US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

So Trump is the first president to act in political self-interest since Nixon? OK, pal.... whatever. Standard out? Maybe check out my last post on Trump.

You're probably the last person to ask for any sort of balanced opinion on Trump, given your multitude of fake conspiracy theories over the last two years, so excuse quoting you in the first place...

lol! What fake conspiracy theories are those? I don't like the guy, I make no bones about that. About the only declarative statements I've made about the guy is that he's a fraud (not a billionaire) and incompetent. If you're talking about Russia, I stand by anything I've ever said. Sure I might post news articles, so has pretty much everyone else. Where fake news is concerned I would look to all your Benghazi/Clinton Foundation stuff. The Trump DoJ, not exactly apolitical, hasn't been able to land a blow. And they've tried

Correct me if I'm wrong but your last post was rebutting Cali's nutjobbery. Ok... give yourself a pat on the back

 

[britbox]

lol! What fake conspiracy theories are those? I don't like the guy, I make no bones about that. About the only declarative statements I've made about the guy is that he's a fraud (not a billionaire) and incompetent. If you're talking about Russia, I stand by anything I've ever said. Sure I might post news articles, so has pretty much everyone else. Where fake news is concerned I would look to all your Benghazi/Clinton Foundation stuff. The Trump DoJ, not exactly apolitical, hasn't been able to land a blow. And they've tried

Correct me if I'm wrong but your last post was rebutting Cali's nutjobbery. Ok... give yourself a pat on the back

Apologies, maybe one post back:

Lol at all the squabbling over Flynn when the sitting US President has just pulled off one of the biggest clusterfuck moves in recent history. (sorry @Moxie, I'll get my coat).

Hierarchy of human needs. I give more credence to policies affecting life and death rather than whether Trump patted someone's arse in 1986.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Hierarchy of human needs. I give more credence to policies affecting life and death rather than whether Trump patted someone's arse in 1986.

In fairness, Trump has been credibly accused of sexual assault and even rape that go way beyond patting someone's ass decades ago. I would say rape affects life a lot.

 

[Federberg]

Apologies, maybe one post back:




Hierarchy of human needs. I give more credence to policies affecting life and death rather than whether Trump patted someone's arse in 1986.

personally I never felt the Flynn thing was that big a deal. It makes no sense to expect a new Administration to start only at the instant following the inauguration. But to blame a Secretary of State for an attack on an embassy (rather than the President), and disregard the racism, fraudulence and mendacity of this guy is a joke in my view. And frankly.... bias. But hey ho...

never mind the fact that there are so many much worse things being done in this administration which have a similar flavour to the things that got your knickers in a twist in the past

 

[Federberg]

on a side topic, interesting to hear the audio of the post debate discussion between Warren and Sanders. Gun to my head if I had to pick one of those two to trust about the private conversation, then I'm not sure Pocahontas has built up a store of credibility

 

[calitennis127]

I can't resist this one. You are aware aren't you that Judicial Watch is a conservative operation right? You absolute fucking moron.

Lol.....who the fuck cares? You are aware that every media outlet you treat as a source of divine revelation is a left-wing operation right?

Judicial Watch has been proven right repeatedly on numerous issues. Calling them "conservative" doesn't disprove anything they've said. In fact, it lends credence to it since Judicial Watch was entirely right about the Russia collusion narrative being baseless and inaccurate while your preferred media sources advanced the narrative.

 

[britbox]

In fairness, Trump has been credibly accused of sexual assault and even rape that go way beyond patting someone's ass decades ago. I would say rape affects life a lot.

How does "credibly accused" work in the judicial system BS?

 

[Federberg]

Lol.....who the fuck cares? You are aware that every media outlet you treat as a source of divine revelation is a left-wing operation right?

Judicial Watch has been proven right repeatedly on numerous issues. Calling them "conservative" doesn't disprove anything they've said. In fact, it lends credence to it since Judicial Watch was entirely right about the Russia collusion narrative being baseless and inaccurate while your preferred media sources advanced the narrative.

lol! Ok... I'll bite. Someone didn't read the Mueller Report. It wasn't exculpatory you idiot. There's a difference between not meeting the standard for criminal prosecution (often because evidence was destroyed, something credulous bitches like you accuse HRC of doing) and being exonerated. And Mueller only looked at it from a criminal perspective instead of counter-intelligence

 

[calitennis127]

If you ask to withdraw a guilty plea, that means you did actually plead guilty. That's what I said. Putz.

