13 Russians, 3 businesses indicted by Mueller/Rosenstein in connection to Trump

[Xzi]

I don't particularly care if she gets investigated by a proper team again, it's inconsequential and low on the agenda.

That's fine, but it means your previous statement that there's "plenty of illegal activity which can be attributed to Clinton" is demonstrably false.

Trump 2020 is pretty much a given unless the DNC comes up with a real heavyweight champion in the next 2 years - so far no such champion appeared on the scene.

There are far more registered Democrats than Republicans, so all Democrats have to do to win is show up. They've seen what happens when they don't now, and any candidate that the Democrats choose has to be a better campaigner than Hillary, so I have a hard time believing that Trump has much of a chance in 2020. The biggest hurdles are still gerrymandering and Russian interference, but cheating only goes so far.

I'm just saying, part of me genuinely makes me wonder if the only reason they're investigating this is solely based on the fact, or reason, that Trump is neither a Clinton, nor a liberal. If a Democrat was the POTUS, they would likely throw any and all cases out the window, saying "meh, forget about it."

Historically speaking it's been the opposite. Republicans tried to remove Bill Clinton from office for a blowjob, and they tried to turn a tan suit and dijon mustard into scandals for Obama. Whenever a Democrat is president, Republicans do nothing but work tirelessly to find any scandal, and if they can't find one they just make one up. So there's absolutely no reason to concern yourself that a Democrat using foreign assistance to rig an election would fly under the radar. It wouldn't.

Yes, he says and does stupid things, but what president hasn't? Obama wasn't exactly a knight in shining armor, either. Nor was Bush, or Clinton before him. I find this whole investigation is at least partly done out of spite solely for the sake of Trump not having liberal political views, and because he's a Republican, that gives them a subterfuge to go after him.

This has nothing to do with stupidity, and everything to do with illegality. The stupidity only plays into that insofar as Trump is willing to make public statements pertaining to the investigation. "Russia, if you're listening I hope you can find Hillary's emails" during the campaign and "I faced pressure over this Russia thing, now that's off" after firing Comey are just a couple examples of digging the hole deeper for himself. Secret meetings with Putin aren't helping Trump change perceptions either.

 

[the_randomizer]

That's fine, but it means your previous statement that there's "plenty of illegal activity which can be attributed to Clinton" is demonstrably false.


There are far more registered Democrats than Republicans, so all Democrats have to do to win is show up. They've seen what happens when they don't now, and any candidate that the Democrats choose has to be a better campaigner than Hillary, so I have a hard time believing that Trump has much of a chance in 2020. The biggest hurdles are still gerrymandering and Russian interference, but cheating only goes so far.


Historically speaking it's been the opposite. Republicans tried to remove Bill Clinton from office for a blowjob, and they tried to turn a tan suit and dijon mustard into scandals for Obama. Whenever a Democrat is president, Republicans do nothing but work tirelessly to find any scandal, and if they can't find one they just make one up. So there's absolutely no reason to concern yourself that a Democrat using foreign assistance to rig an election would fly under the radar. It wouldn't.


This has nothing to do with stupidity, and everything to do with illegality. The stupidity only plays into that insofar as Trump is willing to make public statements pertaining to the investigation. "Russia, if you're listening I hope you can find Hillary's emails" during the campaign and "I faced pressure over this Russia thing, now that's off" after firing Comey are just a couple examples of digging the hole deeper for himself. Secret meetings with Putin aren't helping Trump change perceptions either.

Neither candidate was fit to be POTUS, as far as I'm concerned, it was one assclown over another assclown.

 

[MikaDubbz]

Neither candidate was fit to be POTUS, as far as I'm concerned, it was one assclown over another assclown.

It was an instance of choosing the lesser of two evils, and sadly we did not.

 

[Xzi]

Neither candidate was fit to be POTUS, as far as I'm concerned, it was one assclown over another assclown.

