, your anti-anti Trumpism is allowing the president destroy the country and abuse his powers. So I hope you’re happy.
At the end of the day, it’s best to take consistent positions and always support strengthening separations of power. If you were cheering the corroded standards and processes of the last eight years, your laments about abuse of power do not hold currency. Either working with a foreign agent is treason or it isn’t. Coddling up to Russian authoritarians (or Iranian Islamists) is gross, or it’s not. Ruling by fiat is how we do things when the opposing party is engaging in “obstruction,” or it’s not. We can’t keep changing the rules every time it’s convenient for Democrats, then cry whataboutism when someone points it out.
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:You would lose your shit if someone quoted an article from DailyKOS.
So you finally admit that the Democrats created a garbage bill? And that Rubio prevented Obama from illegally taking money from the general fund to pay for a failure that experts identified when the Democrats passed the bill 5 years earlier? Did both chambers of Congress pass this bill? Did the President sign it?
I'm still waiting for the "concessions" Democrats gave to Republicans that destroyed Obamacare from the start. Just own that your party was in a rush to pass healthcare reform and created a bad bill. The Clintons have certainly acknowledged it. Schumer acknowledged Obama's attempt to take money not earmarked for it was unconstitutional. When does your party own the responsibility for any of its failures. You're already trying to blame Republicans for Russia hacking the DNC. Is there ever an instance where Democratic stupidity is to blame or have you drank Mitch's kool-aid? (Hint: I'm pretty sure is Angel Dust mixed with anti-psychotics)
They took away a public option, again, Lyin Randy. Nope. Repug bullshit. Republicans came up with the risk corridors, genius. Never said it was perfect, been pretty open about it. You finally going to admit Republicans sabotaged the bill?
Re: US Politics Thread
This article is fantastic. It's almost as if the author observed most of you talk the past few days.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/12/wha … dishonest/----
Donald Trump Jr. is not only a crook, but this now points to treason!Well, unless new information emerges, it doesn’t look like Donald Trump Jr. broke any laws. Taking a meeting with a foreign national might be shady and scandalous and stupid, but it’s almost surely not illegal, unless there was quid quo pro, etc. And the meeting doesn’t meet even the broadest interpretation of “treason.” By using this kind of over-the-top rhetoric, you’re taking a legitimate political scandal and overplaying your hand — as you have numerous times in your quest for impeachment.
Look at the Trumpkin with his ready-made talking point. So nothing that is technically illegal can be wrong? ‘It’s horrible but not treason.’ You go with that!
Of course a lack of criminality doesn’t mean there was a lack of corrupt behavior. No one should excuse the actions of the Trump administration. But neither should we expect Trump voters to embrace a standard that Democrats dismissed only a few months ago. When James Comey found that Hillary Clinton had broken laws related to the handling of classified information — then attempted to conceal the evidence from investigators — she escaped because prosecutors were supposedly unable to prove intent. We were repeatedly lectured that the only thing that mattered was that Hillary had been legally cleared. She was ready to lead, and so on. Many of us pointed out that her defense was setting a corrosive precedent — which is more than we can say for the majority of Democrats.
Because the election is over, dude. When Hillary is president you can impeach her. Concentrate on what’s happening now.
It’s both happening right now. Condemning Trump’s bad behavior shouldn’t inhibit anyone from pointing out the duplicity and partisan aims of those attempting to gain back power. Those people are part of the equation. In the same way the past doesn’t excuse Trump’s actions, his actions don’t excuse the hypocrisy and corruption of his antagonists. Charges of whataboutism are often used to shut that discussion down. Moreover, the idea that Americans should contemplate politics without any historical context is a brand new, and utterly absurd, demand. Despite what you have heard, history did not start on January 21.
The two are not comparable. This isn’t about hypocrisy, this is about collusion with RUSSIA, America’s number one geopolitical foe!
If this is so why did Russia to get away with murder over the past decade? The problem is, your newfound concern regarding Russia’s role in the world isn’t very convincing. Mine is consistent. And if you were truly worried about collusion and kompromat, then you would have been concerned about Hillary’s foundation engaging in favor-trading with a number of hostile and illiberal powers — including, The New York Times has reported, Russian oligarchs. You would have been concerned that Democrats were shopping that Steele dossier, which came directly from Russian sources, to anyone who would listen. And not only did the media bite on this fictitious intel, but the dossier may well have been used to unmask American citizens. Was this treason? Collusion?
But whataboutism is mostly used to excuse Donald Trump.I’d say it’s used as much for excuse-making by Trump’s fans as it is to circumvent uncomfortable debates. Take, for instance, NPR’s narrow definition of whataboutism. It says, “’whataboutism’ is an attractive tactic for populists allowing them to be vague but also appear straight-talking from what’s happening now.” Yes, it’s also an attractive word for partisans to throw around when they realize their positions undermine their credibility.
So that makes it okay for Trump to steal our democracy.
Attempted Russian meddling in the American election system should be investigated fully and dealt with. But no one has stolen democracy or an election. Not one American vote was hijacked by a Russian. Not one American was fooled by anything the Russians were saying or doing. That is transparent mythmaking meant to cast doubt on the validity of the electoral system. It’s tactically similar to what Democrats engaged in after George W. Bush won, and I suspect it will be similar to what you’ll do after any other Republican wins the presidency.
This is worse. What Trump is doing is unprecedented.
Folks who complain to me about “whataboutism” have a weird propensity to lecture me about historical precedents. Can we talk about the past or not? Take Paul Begala — a guy who led the mocking of Mitt Romney when the candidate called out Barack Obama’s Russian appeasement — who recently asserted that in his “34 years of campaigns, [he] never, ever heard of getting help from a hostile foreign power.” Never? He’s never heard of Charlie Trie, the man who was funneling millions to the Clintons on behalf of Chinese interests? He’s never read the leaked emails that showed the Clinton campaign working with Ukrainians to find information damaging to Trump? Never?At the end of the day, your anti-anti Trumpism is allowing the president destroy the country and abuse his powers. So I hope you’re happy.
At the end of the day, it’s best to take consistent positions and always support strengthening separations of power. If you were cheering the corroded standards and processes of the last eight years, your laments about abuse of power do not hold currency. Either working with a foreign agent is treason or it isn’t. Coddling up to Russian authoritarians (or Iranian Islamists) is gross, or it’s not. Ruling by fiat is how we do things when the opposing party is engaging in “obstruction,” or it’s not. We can’t keep changing the rules every time it’s convenient for Democrats, then cry whataboutism when someone points it out.
The Federalist, of course that would be your go to site 