That wasn't the issue at hand, you simpleton. No one ever disputed that Michael Flynn as a matter of fact pleaded guilty. What I said and what numerous commentators have observed for years is that his plea did not make sense in light of Comey's original testimony and what the agents who interviewed him initially said in 2017. So alternative explanations were offered for why he pleaded guilty. Have you ever read a single column by Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal?

It's not my fault that you never read any even moderately right-wing sources of information that would give you a different perspective or expand your horizons a little bit. You don't even get slight exposure to sources that occasionally report some information that would shed your Democratic Party heroes in a less-than-glowing light.

You should try to read some columns from Kim Strassel. She is a Princeton-educated woman who thinks rationally. She is a good example for you and the other millions of deeply misguided white women who vote Democrat to learn from.

 

[britbox]

lol! Ok... I'll bite. Someone didn't read the Mueller Report. It wasn't exculpatory you idiot. There's a difference between not meeting the standard for criminal prosecution (often because evidence was destroyed, something credulous bitches like you accuse HRC of doing) and being exonerated. And Mueller only looked at it from a criminal perspective instead of counter-intelligence

Hillary did destroy evidence. It's not an accusation, it's fact.

 

[Federberg]

Hillary did destroy evidence. It's not an accusation, it's fact.

didn't make a comment either way on that. I wouldn't be shocked if she did, not my point sir. The "credulous" imputation relates to his tinfoil hattery…

 

[calitennis127]

lol! Ok... I'll bite. Someone didn't read the Mueller Report. It wasn't exculpatory you idiot. There's a difference between not meeting the standard for criminal prosecution (often because evidence was destroyed, something credulous bitches like you accuse HRC of doing) and being exonerated. And Mueller only looked at it from a criminal perspective instead of counter-intelligence

Federberg, again, all you can do is repeat every regurgitated cliche of the Democratic Party that is improvised on the fly to sound sensible to gullible people like yourself. The Democratic leadership knows that it can say anything - literally anything - and that it will be believed by sapheads like you, mac, Moxie, and tented.

Now, as for the Mueller Report, let's go right to it:

p. 39: "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

No matter what excuse anyone comes up with, that is the bottom line. Period. And that finding directly contradicts all the promises, claims, guarantees, and assurances by Democratic Party leaders for well over two years that evidence of criminal conspiracy with Russia would be unearthed by the Mueller report.

There is nothing you can do to explain that away. Virtually all Democrats predicted that something would be uncovered with respect to criminal conspiracy with Russia, and despite over two years of harassing the president, reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents, and interviewing hundreds of people, nothing was found. Period. Nothing you can do to change it.

As for your excuse that Mueller did not find anything that met the standard for criminal prosecution: that is laughable. The original charge was precisely that Trump had committed CRIMES, CRIMES, CRIMES. You can't accuse someone of committing crimes and then when it's proven that they didn't commit them change your own standard.

This would be like someone saying "Federberg stole toys from Toys'R'Us. The video will prove it." Then the surveillance video shows that you walked in and bought the toys like a good little British boy. Wouldn't it be silly to then change the argument to "well he still walked into the store"?

 

[calitennis127]

Hillary did destroy evidence. It's not an accusation, it's fact.

If Trump had destroyed 13 cell phones and deleted 30,000 emails and used bleach-bit to clean off numerous hard drives, I wonder what Federberg might say about him. Anybody think Federberg would call that obstruction of justice?

 

[britbox]

on a side topic, interesting to hear the audio of the post debate discussion between Warren and Sanders. Gun to my head if I had to pick one of those two to trust about the private conversation, then I'm not sure Pocahontas has built up a store of credibility

If you're a Dem, then Bernie is the only guy who could debate Trump H2H IMO. The others, including Biden will get chewed alive. Is America ready for Bernie? I doubt it. The Dems will probably pick some other far-left moron who won't shift enough to the centre to grab the critical swing votes.

 

[calitennis127]

In fairness, Trump has been credibly accused of sexual assault and even rape that go way beyond patting someone's ass decades ago. I would say rape affects life a lot.

Lol....the problem of sexual assault of women in the United States is almost entirely a Democratic Party problem that Democrats project on to their enemies. Bill Clinton actually faced legal problems because of rape allegations from Juannita Broaddrick and others, and Hillary was chummy for years with America's leading rapist (Harvey Weinstein) while Bill Clinton was pals with Epstein (another leading sexaul assaulter). Not to mention the numerous other sexual assaulters in the Democratic media in recent decades.

