Don't know why I bother disturbing the echo chamber, I find it best to ignore the hysteria, lies and outlandish theories. Some people need to step away from CNN and form a thought of their own.
Most conservatives have given up tying to keep up with all the media made hysteria. Like Pumpf, many don't like much about Trump, but won't argue with many of his accomplishments. The central party in DC is a bunch of frauds protecting their own interests.
It just amazes me that otherwise intelligent adults can't see the that. They will parrot the Democrats talking points about caring about womens rights, or the GOP's lies that they are pro-life and the hypocrisy never gets picked up.
So yeah, enjoy the tinfoil hat echo chamber.
Quote: @greediron said:
Don't know why I bother disturbing the echo chamber, I find it best to ignore the hysteria, lies and outlandish theories. Some people need to step away from CNN and form a thought of their own.
Most conservatives have given up tying to keep up with all the media made hysteria. Like Pumpf, many don't like much about Trump, but won't argue with many of his accomplishments. The central party in DC is a bunch of frauds protecting their own interests.
It just amazes me that otherwise intelligent adults can't see the that. They will parrot the Democrats talking points about caring about womens rights, or the GOP's lies that they are pro-life and the hypocrisy never gets picked up.
So yeah, enjoy the tinfoil hat echo chamber.
It does seem we live in two different countries when you look at the front pages of CNN and FOX. Those two are the biggest and the main reason I've given up reading "news".
I don’t think there’s anything different between Trump
supporters and anti-Trumpers. I see this
across many different groups of people, relating to politics as well as not. Anti-Trumpers
There’s only one “anti-Trumper” in this thread that has
posted anything I would consider objective, and there’s a bunch of other people
who either don’t know what they’re talking about or can’t effectively
communicate their knowledge in a way that “objectively” leads towards a factual
understanding of the situation.
The anti-Trump people are identical to the anti-Hillary
people. It’s just people trying to smear
each other while providing zero facts. “I
can’t believe everyones so dumb. Can’t
they see that [Trump/Hillary] has clearly broken some law that I’m not going to
reference. Some [expert] has accused
them of [bad things] and the FBI is investigating them [but all the evidence is
locked away in the a private FBI vault somewhere that no one’s ever going to
see]. You’re going to feel so stupid
when your [savior] is locked away in [Federal Prison/Guantanamo Bay].
I will tell you how this story is going to end. Allegations will be made against Trump. Much noise will be made about how evil he is. There will be no evidence provided, so you
just have to trust some member of the swamp’s claim. It will never go to trial. We will never see any evidence that supports
the claims. Then when we’re tired of
this story, it will fade away and another story will come up that ends the same
way. Nothing happens here, because
Washington is the swamp and they’ve all got enough skeletons in their closets
that it’s mutually assured destruction if someone actually pushes the big red
button. The closest we’ve ever gotten to
anything factual on anything where we can make up our own minds is the
wikileaks drop of the emails prior to the election and that guy got murdered
and robbed and they didn’t take anything.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
So up to the end of Nov. We have had 33 trump associates either indicteded or have admitted guilt. This has been campaign managers, attorneys, cabinet member, deputy finance director of the republican party..., so I'm a bit skeptical of your opinions when it comes to technicalities of the law.
oh, I don't know jack. but I read people who do.
the vast majority of the indictments have been 'process crimes', to fit a narrative.
according to Clintonista Mark Penn (Democrat)
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/41...e-it-wants
one case, has been pure prosecutorial entrapment.
https://outline.com/6CUMTt
and you're not mentioning at least 25 (as of last Aug) FBI/DOJ officials fired/resigned for cause.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/strzok-joi...24607.html
and don't forget the DOJ's IG (Horowitz) scathing report on the departments/prosecutions.
__________________________________________________________
It's been reported in the DC area...on a still evening.... you can hear Mueller singing from atop the Hoover building. 
Quote: @VikingOracle said:
Let me see if I can summarize the potential illegal campaign contributions (background information available here: https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-...candidate/)
- Except for the candidate, individuals/companies, etc. are limited to how much they can contribute to the candidate's campaign. This includes making loans or like kind contributions. The key is whether the money was "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.”