And I don't have any issue viewing it that way, but Trump supporters have a big problem with sunk cost fallacy in that regard. During the election he was just one shitty candidate against another shitty candidate, and people held their noses while voting for him. Somehow he goes from being a bad option to being "god emperor" in a year and a half? Gimme a break. His presidency is just as bad as everyone knew it would be. Maybe Hillary's would've been equally as bad, but since Trump is president, we'll never know now. So Democrats are the ones who get to say I told you so.

 

[Foxi4]

Except you're painting it (no pun intended see) as though the choice would be binary, when it absolutely shouldn't be. Like... Sure, that's the way it is now, but the two-party politics game that the American political system has become has kind of proven itself to be a lose-lose scenario, time and time again. For as long as there are only two parties that produce one candidate with a limited set of ideals, there will realistically be a significant portion of the population who, even if they may vote for one of the candidates, will not be completely satisfied with their decision

Look... We can argue the merits of either changing or holding onto certain individual parts of our voting system all day and get nowhere, but if we're going to reach an ideal scenario a LOT of things would need to change, and they can't happen in a vacuum

There *is* a solution to be found, a solution conservatives have been clamoring since the dawn of time - reduce the size, scope and power of the Federal Government, rein it back to matters of international, or at least interstate importance exclusively and let states govern themselves, as it was originally intended. The President was supposed to be relatively powerless and the Federal Government existed almost exclusively for the purposes of national defence, its only legitimate function - go back to that model. At that point you can have the Electoral College, until then however states will fiercely fight for equal representation.

That's fine, but it means your previous statement that there's "plenty of illegal activity which can be attributed to Clinton" is demonstrably false.

There's no logical connection between those two statements. Me not giving a damn if justice is done or not has nothing to do with whether Clinton broke the law or not. She demonstrably *did*, Comey simply read an intent clause into the law, a clause he invented that cannot be found anywhere in the statute. If the law was executed as it was written, she would be found guilty, there is no question about it. Being a senile old crone who doesn't understand technology, or pretending to be one, is not an excuse you can find in the statute either. She's guilty as fuck, demonstrably, and you're not going to convince me otherwise because I can read.

There are far more registered Democrats than Republicans, so all Democrats have to do to win is show up. They've seen what happens when they don't now, and any candidate that the Democrats choose has to be a better campaigner than Hillary, so I have a hard time believing that Trump has much of a chance in 2020. The biggest hurdles are still gerrymandering and Russian interference, but cheating only goes so far.

Show up and vote for who? Maxine Waters who's publicly calling for civil unrest and assault on Republicans? Bernie Sanders from Loonbagia whose economic plan would destroy the U.S. and who probably won't be with us anymore come 2020 because he's 900 years old? Elizabeth Warren, a compulsive liar and clam chowder expert? You have no avatar. Hold on to your butts, it's going to be a long election, and the Dems are doing their earnest to alienate as many people as possible with their "Abolish ICE" song and dance, their call for guaranteed employment which is stupid and other nonsense straight from the communist cookbook and other PC-friendly activities. It seems that they're on a mission to convince everyone that they're batshit crazy and unelectable, so I can't wait what other tricks they have in their bag ready for the next 2 years.

 

[Xzi]

There's no logical connection between those two statements. Me not giving a damn if justice is done or not has nothing to do with whether Clinton broke the law or not.

If you don't give a damn and you have no evidence, heck nobody has any evidence, then there's no point in making the claim in the first place.

If the law was executed as it was written, she would be found guilty, there is no question about it.

As would Colin Powell, but mysteriously Republicans didn't give a damn about private e-mail servers when it was other Republicans using them. If either of them had charges recommended against them though, it would've been a fine and a slap on the wrist at worst. This fantasy that Hillary would ever be put in jail over e-mails is just pathetic. Trump's White House doxxed people who were critical of them via e-mail, and he isn't even going to be charged over that, which should be a serious crime.

Show up and vote for who? Maxine Waters who's publicly calling for civil unrest and assault on Republicans?

