Trump

BugMeister · Post by **BugMeister** » Mon, 11. Dec 17, 14:00

- the amazin' Randi Rhodes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZz2SdaL7sE

- hatred is on the agenda with Trump and the GOP
- they are the party of hatred and lies..

- and Farage is one of their cohorts..

RegisterMe · Post by **RegisterMe** » Mon, 11. Dec 17, 14:15

I think the chances of it being proven that Trump (/his campaign) actively consorted with Russia to win the election are vanishingly small. Why? Because their record during the campaign, and in office, demonstrates such incompetence that had they done so it would be beyond blindingly obvious.

That having been said I think the chances of Trump (/his campaign) being found to have done something they can be prosecuted for are extremely high. Why?

For exactly the same reason.

Post by **UniTrader** » Mon, 11. Dec 17, 16:21

Didn't Trump already admit that he colluded with Russia for the election on Twitter? (I think it was about one or two weeks ago).. He also said that it was no crime to do this in same tweet...

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Mon, 11. Dec 17, 18:59

Even if Trump did somehow work with some Russian citizens to help sway the election, is that necessarily an impeachment offense? Doesn't everyone try to sway the election in their favor?

Short of directly hacking the voting machines or altering results, I don't see the big deal. It was Americans who voted regardless of whether news media or anything else was influenced.

Even if computers where hacked and secret emails where revealed, how is that impeachable? Too bad if your computer security is so poor that secret information is stolen. When a person is playing in the big leagues, they have to know that if they want to keep something secret, they should tell no one and keep no record.

Yes, I know stealing, whether by cyber means or otherwise, is and should be illegal, but in reality, its dog-eat-dog out there.

Putting aside the Russians, I think the bigger potential for impeachment, is if it can be proven that Trump fired Comey to derail an ongoing FBI investigation.

Possibly Trump will go down because of sexual indiscretions, but otherwise, I don't see anything substantive on the horizon pointing to impeachment.

Most likely, Trump will resign because he can't be bothered being President or because the job takes too much of a toll on his health. Then we will have the rabid dogs of liberalism after Pence and there will be a new thread in OT pulling him apart.

fiksal · Post by **fiksal** » Mon, 11. Dec 17, 20:09

Observe wrote:Even if Trump did somehow work with some Russian citizens to help sway the election, is that necessarily an impeachment offense? Doesn't everyone try to sway the election in their favor?

That all depends. So far the rhetoric seems to be, one cant get aid from another government in trying to win an election; including working with hackers of another government; negotiating deals for the scenario if one wins; have another government aid you with a expensive misinformation campaign.

If Americans think that it's a problem, I'd gladly agree with them.

A dog might eat dog, but someone needs to put that dog on a chain and put on a muzzle. Nothing's wrong with that.

felter · Post by **felter** » Mon, 11. Dec 17, 20:44

It depends on what he did with the Russians and what he offered them. For example it is allegedly they sought to get hacked material from the Russians which means they were seeking stolen goods. can't say for America but at least here that is illegal. More importantly, it is alleged they offered to remove sanctions for the stolen data, which means they were making diplomatic deals and promises as a civilian, which we know just so happens is also illegal. So it is not quite so much the collusion per say, it's what that collusion entails.

It's also interesting that Trumps supporters have stopped denying that there was any collusion with Russia, instead they are now attacking the investigation into collusion.

I do love the irony that they go after the investigation, saying that is is corrupt because of that employee that was removed from it because they found out he was a Trump hater, but they removed him as soon as they found out, where as with Trump when he finds out Michael Flynn was breaking the rules, he gave him a job.

fiksal · Post by **fiksal** » Mon, 11. Dec 17, 20:56

Agreed

Die hard supporters arent looking for truth. They are interested in their master to remain in power, hoping that will miraculously benefit them someday.

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Mon, 11. Dec 17, 21:35

fiksal wrote:Die hard supporters arent looking for truth. They are interested in their master to remain in power, hoping that will miraculously benefit them someday.

Truth be told, I suspect that for most ardent Trump supporters, the more that liberals hate what Trump does, the happier they are. That's all the benefit they seek.

Remember, there are a lot of people in the U.S. who think that liberalism has gone too far. Transgender bathrooms, gay marriage, marijuana legalization, socialized health care, to name a few of the right-wing pet peeves. These examples and many others, are seen as America going down the toilet.

