Trump/Russia/SDNY investigation
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
She can be cellmates with Donald. Both crooked and both deserving in their own ways.
Okay, what's your evidence for that?
Sure. If that's the case, I absolutely hope they do. Now, back to the Russia Investigation and away from Whubbism...
I love the irony of Trump apologists accusing the investigation of being politically motivated and a distraction in one breath. And in the next it's: Look at Hillary! Investigate her!
Neither of which, of course, constitute a distraction or a politically motivated investigation. The Republicans have tried, unsuccessfully, to pin shit on the Clintons for years. Only thing they ever got close to is Bill admitting getting his dick sucked in the oval office.
At what point do they start becoming embarrassed by their constant failed attempts to distract by saying 'But Hillary...' and absolutely nothing coming of it?
Neither of which, of course, constitute a distraction or a politically motivated investigation. The Republicans have tried, unsuccessfully, to pin shit on the Clintons for years. Only thing they ever got close to is Bill admitting getting his dick sucked in the oval office.
At what point do they start becoming embarrassed by their constant failed attempts to distract by saying 'But Hillary...' and absolutely nothing coming of it?
I love how Obama used to constantly ramble insults about McCain, Romney and Sean Hannity on twitter and in press briefings. It was great.
Who is saying it's great? I don't really care about Trump rambling on about political foes (despite their obsession with him) but I must admit I love his obvious disdain for the media.
It was another poster who brought up the Uranium One scandal; I was merely replying to that point. It wasn't a case of 'whataboutism' on my part.
You replied by making an accusation. Presumably you have evidence for that? It seems odd that you're against an ongoing legal issue where a Grand Jury has decided that there is grounds to proceed, but think that everyone should be outrage at the corruption of the Clinton family although you presumably have no evidence for this other than wanting it to be true.
FYI "Everyone knows" isn't evidence.
I wouldn't mind so much if a) he hadn't already backtracked on a campaign promise shortly after his inauguration and said he wouldn't be looking to "lock her up!" or b) there any real substance to this uranium story.
I don't like her for other reasons, reasons that you could definitely go after her for, but they're not very good at presenting arguments on those fronts.
To be honest I think after 20 years of investigating the Clintons for various things over the years, I think we have to acknowledge the fact that the people shouting 'No smoke without fire', are actually holding a smoke machine and that might be relevant.
I'm not saying they're perfect. Any power-couple has to be corrupt as feck at some level.
Let's do your trick of flipping this and seem which one seems more true...
Obamify!
Now, on the one side you had a president who was accused of faking his birth cert and wearing a tan suit...
And on the other, you have a president who golfs while his citizens are still in the midst of a natural disaster, who golfs while white nationalists march through the streets etc etc...
Yeah but if Obama golfed all the time then that'd be just as bad. The fact he didn't doesn't matter, this logic still exonerates Trump.
Same applies: "If Obama said he grabbed women by the pussy..."
Same applies: "If Obama said he grabbed women by the pussy..."
Where did I say I'm against the Grand Jury investigation?
Political criminality/wrong-doing needs to be investigated no matter the individuals involved. Who'd have thought we're at the stage where that needs to be clarified, but, alas, here we are...
Where did I say I'm against the Grand Jury investigation?
Political criminality/wrong-doing needs to be investigated no matter the individuals involved. Who'd have thought we're at the stage where that needs to be clarified, but, alas, here we are...
The part where you called the timing suspect yet provided no reasons why or no alternative timescale where you wouldn't.
You seem constantly to be clutching at straws. Most other people just note the developments and comment on what they could mean. You seem to be convinced that everything is a massive conspiracy against Trump.
News of there being the first indictment on Monday has leaked and your response is "But Hillary..."
It's kind of obvious, mate.
A lot of them simply aren't as astute as they imagine they are to put the pieces together even if there is a fire. They always seem to be looking across the street as the fire department and a crowd all focus on what's happening behind their backs, talking about how Hillary smashed the windows.
They actually gave up the more substantial emails allegation for this inferior allegation about uranium. Odd bunch.
It's as if the tactic is to make collusion less of a crime if it was the means to the end of ensuring a worse candidate didn't win. 'Make Clinton seem like the devil and maybe people will conclude it wasn't a bad thing for us to conspire with a foreign govt to defeat her'
It sounds absolutely crazy but what about how this Trump administration does politics hasn't seemed like that? There's no astute political strategist in the White House. We know this.
Where did I ever condone or support Trump's birth certificate claims? For the record, that was very odd and very wrong.
Also, for the record and to bring some parity to proceedings, Obama played golf a fair bit too, with the BP oil spill being a notable crisis he took time out of to get a round in. I also recall him holidaying/golfing during the Louisiana floods when 13 people died and damage upwards of $10bn was reported.
No, it really hasn't, but keep telling yourself that.
Who said you condone it? I'm talking about your proposal that Trump is fighting fire with fire.