- In the present case, Cohen paid Stormy and National Enquirer paid McDougal -- if viewed as campaign contribution both were in excess of what is permit by law.
- The Trump Company says that they paid Cohen back for the payments but that still, arguably, was a loan by Cohen, Moreover, from what I understand, the money came from the Trump Company, not Trump personally, and that would still amount to an impermissible campaign contribution if it was "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.”
- Unclear whether National Enquirer was ever reimbursed and who reimbursed (Trump personally or the Trump Org.) Again, same above analysis applies.
- So, the only real question was whether these two payments were was "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.” Here are the facts to consider on that issue:
- One. Trump says it was to shield these purported affairs from his wife (which is the successful Edwards defense). Two, both Cohen and National Enquirer are locked in now to stating that the payments were primarily "for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office.” Three, the way the payments were made, through shell companies and third parties and without Trump being a party to the agreements, weighs against these payments being primarily to protect Trumps marriage because you didn't need to construct these transactions in such a manner to hide them from Melania.
So, really, the only remaining issue one needs to decide is whether these two payments were made primarily for the purposes of assisting Trump get elected. All the other facts are largely undisputed.
Not so fast... especially on points 5 & 6.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/t...ributions/
(nro is conservative...but certainly not special pleaders for Trump)
And from a Dem's take, here's Dershowitz on Cohen's statements.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/39360/der...-paul-bois
Quote: @medaille said:
I don’t think there’s anything different between Trump
supporters and anti-Trumpers. I see this
across many different groups of people, relating to politics as well as not. Anti-Trumpers
There’s only one “anti-Trumper” in this thread that has
posted anything I would consider objective,...
Is it me? =)
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Replace the names Trump with Obama or Clinton and Giulani with Pannetta and we would have this thread at 14 pages.
I don't think there's a single Trumpkin who has the ability to see things objectively. To think critically and evaluate events from various perspectives.
Imagine the outrage from those very same people if Obama had done any ONE of a hundred things Trump has done, from grabbing pussies to paying off porn stars to praising Putin and Kim Jong Un while criticizing our own intelligence community. From his cowardly inaction on Khashoggi to his saluting a North Korean general to calling the press the "enemy of the people."
Well, to be fair, I guess Obama wore a tan suit once.
I'm not a Trumpkin... but no one seems to care what I think, either. And I think it's because EVERYONE has their own biases. Some of us recognize them (and maybe even try to mitigate them); others just look for ways to prove (to themselves) that they were right all along.
That's what makes a thread like this so amusing... but frustrating. If it wasn't Trump, does anyone really think that *they* would treat Cruz any differently? I don't. He'd still be called all the things that Trump has been called (including ignorant- even though Cruz is smarter than (pretty much) anyone on this site. Bush was the opposite of Trump (in many ways), and look at the character assassination that he faced. It doesn't matter who the person is; if they are in the wrong "tribe" then they are the enemy. Period. And until that changes, all this hand-wringing and virtue-signaling won't accomplish a thing- because it's not intended to. It's only intended to deify one "side" and demonize the other.
For what it's worth, Pumpf, I care what you think. But this is absolute bullshit. This is not your typical republican vs. democrat thing and I've said that over and over since before the election. Sure, if Cruz were President I'd be criticizing him, too, because I disagree with everything he stands for. Same with Pence. But at least they're both sane. Our differences are with policy. Right now we'd be debating POLICY, like we all did during the Obama and Bush and Clinton administrations. This Trump crap is a whole different thing. Nobody even talks about policy. His childish behavior and lies and tweets and general petulance renders policy nearly irrelevant. If it were just your standard left/right debate, you wouldn't have staunch conservatives like the Bush family and John McCain and William Kristol and George Will so vehemently opposed to him.
You know what I find amusing? All these people who claim to have not voted for him turn up to defend him at every turn. When YOU are the people who should be the most angry...
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Replace the names Trump with Obama or Clinton and Giulani with Pannetta and we would have this thread at 14 pages.