Thus, having a President who opposes such 'progress', is Manna from heaven for Trumpeters. Let's make America great again, is music to the ears of such people, because going backwards is their idea of how things should be.

fiksal · Post by **fiksal** » Mon, 11. Dec 17, 23:20

Observe wrote:
fiksal wrote:Die hard supporters arent looking for truth. They are interested in their master to remain in power, hoping that will miraculously benefit them someday.
Truth be told, I suspect that for most ardent Trump supporters, the more that liberals hate what Trump does, the happier they are. That's all the benefit they seek.

If that's all it takes for someone to be happy, then they must be the happiest people.

Trump doesnt even need to improve anything, or make sure the people who voted for him have healthcare, social safety net, infrastructure, jobs.... oh wait a second... this would make a lot of sense.

Observe wrote: Remember, there are a lot of people in the U.S. who think that liberalism has gone too far. Transgender bathrooms, gay marriage, marijuana legalization, socialized health care, to name a few of the right-wing pet peeves. These examples and many others, are seen as America going down the toilet.

Thus, having a President who opposes such 'progress', is Manna from heaven for Trumpeters. Let's make America great again, is music to the ears of such people, because going backwards is their idea of how things should be.

I wonder how other countries take this step, to go from the idea "we should tell everyone how to exactly live their lives and punish others" to "people should be free".

US clearly hasnt, or if it had it's only in the pockets of big cities.

Russia isnt a good example...

How did Europe do this?... if it did?

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Mon, 11. Dec 17, 23:37

pjknibbs wrote:
Morkonan wrote: We can not go on a witch-hunt against anyone who dares speak out against "The Investigation." If they oppose it, it does not mean that they are guilty of any crime, no more than someone who disagrees with a set speed limit is guilty of breaking that limit when they drive.
If I had a hundred Internets you could have them all. Frankly, I think the sooner Trump crashes and burns the better, but advocating investigating people for speaking out against something they believe isn't right is not the way to hasten that happy day. Can you imagine the comments if Trump were saying something similar? "Oh, anyone who says they want me out is going to be investigated as a matter of course because they're obviously commie anti-American subversives".

And yet, Trump appears to hold to the conviction that anyone who isn't with him is, by his definition, against him. Further, it's obvious that he takes punitive measures against those he feels have "betrayed" him. He speaks out against them almost in the same breath that he once used to speak out in favor of them with great praise...

I don't think Trump is far away from the idea of "punitive investigation" should he somehow emerge from this thing with no formal charges being brought against him. It appears one of the most disastrous events that can occur is having a Trump "win" something and then seek vindication by punishing his detractors... If he somehow gets a "free hand" and feels he can do "anything", like "grab their @@$%Y" because he's "a celebrity", what will he really do, then? It's... scary to contemplate. It'd be like a squalling five-year-old being given an assault-rife and then unleashed upon the former friends who have spurned him...

BugMeister · Post by **BugMeister** » Tue, 12. Dec 17, 15:02

the root of the problem..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gndkcb12X1c

corruption is legal in the US
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhe286ky-9A

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Tue, 12. Dec 17, 20:09

Well, like I said above, it appears that Trump & Co. has decided to get a head start on a "punitive investigation."

Trump’s lawyer calls for a special counsel investigation of alleged corruption at FBI and Justice Department

Yeah, they want an investigation to investigate the investigators... Which is really only a way for them to set the stage for claims that the current investigation is somehow corrupt.

"It's so corrupt we called for an investigation of it!" or "There's an investigation going on that's investigating the investigators, so you know all these charges are bogus."

/sigh

Post by **UniTrader** » Tue, 12. Dec 17, 20:27

My forecast for this new Investigation:

Either the Investigators will turn out to be biased, or wont find anything to stop Muellers Investigation (which is obviously the goal), or a combination of those.. i will leave open if they find anything against individual investigators (joke: although Putin will of course provide necesary evidence

he is good in such things

)

Chips · Post by **Chips** » Tue, 12. Dec 17, 20:31

Masterbagger wrote:
Chips wrote:
Masterbagger wrote: Back that statement up with a source.
A quick Google search hasn't yielded the precise same source I originally read, so perhaps figures aren't as high... but they are as damning, with the amount done by right wing at 2x the number (or... 100% greater?)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 05831.html

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/10/2/163 ... rism-islam

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/ana ... -terrorism

So lets guess what you'll focus upon

Oh wait, found it, the vast majority (ov er 80%) are US citizens in the case of jihadist terrorism offences. The right wing offences still outnumber islamic by several factors as well...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccar ... bc9e03d894

The following infographic provides an overview of the citizenship status of all people involved in U.S. jihadist terrorism cases since 9/11. 190 of them, or 82 percent, are citizens and permanent residents. Refugees and illegal immigrants in particular have been involved in very few terrorist incidents
Ban those immigrant muslims, they've caused nearly NO instances of terrorism on US soil. SO DANGEROUS.
Meanwhile > 11,000 people died in the US last year from guns. SO SAFE.