"Fuck your feelings," remember? Clearly Republicans can't handle getting back any of what they dish out if they're scared of an old lady. Also, you won't be able to find me a clip of her actually calling for violence, but I can find plenty of Trump if you want. Enough with the hypocrisy.

Bernie Sanders from Loonbagia whose economic plan would destroy the U.S. and who probably won't be with us anymore come 2020 because he's 900 years old?

He's only four years older and in a lot better mental health than dementia Donnie, but he likely won't run again. Maybe as VP on someone else's ticket.

Elizabeth Warren, a compulsive liar and clam chowder expert?

Most of the party likes Elizabeth Warren, and Trump has no way to effectively dismiss her. Repeating "Pocahontas" isn't going to win him any new votes, but it can lose him some. Only problem I have with running her is that Republicans are especially good at demonizing and making us question women.

You have no avatar.

Any of the candidates you listed are better than Trump. Hillary was literally the only person with the potential to lose to him, as they were both shit candidates at the end of the day, but Trump couldn't even come away with the popular vote in that contest. The difference in the electoral college was all of ~80,000 votes. So do I think Waters or Bernie or Warren can turn out another 80k Dems? Easy. That said, there are more people I have a preference for on this list:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tes-for-2020-ranked-2/?utm_term=.4ac928b79247

In no particular order my favorites are probably Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Eric Holder.

 

[Foxi4]

If you don't give a damn and you have no evidence, heck nobody has any evidence, then there's no point in making the claim in the first place.

As would Colin Powell, but mysteriously Republicans didn't give a damn about private e-mail servers when it was other Republicans using them. If either of them had charges recommended against them though, it would've been a fine and a slap on the wrist at worst. This fantasy that Hillary would ever be put in jail over e-mails is just pathetic. Trump's White House doxxed people who were critical of them via e-mail, and he isn't even going to be charged over that, which should be a serious crime.

"Fuck your feelings," remember? Clearly Republicans can't handle getting back any of what they dish out if they're scared of an old lady. Also, you won't be able to find me a clip of her actually calling for violence, but I can find plenty of Trump if you want. Enough with the hypocrisy.

He's only four years older and in a lot better mental health than dementia Donnie, but he likely won't run again. Maybe as VP on someone else's ticket.

Most of the party likes Elizabeth Warren, and Trump has no way to effectively dismiss her. Repeating "Pocahontas" isn't going to win him any new votes, but it can lose him some. Only problem I have with running her is that Republicans are especially good at demonizing and making us question women.

Any of the candidates you listed are better than Trump. Hillary was literally the only person with the potential to lose to him, as they were both shit candidates at the end of the day, but Trump couldn't even come away with the popular vote in that contest. The difference in the electoral college was all of ~80,000 votes. So do I think Waters or Bernie or Warren can turn out another 80k Dems? Easy. That said, there are more people I have a preference for on this list:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tes-for-2020-ranked-2/?utm_term=.4ac928b79247

In no particular order my favorites are probably Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Eric Holder.

Telling people that they should harass and assault (read up what the legal definition is, I don't think you know what it means) GOP members in their everyday life is not a matter of "fuck your feelings", my feelings aren't hurt. It violates the non-aggression principle, something leftists are familiar with. To recap, a Christian baker has to cater a gay wedding despite his religious prescriptions, but we cannot serve Republicans at a gas station and we have to scare them away with pitchforks because we don't like them. The candidates I listed are clowns and you would be a fool to think any of them have a chance at getting elected, but good luck. Delusion is normal when you live in la-la land.

 

[Xzi]

Telling people that they should harass and assault (read up what the legal definition is, I don't think you know what it means) GOP members in their everyday life is not a matter of "fuck your feelings", my feelings aren't hurt. It violates the non-aggression principle, something leftists are familiar with.