To make it clearer: I believe Obama had far, far more reason to need to "fight fire with fire" with spurious crap that had no relationship to his performance as president and it seems that you'd agree on that point about the birth cert. But, Obama didn't constantly flame people out on twitter and through his press office.
Trump's behaviour is not justified, or in his own words from only yesterday, "not at all presidential".
Huh? It has. We know it's happening tomorrow.
What's your opinion on Trump spending a lot of his time on the golf course when he repeatedly stated that he wouldn't have any time to be doing any of that because he'd be too busy working?
Clinton is irrelevant to the Russia investigation. Even if Hillary has a secret stash of dwarf sex-slaves through which she trades for access to to necklaces made from new born babies bones, it isn't relevant. More and more people are starting to notice that now. I think the Republicans have cried 'Hillary!" once too often.
Trump: I grab them by the pussy
Apologist: Obama's touched his wife's private area many times too.
Trump golfs every weekend. But that's okay because the last president also sometimes played golf. Constant distractions and pointing at something else. Beginning to look desperate.
"But Obama..."
"But Hillary..."
"But Bill..."
Trump: I grab them by the pussy
Apologist: Obama's touched his wife's private area many times too.
Trump golfs every weekend. But that's okay because the last president also sometimes played golf. Constant distractions and pointing at something else. Beginning to look desperate.
"But Obama..."
"But Hillary..."
"But Bill..."
See, this is the part which grates about our side: why do liberals love to self-aggrandise when it comes to their own intelligence and call the opposition 'stupid' and all other manner involving unintelligent connotations? These lazy stereotypes were flooding the airwaves and social media all through election season and then we wonder why we're not liked very much.
It makes him out to be hypocrite, yes. But being a hypocrite on one subject does not make you incorrect on every issue.
Best thing about this thread is the people feigning neutrality.
Constantly give themselves away withing a few lines.
Constantly give themselves away withing a few lines.
I was referring to you stating that my first reaction was 'But what about Hillary?', which is incorrect.
What's me being a cnut got to do with it? Do you know my opinions about other subjects that would make me sound like anything but a liberal? Would they be acceptable then? Strange reaction.
Who said it did?
It's funny how people see the timing of the charges suspect, but seem to think an administration under pressure throwing out crap to smear now past political opponents as some kind of distraction, as perfectly legit.
The best thing I find about this thread, and the many others here which are simply anti-Trump circlejerks, is the impression many posters hold in which they are oblivious to the fact that there are liberals not at all happy with the direction of the DNC (and the progressive movement as a whole but that's another matter for another day) and the pretence that all is fine and dandy in Democrat World.
We lost to a TV show host with ZERO political experience. We chose an awful, awful candidate to rival him. And rather than owning those facts, taking stock and building a platform for 2020, we're projecting all our anger onto Trump and inadvertently giving him and his administration what they crave: universal, 24/7, prime-time attention. Are we expecting a different outcome this time around or something?
Don't give a shite about the DNC but can't really agree with what you're on about.
Your current president is a deer in front of headlights and saying so doesn't mean you're happy with the direction of the DNC.
The democratic party isn't in government, Trump is. So I don't know how you can expect his dedicated thread and a dedicated thread and investigation into election meddling would not concentrate on what looks like a joke of an administration.
Even though Im not American, I've been involved in this forum for some years now, I've yet to come across any poster that's perfectly happy with the democratic party.
And im talking about posters who vote for them.
What I don't understand is posters who clearly have a soft spot for Trump pretending to be neutral.
It's not being neutral as I'm not a Republican (or even a centrist). It's just bringing a semblance of parity to proceedings. I have said it many times before and I'll say it again: exaggerating every single Trump story and running wild with the criticism of him, his administration and supporters is ultimately doing nobody any favours but Trump himself. We learned that much from 2016, surely?
Not at all a strange reaction, he's constantly looking for opportunities to unload on "us liberals"/"our side"
Not at all a strange reaction, he's constantly looking for opportunities to unload on "us liberals"/"our side"
For purpose of wumming, he’s his own Manc mate.
Feckin hell, honestly? Do you actually read what people say? Noone is happy with the DNC, and almost noone actually like Hillary. Noone is happy with the direction of the DNC.
What criticism of him is over the top?
Your argument seems to be "don't criticise Trump, his supporters don't like it".
Not only is he underperforming by any measure, he's being a cnut and doing it at the same time.
His party controls both houses but can't even pass wind.
The Presidential Election thread last year painted a very different picture.
Who's exaggerating? There's no need to exaggerate.
Really?
Did it? That's not how I remember. I remember hellish fury when Bernie lost the nomination to Hillary and acceptance of her massive, massive flaws (as well as the DNC's) when she lost.
The thread is getting sidetracked but it's like you only see things in black and white.
Voting for Hillary and hoping she wins doesn't mean you're in complete support of her or her policies.
Not like she was in a one-horse race.