Honestly, head, sand, bury it, ignore reality, live in your bubble. You're right, Trump supporters isn't where the idea of hating muslims come from. However, Trump supporters ignore, or accept/excuse while fail to condone a "leader" of a nation's racist, xenophobic, bullcrap (obvious) lies - while he castigates the free press for peddling "fake news".

It is hilarious and so pathetic at the same time.
Even if we accept your sources as factual, and that's a huge stretch when it comes to a biased outlet like vox, they make no reference whatsoever to the population of America. You are comparing a white majority population to a muslim minority and drawing conclusions from total acts of terror. A more truthful comparison would break it down into a rate of terror acts per block of population. I think if you did that the result would not support this idea. There are likely more right wing extremists. They are committing terror attacks at a lower rate than muslim extremists.

It's not worthwhile to ignore that an American position on immigrant muslims can be influenced by looking at what happened to the European nations that accepted thousands of migrants. We can see the truck attacks, acid attacks, and sexual assaults from here.

If you want to keep going back to guns I suggest you are guilty of what those who defend islam accuse others of. You use the minority committing our gun violence to attack the majority that does not. If you look at firearm homicide in detail you see a clear trend of who is killing, who is being killed, where, and why. That gets ignored to push a narrative where all guns are bad.

Predictable as predictable is. "I see vox, i don't rate that as a source" while ignoring the other 2. Somehow your focus on that is supposed to also dismiss the other sources.

As for your "they kill more per capita" - hmm, okay. What's the population of right wing extremists in the US vs the population of islamic fundamentalist extremists in the US?

Wait, what, you want a comparison without actually making it a fair comparison? Or did you really just make it a race thing? Or are you saying the US is filled with right wing extremist terrorists - as there are so many of them in comparison

As for gun laws... erm - what's the greater risk (by sheer numerics) to your life in the US? Is it Islamic fundamentalist extremists, is it right wing extremists, is it guns, or cars? What legislation could realistically impact those numbers? Which would you wish (based on risk to your life) they addressed in order? can you order it?

Also, the point (missed) of the articles is that it's not immigrants causing the issue per se. So the numbers of actual "Islamic terror" isn't originating from the countries on the banned entry list, it is from your own nation - and this is the key point you are missing - which is responsible for the vast vast vast majority of terror incidents on US soil.

Were you even aware that the right wing extremists are more dangerous on US soil than Islamic extremists? Do you acknowledge this? I mean, will you?

And will you acknowledge that, without specifically identifying sources of terrorism, that his measures will not actually make any impact into the number of terrorism incidents in the US? In other words, your chances of dying from terror attacks are no less (statistically speaking) from the countries ban as otherwise? You're far more likely to die at the hands of a US citizen, regardless of religion, than a terrorist of foreign Islamic persuasion.

So which should you address? Please note, I'm not saying that without the various services and/or FBI/Police etc that there's no threat; there is a substantial threat to most nations (not individuals). But their current efforts are reducing the risks greatly. In the US the measures taken will not make much difference whatsoever, yet you don't think the President is even slightly xenophobic in the actioning of a ban in the name of reducing your terrorism risk? Really?! The numbers simply point out otherwise.

Either way, I don't expect any concession or change of stance on your part. It doesn't matter what is said, what the numbers say, or anything else. As I said earlier in this thread, no-one is changing their mind.

You've an obviously xenophobic president, and you're happy with that. Great stuff. Just hope he doesn't inflame the world with his ineptitude.

Nothing about Donald Trump surprises me; it was bloody obvious what he'd be like. Absolutely awful. And having seen US politics for a while, I'm also not surprised about the complete and utter inability for people who voted for him... to then criticise him over this. You realise it's okay to say "what is he doing, he's a moron" - it doesn't make you a Hillary supporter suddenly. It simply makes you a human. You can criticise something without it implying you're a supporter of the dreaded opposition.

Observe · Post by **Observe** » Tue, 12. Dec 17, 21:02

Well written ^^ Chips.

Chips wrote:Were you even aware that the right wing extremists are more dangerous on US soil than Islamic extremists? Do you acknowledge this? I mean, will you?

I too would like to hear Trump supporters as least acknowledge some of the blatant facts that they seem to keep slip-sliding around; as if all truth is automatically de facto false news.