This isn't to say males on the right are perfect, but the problems of rape and sexual assault are overwhelmingly a left-wing problem.

 

[Federberg]

Federberg, again, all you can do is repeat every regurgitated cliche of the Democratic Party that is improvised on the fly to sound sensible to gullible people like yourself. The Democratic leadership knows that it can say anything - literally anything - and that it will be believed by sapheads like you, mac, Moxie, and tented.

Now, as for the Mueller Report, let's go right to it:

p. 39: "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

No matter what excuse anyone comes up with, that is the bottom line. Period. And that finding directly contradicts all the promises, claims, guarantees, and assurances by Democratic Party leaders for well over two years that evidence of criminal conspiracy with Russia would be unearthed by the Mueller report.

There is nothing you can do to explain that away. Virtually all Democrats predicted that something would be uncovered with respect to criminal conspiracy with Russia, and despite over two years of harassing the president, reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents, and interviewing hundreds of people, nothing was found. Period. Nothing you can do to change it.

As for your excuse that Mueller did not find anything that met the standard for criminal prosecution: that is laughable. The original charge was precisely that Trump had committed CRIMES, CRIMES, CRIMES. You can't accuse someone of committing crimes and then when it's proven that they didn't commit them change your own standard.

This would be like someone saying "Federberg stole toys from Toys'R'Us. The video will prove it." Then the surveillance video shows that you walked in and bought the toys like a good little British boy. Wouldn't it be silly to then change the argument to "well he still walked into the store"?

Sigh... this is too easy

The next but one paragraph states the following. Ask your mummy to read it to you

The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

 

[calitennis127]

The Trump DoJ, not exactly apolitical, hasn't been able to land a blow. And they've tried

Trump does not have a DOJ and never did. Over 90% of the people in the Justice Department hate him and will do everything in their power to protect Hillary.

 

[Federberg]

If you're a Dem, then Bernie is the only guy who could debate Trump H2H IMO. The others, including Biden will get chewed alive. Is America ready for Bernie? I doubt it. The Dems will probably pick some other far-left moron who won't shift enough to the centre to grab the critical swing votes.

the more I watch the more I think that Warren or Sanders would be a disaster. Buttegieg would flat out lose. I agree that Biden wouldn't fare well in a debate, but he would probably get the turn out he needs to win. And more important he is so non-threatening to centre Republicans he would probably induce a big percentage of them not to vote. I think Biden's edge is that he damages GOP turnout. Sanders would probably get bigger Dem turnout, but the flipside is that GOP turnout would be insane

 

[calitennis127]

Sigh... this is too easy

The next but one paragraph states the following. Ask your mummy to read it to you

The report describes actions and events that the Special Counsel's Office found to be supported by the evidence collected in our investigation. In some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event. In other instances, when substantial, credible evidence enabled the Office to reach a conclusion with confidence, the report states that the investigation established that certain actions or events occurred. A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

Lol.....what kind of standard is that? That is absolutely ridiculous. By that standard, no accusation can ever be disproved. You can simply accuse someone of anything and no matter how little you find still insist that they haven't been exonerated.

And aren't you the same person who just referred to a Washington Post article about how the Clinton Foundation was just exonerated after a light little review by some Clinton-friendly DOJ employees? If that underlined statement is your standard, then I can simply say "a statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

Go back to the drawing board, young child. You have to come at me better than that.

 

[Federberg]

Lol.....what kind of standard is that? That is absolutely ridiculous. By that standard, no accusation can ever be disproved. You can simply accuse someone of anything and no matter how little you find still insist that they haven't been exonerated.

And aren't you the same person who just referred to a Washington Post article about how the Clinton Foundation was just exonerated after a light little review by some Clinton-friendly DOJ employees? If that underlined statement is your standard, then I can simply say "a statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts."

Go back to the drawing board, young child. You have to come at me better than that.

you're the one who keeps on saying the accusations are baseless. I merely pointed out to you that the Mueller Report doesn't say that. And as for Clinton friendly DoJ employees? Grow up mate. You didn't get the result you wanted and then you make accusations of bias. If there was anything there... anything at all, they would have hammered the woman. On the flipside, Mueller went out of his way to respect the office of the Presidency, and didn't even take a shot at his evil little kids