I don't think there's a single Trumpkin who has the ability to see things objectively. To think critically and evaluate events from various perspectives.
Imagine the outrage from those very same people if Obama had done any ONE of a hundred things Trump has done, from grabbing pussies to paying off porn stars to praising Putin and Kim Jong Un while criticizing our own intelligence community. From his cowardly inaction on Khashoggi to his saluting a North Korean general to calling the press the "enemy of the people."
Well, to be fair, I guess Obama wore a tan suit once.
I'm not a Trumpkin... but no one seems to care what I think, either. And I think it's because EVERYONE has their own biases. Some of us recognize them (and maybe even try to mitigate them); others just look for ways to prove (to themselves) that they were right all along.
That's what makes a thread like this so amusing... but frustrating. If it wasn't Trump, does anyone really think that *they* would treat Cruz any differently? I don't. He'd still be called all the things that Trump has been called (including ignorant- even though Cruz is smarter than (pretty much) anyone on this site. Bush was the opposite of Trump (in many ways), and look at the character assassination that he faced. It doesn't matter who the person is; if they are in the wrong "tribe" then they are the enemy. Period. And until that changes, all this hand-wringing and virtue-signaling won't accomplish a thing- because it's not intended to. It's only intended to deify one "side" and demonize the other.
For what it's worth, Pumpf, I care what you think. But this is absolute bullshit. This is not your typical republican vs. democrat thing and I've said that over and over since before the election. Sure, if Cruz were President I'd be criticizing him, too, because I disagree with everything he stands for. Same with Pence. But at least they're both sane. Our differences are with policy. Right now we'd be debating POLICY, like we all did during the Obama and Bush and Clinton administrations. This Trump crap is a whole different thing. Nobody even talks about policy. His childish behavior and lies and tweets and general petulance renders policy nearly irrelevant. If it were just your standard left/right debate, you wouldn't have staunch conservatives like the Bush family and John McCain and William Kristol and George Will so vehemently opposed to him.
You know what I find amusing? All these people who claim to have not voted for him turn up to defend him at every turn. When YOU are the people who should be the most angry... Why? Because personally he is who we thought he was? Funny thing, it is about policy. His tweets and general demeanor get all the focus, but in reality, he has done more than either Bush put together. He has actually accomplished a conservative agenda rather than just pandering like the Bush family did.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Replace the names Trump with Obama or Clinton and Giulani with Pannetta and we would have this thread at 14 pages.
I don't think there's a single Trumpkin who has the ability to see things objectively. To think critically and evaluate events from various perspectives.
Imagine the outrage from those very same people if Obama had done any ONE of a hundred things Trump has done, from grabbing pussies to paying off porn stars to praising Putin and Kim Jong Un while criticizing our own intelligence community. From his cowardly inaction on Khashoggi to his saluting a North Korean general to calling the press the "enemy of the people."
Well, to be fair, I guess Obama wore a tan suit once.
I'm not a Trumpkin... but no one seems to care what I think, either. And I think it's because EVERYONE has their own biases. Some of us recognize them (and maybe even try to mitigate them); others just look for ways to prove (to themselves) that they were right all along.
That's what makes a thread like this so amusing... but frustrating. If it wasn't Trump, does anyone really think that *they* would treat Cruz any differently? I don't. He'd still be called all the things that Trump has been called (including ignorant- even though Cruz is smarter than (pretty much) anyone on this site. Bush was the opposite of Trump (in many ways), and look at the character assassination that he faced. It doesn't matter who the person is; if they are in the wrong "tribe" then they are the enemy. Period. And until that changes, all this hand-wringing and virtue-signaling won't accomplish a thing- because it's not intended to. It's only intended to deify one "side" and demonize the other.
For what it's worth, Pumpf, I care what you think. But this is absolute bullshit. This is not your typical republican vs. democrat thing and I've said that over and over since before the election. Sure, if Cruz were President I'd be criticizing him, too, because I disagree with everything he stands for. Same with Pence. But at least they're both sane. Our differences are with policy. Right now we'd be debating POLICY, like we all did during the Obama and Bush and Clinton administrations. This Trump crap is a whole different thing. Nobody even talks about policy. His childish behavior and lies and tweets and general petulance renders policy nearly irrelevant. If it were just your standard left/right debate, you wouldn't have staunch conservatives like the Bush family and John McCain and William Kristol and George Will so vehemently opposed to him.