Post by **UniTrader** » Tue, 12. Dec 17, 23:02

@Chips

Where can i hire you as Ghost-Writer? you said exactly what i wanted to say in my Reply to the same Post, but far better than me...

BugMeister · Post by **BugMeister** » Tue, 12. Dec 17, 23:59

Trump is a lunatic..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87OO517SIAs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtglogbAAGg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDaOmzADA-A

- the sassy version..

- the robot Melania:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9lVjc5eZro

BugMeister · Post by **BugMeister** » Wed, 13. Dec 17, 05:09

news just in, Doug Jones wins Alabama..
Judge Dredd Moore is now officially a loser..

- huzzah..!!

Masterbagger · Post by **Masterbagger** » Wed, 13. Dec 17, 05:21

Chips wrote:
Predictable as predictable is. "I see vox, i don't rate that as a source" while ignoring the other 2. Somehow your focus on that is supposed to also dismiss the other sources.

As for your "they kill more per capita" - hmm, okay. What's the population of right wing extremists in the US vs the population of islamic fundamentalist extremists in the US?

Wait, what, you want a comparison without actually making it a fair comparison? Or did you really just make it a race thing? Or are you saying the US is filled with right wing extremist terrorists - as there are so many of them in comparison

As for gun laws... erm - what's the greater risk (by sheer numerics) to your life in the US? Is it Islamic fundamentalist extremists, is it right wing extremists, is it guns, or cars? What legislation could realistically impact those numbers? Which would you wish (based on risk to your life) they addressed in order? can you order it?

Also, the point (missed) of the articles is that it's not immigrants causing the issue per se. So the numbers of actual "Islamic terror" isn't originating from the countries on the banned entry list, it is from your own nation - and this is the key point you are missing - which is responsible for the vast vast vast majority of terror incidents on US soil.

Were you even aware that the right wing extremists are more dangerous on US soil than Islamic extremists? Do you acknowledge this? I mean, will you?

And will you acknowledge that, without specifically identifying sources of terrorism, that his measures will not actually make any impact into the number of terrorism incidents in the US? In other words, your chances of dying from terror attacks are no less (statistically speaking) from the countries ban as otherwise? You're far more likely to die at the hands of a US citizen, regardless of religion, than a terrorist of foreign Islamic persuasion.

So which should you address? Please note, I'm not saying that without the various services and/or FBI/Police etc that there's no threat; there is a substantial threat to most nations (not individuals). But their current efforts are reducing the risks greatly. In the US the measures taken will not make much difference whatsoever, yet you don't think the President is even slightly xenophobic in the actioning of a ban in the name of reducing your terrorism risk? Really?! The numbers simply point out otherwise.

Either way, I don't expect any concession or change of stance on your part. It doesn't matter what is said, what the numbers say, or anything else. As I said earlier in this thread, no-one is changing their mind.

You've an obviously xenophobic president, and you're happy with that. Great stuff. Just hope he doesn't inflame the world with his ineptitude.

Nothing about Donald Trump surprises me; it was bloody obvious what he'd be like. Absolutely awful. And having seen US politics for a while, I'm also not surprised about the complete and utter inability for people who voted for him... to then criticise him over this. You realise it's okay to say "what is he doing, he's a moron" - it doesn't make you a Hillary supporter suddenly. It simply makes you a human. You can criticise something without it implying you're a supporter of the dreaded opposition.

Don't post biased sources if you don't want to be criticized for it. The fault I find in the vox article applies to the others. I don't comprehend how anyone could think comparing the raw total numbers of crime of a huge population to a small one is fair. It's intentionally deceptive. I also don't follow how breaking those numbers down into rates is unfair. Further, it's become an issue because of only that small population immigrating in mass numbers.

There is a choice to make concerning importing significant amounts of that small population that doesn't exist for any other domestic threat to Americans. Having our terrorists being radicalized here doesn't change that either when it comes to bringing in more of them. I don't think the travel ban is going to have a huge effect on America and I'm not excited by it. I do think a policy of limiting refugees is going to avoid problems well beyond terrorism. In either case I don't think an argument that they don't decrease my risk of terrorism is a good persuader for taking actions that might actively increase it.

Bishop149 · Post by **Bishop149** » Wed, 13. Dec 17, 08:40

BugMeister wrote:news just in, Doug Jones wins Alabama..
Judge Dredd Moore is now officially a loser..

I'm glad the paedophile lost.

^^^^^ A statement reflective of the state of post-Trump politics in 2017 I feel.

Well, things just got a little harder for Donnie.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

Trump