I watched the video and she said boo them and tell them they're not welcome. Sounds like a serious case of the snowflake for anyone who considers that "assault." Lawmakers are simply too used to ignoring their constituents and not having to face any consequences for it, so now they pretend they fear for their lives any time someone calls them a piece of shit. Unfortunately for them, the first amendment still stands, and private businesses still have the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason.

 

[Foxi4]

I watched the video and she said boo them and tell them they're not welcome. Sounds like a serious case of the snowflake for anyone who considers that "assault." Lawmakers are simply too used to ignoring their constituents and not having to face any consequences for it, so now they pretend they fear for their lives any time someone calls them a piece of shit.

If you are sitting in a restaurant an an angry mob starts disrupting your meal and continues to follow you around, that constitutes harassment - they don't own the restaurant, they don't get to decide who is or is not welcome and they're not free to disrupt your life. If there are threats of violence involved, that's assault, brother - even shaking a fist at someone threateningly qualifies. If actual violence takes place, that's battery. You would be outraged if an angry mob followed Obama around shouting slurs at him and making it impossible for him to have a normal life. The problem here is that we're talking about public figures which are not as strongly protected as private citizens.

 

[DeoNaught]

What's the worse that can happen to Trump? like if they find evidence undeniable, and they obviously have to do something about it, Jail time, Stepping done from office?
Just curious

 

[Xzi]

The problem here is that we're talking about public figures which are not as strongly protected as private citizens.

Precisely. They're both public figures and they're meant to be held accountable by the public they represent. When they aren't doing their jobs and they aren't responding to their constituents concerns, then they're inevitably going to be confronted by those constituents out in the real world, as that's the last avenue of communication available to people, and the only one that can't be ignored so easily.

What's the worse that can happen to Trump? like if they find evidence undeniable, and they obviously have to do something about it, Jail time, Stepping done from office?
Just curious

He'd first be impeached by the Congress/Senate, and then if he's found guilty during impeachment there's the possibility of removal from office depending on the charges. Of course, to even get impeachment rolling, Dems have to win big for mid-terms. Republicans will never move on that no matter how much Trump attacks our allies and praises our adversaries.

 

[Foxi4]

Precisely. They're both public figures and they're meant to be held accountable by the public they represent. When they aren't doing their jobs and they aren't responding to their constituents concerns, then they're inevitably going to be confronted by those constituents out in the real world, as that's the last avenue of communication available to people, and the only one that can't be ignored so easily.

You're right, whenever we don't like a politician, we should just hang them.

 

[Xzi]

You're right, whenever we don't like a politician, we should just hang them.

Clearly not what I said. You don't need to harbor a persecution complex on someone else's behalf. This is simply a matter of Republicans not reading their job descriptions. They get elected and expect they can spend all their time in office enriching themselves, then feign surprise when anybody calls them out on it.

 

[Foxi4]

Clearly not what I said. You don't need to harbor a persecution complex on someone else's behalf. This is simply a matter of Republicans not reading their job descriptions. They get elected and expect they can spend all their time in office enriching themselves, then feign surprise when anybody calls them out on it.

Nah. A mob is the ultimate expression of the will of the people. We couldn't get our guys in, so we'll harass and assault the opposition until they resign, it worked for the brown shirts, it'll work for us. Why stop there? Let's take it to the logical conclusion and just hang them, what's the hold-up? You've suddenly discovered scruples? Just say it like you mean it, you don't have to sugar-coat it, I won't think your proposed method of solving political issues is any more insane at this point. You're free to go full monty, it's already reached peak silliness.

 

[Xzi]

Nah. A mob is the ultimate expression of the will of the people. We couldn't get our guys in, so we'll harass and assault them until they resign, it worked for the brown shirts, it'll work for us. Why stop there? Let's take it to the logical conclusion and just hang them, what's the hold-up? You've suddenly discovered scruples? Just say it like you mean it, you don't have to sugar-coat it, I won't think your proposed method of solving political issues is any more insane at this point, you're free to go full monty, it's already reached peak silliness.