You know what I find amusing? All these people who claim to have not voted for him turn up to defend him at every turn. When YOU are the people who should be the most angry... Why? Because personally he is who we thought he was? Funny thing, it is about policy. His tweets and general demeanor get all the focus, but in reality, he has done more than either Bush put together. He has actually accomplished a conservative agenda rather than just pandering like the Bush family did.
At what cost? Personally, I think his damage to the Republican brand will endure for years. I'm curious, though. Why do you think so many conservative policy wonks like Kristol and Will and Goldberg and Lowry and Noonan and Steele are so opposed to the man? Don't they agree with you and Trump on policy?
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Replace the names Trump with Obama or Clinton and Giulani with Pannetta and we would have this thread at 14 pages.
I don't think there's a single Trumpkin who has the ability to see things objectively. To think critically and evaluate events from various perspectives.
Imagine the outrage from those very same people if Obama had done any ONE of a hundred things Trump has done, from grabbing pussies to paying off porn stars to praising Putin and Kim Jong Un while criticizing our own intelligence community. From his cowardly inaction on Khashoggi to his saluting a North Korean general to calling the press the "enemy of the people."
Well, to be fair, I guess Obama wore a tan suit once.
I'm not a Trumpkin... but no one seems to care what I think, either. And I think it's because EVERYONE has their own biases. Some of us recognize them (and maybe even try to mitigate them); others just look for ways to prove (to themselves) that they were right all along.
That's what makes a thread like this so amusing... but frustrating. If it wasn't Trump, does anyone really think that *they* would treat Cruz any differently? I don't. He'd still be called all the things that Trump has been called (including ignorant- even though Cruz is smarter than (pretty much) anyone on this site. Bush was the opposite of Trump (in many ways), and look at the character assassination that he faced. It doesn't matter who the person is; if they are in the wrong "tribe" then they are the enemy. Period. And until that changes, all this hand-wringing and virtue-signaling won't accomplish a thing- because it's not intended to. It's only intended to deify one "side" and demonize the other.
For what it's worth, Pumpf, I care what you think. But this is absolute bullshit. This is not your typical republican vs. democrat thing and I've said that over and over since before the election. Sure, if Cruz were President I'd be criticizing him, too, because I disagree with everything he stands for. Same with Pence. But at least they're both sane. Our differences are with policy. Right now we'd be debating POLICY, like we all did during the Obama and Bush and Clinton administrations. This Trump crap is a whole different thing. Nobody even talks about policy. His childish behavior and lies and tweets and general petulance renders policy nearly irrelevant. If it were just your standard left/right debate, you wouldn't have staunch conservatives like the Bush family and John McCain and William Kristol and George Will so vehemently opposed to him.
You know what I find amusing? All these people who claim to have not voted for him turn up to defend him at every turn. When YOU are the people who should be the most angry... Why? Because personally he is who we thought he was? Funny thing, it is about policy. His tweets and general demeanor get all the focus, but in reality, he has done more than either Bush put together. He has actually accomplished a conservative agenda rather than just pandering like the Bush family did.
At what cost? Personally, I think his damage to the Republican brand will endure for years. I'm curious, though. Why do you think so many conservative policy wonks like Kristol and Will and Goldberg and Lowry and Noonan and Steele are so opposed to the man? Don't they agree with you and Trump on policy?
I hope it damages the fraudulent GOP brand. The "pro-life" GOP that couldn't defund planned parenthood when it had house, senate and WH. The fraudulent GOP that will spout pro-life credentials while running for office only to forget them as soon as they can do something about it. I don't give a damn about the brand.
The only one of those wonks I give a rats ass about it Noonan and she probably despises him because he is so uncouth and brash. I don't care about brand, I care about actually accomplishing conservative policy.
|