You still haven't provided any evidence of Maxine Waters calling for violence, let alone given an instance where chanting in a restaurant led to violence. Yet you're suggesting that just because there's any possibility for violence, we should no longer have representative Democracy and government officials shouldn't have to answer to anyone. This definitely has reached peak silliness.

Meanwhile:

 

[Foxi4]

You still haven't provided any evidence of Maxine Waters calling for violence, let alone given an instance where chanting in a restaurant led to violence. Yet you're suggesting that just because there's any possibility for violence, we should no longer have representative Democracy and government officials shouldn't have to answer to anyone. This definitely has reached peak silliness.

Meanwhile:

I never said that I approved of everything Trump's ever said, that would be silly. This conversation is leading nowhere, we'll talk again in 2 years.

 

[Xzi]

I never said that I approved of everything Trump's ever said, that would be silly. This conversation is leading nowhere, we'll talk again in 2 years.

You don't have to approve of it, but you should at least acknowledge who the loudest voice calling for violence is instead of intentionally misinterpreting the other side to try and fit a bullshit narrative. If Trump keeps asking for violence he'll eventually get it, and once again he'll have nobody to blame but himself, even as his supporters inevitably blame anybody and everybody else.

 

[Foxi4]

You don't have to approve of it, but you should at least acknowledge who the loudest voice calling for violence is instead of intentionally misinterpreting the other side to try and fit a bullshit narrative. If Trump keeps asking for violence he'll eventually get it, and once again he'll have nobody to blame but himself, even as his supporters inevitably blame anybody and everybody else.

Everything I ever say has a purpose. The reason why I brought up Maxine's low-key call for violence is that I was testing whether there was a point in having a conversation with you. If you denounced it, we could continue having the conversation because we're both level-headed - I'm perfectly happy to denounce shit conservatives say that's out of line. Since you not only didn't denounce it, but in fact approved of it, there can be no conversation - your values are out of whack and we'll never find common ground. I don't particularly care about Loonbag Waters, I care about what's in your head because I'm talking with you, not Maxine. I don't care who's the biggest inciter because it's not a contest.

As for Trump's statements, I don't mind forcefully removing protesters crashing private venues where private events are being held - they weren't invited and they're being disruptive, people came there to listen to the speaker. It's a classic heckler's veto - we don't like what you're saying, so we're drowning you out. This is nothing like the restaurant or the gas station examples where Waters suggested that private citizens harass public officials in their day to day life - the politicians in question don't own the locations nor are they holding private events there, they're having dinner and buying gas. Everyone has a right to be there as long as the owners welcome them in, this interaction isn't restricted like a rally is. The difference isn't even subtle, but you don't see it, so we can't see eye to eye.

 

[Xzi]

As for Trump's statements, I don't mind forcefully removing protesters crashing private venues where private events are being held - they weren't invited and they're bring disruptive, people came there to listen to the speaker. This is nothing like the restaurant or the gas station examples where Waters suggested that private citizens harass public officials in their day to day life - the politicians in question don't own the locations nor are they holding private events there, they're having dinner. Everyone has a right to be there as long as the owners welcome them in, this interaction isn't restricted like a rally is. The difference isn't even subtle, but you don't see it, so we can't see eye to eye.

So in other words, you're cool with being a hypocrite. Advocating and executing violence on a private citizen is just fine, but following a public citizen (REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR DISTRICT) for 15 minutes while listing reasons why they're a shitty person is tantamount to assault. Okay.

 

[Foxi4]

So in other words, you're cool with being a hypocrite. Advocating and executing violence on a private citizen is just fine, but following a public citizen (REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR DISTRICT) for 15 minutes while listing reasons why they're a shitty person is tantamount to assault. Okay.

Invading a private space is trespass. Harassing someone in public is harassment. How is this difficult? The point is that you're not supposed to attack people in either setting and if you do, expect the person you're attacking to defend themselves.