[POLITICS] If Trump is Innocent, he should prove it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 21 NEXT
 

TheIronRuler:

Kwak:

TheIronRuler:

Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

Outright lies are not a matter of polite disagreement. They disgust me and should be forcefully opposed at every opportunity.

.
I think you're lying and I'm not being rude and disrespectful to you. I know this wasn't leaked by the world's intelligence agencies. The information was copied from the DNC servers and dumped onto wikileaks. Following cover-ups tried to pin this on the nebulous "russians" to try and point attention away from the DNC's corruption scandal.
.

Lil devils x:

TheIronRuler:

.
I accept your reasoning, within your world-view and what you believe, it does sound very compelling. However when thinking of impeachment I'm more comfortable with looking at Nixon's and Watergate. I do believe the US authorities did a good job of checking the allegations over Trump. This is why the mainstream has moved away from this line of attack against the white-house, because the facts make them look silly.

The report will be released, only after it is checked for security issues and redacted accordingly. I think both parties support it wholeheartedly (on congress votes, I think).I do think its disengenious to claim you know better than the FBI that Trump did commit a crime...

A small clarification - Clinton was charged with lying under oath? No? I'm not certain.
.

.
Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

Nixon wasn't impeached, Bill was. Nixon resigned before impeachment was possible.
What media are you talking about, here in the US, the media is still saying there is much investigating to be done and stating he was not exonerated. Only Right wing media is suggesting anything different.

I am not sure what you have been reading/ watching here but the facts are what I stated above, in that it has already been proven, and admitted to that Trump's campaign was colluding with Russia for dirt on Clinton, That Trump jr and Roger Stone were in direct contact with Wikileaks, that Manafort was on Russia's payroll, that Michael Flynn was a foreign agent. None of that is even being debated at this point. What is being debated is whether or not they can charge him or his campaign with crimes for doing so. Trump got rid of Sessions, Comey, and McCabe for not doing his bidding on the investigation. Due to Trump's continuous interference with the Department of Justice and the FBI, I do not think they will be able to do a thorough investigation until he is out of office and no longer able to influence it.

Keep in mind they very well may bring charges once he is out of office regardless.

.
I don't think the reason why Trump isn't being charged with crimes and impeached is because he is still in office. I think they don't have anything substantial against him at this point, and they may never will have anything.

I think they have plenty substantial. The reason he isn't being impeached is because it isn't in Democrats or Republicans best interests to do so. Charging him now would be pointless, he would never go to jail.

I added links above about the numerous times Trump lied under oath btw.

Lil devils x:
I think they have plenty substantial. The reason he isn't being impeached is because it isn't in Democrats or Republicans best interests to do so. Charging him now would be pointless, he would never go to jail.

I added links above about the numerous times Trump lied under oath btw.

.
I like you, and you took the time to explain this to me, so I'll take the time to read through your links. Your reasoning for Trump staying in office also works with your world-view, and I understand it. I guess I'll retire here since there is an angry person about to yell at me soon and I don't want to get into a shouting match with them. Plus, I've got some complex number matrices I need to solve.

TheIronRuler:

Lil devils x:
I think they have plenty substantial. The reason he isn't being impeached is because it isn't in Democrats or Republicans best interests to do so. Charging him now would be pointless, he would never go to jail.

I added links above about the numerous times Trump lied under oath btw.

.
I like you, and you took the time to explain this to me, so I'll take the time to read through your links. Your reasoning for Trump staying in office also works with your world-view, and I understand it. I guess I'll retire here since there is an angry person about to yell at me soon and I don't want to get into a shouting match with them. Plus, I've got some complex number matrices I need to solve.

Don't get yelled at! Have a good day, I believe it is morning there.

Not only do Democrats not have enough votes to impeach Trump, even if he stood in the middle of the street and murdered someone, they do not even control both houses to follow through so any move for impeachment would be DOA regardless of a crime committed. Even worse, they do not have enough votes on their own side until they can guarantee they can take out Pence in the process. AS long as it goes to Pence when Trump is removed the entire move would be pointless. Besides, Trump being as awful as he is give Democrats a better shot at 2020. Having a " not insane person", such as John Kasich as a contender would be much more difficult to go up against than leaving Trump where he is to crowd out the somewhat "normal" people.

TheIronRuler:

Not much of that, no. The bit about Trump real-estate deals with the Saudis And Chinese investors, I have heard about. Much of what you said I can totally envision Trump doing, yet... he's still in office. In short - If there was something concrete to impeach him with, it would have happened. Yet it doesn't happen.

Republicans control the Senate. As long as they do Trump will not be impeached, regardless of what he has done. The Republicans do not care that he is an evil and vile man, they want to keep their power. They have shown time and again that they will follow Trump and protect him as long as it means denying Democrats power.

TheIronRuler:

Kwak:

TheIronRuler:

DNC was outed as a corrupt establishment (after the email leak data-dump in wikileaks) and to cover it up they threw out the Russian interference story on the media.

....

.
Language. If someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't give you the right to be rude to them.

It was wiki-leaks that revealed the story. Same with the Panama papers incident. Both cases has the person responsible for the leak and investigation gunned down and murdered.

Liar. Stop telling lies. It's established fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

At the Aspen security conference in summer 2016, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Vladimir Putin wanted to retaliate against perceived U.S. intervention in Russian affairs with the 2011?13 Russian protests and the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych in the 2014 Ukraine crisis.[178] In July 2016, consensus grew within the CIA that Russia had hacked the DNC.[179] In a joint statement on October 7, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence expressed confidence that Russia had interfered in the presidential election by stealing emails from politicians and U.S. groups and publicizing the information.[180]
...
On January 6, 2017, after briefing the president, the president-elect, and members of the Senate and House, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) released a de-classified version of the report on Russian activities.[18] The report, produced by the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, and the ODNI, asserted that Russia had carried out a massive cyber operation ordered by Russian President Putin with the goal to sabotage the 2016 U.S. elections.[202]
...
At least 17 distinct investigations were started to examine aspects of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[214]
U.S. Senate

Members of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee traveled to Ukraine and Poland in 2016 and learned about Russian operations to influence their elections.[215] e Senator McCain called for a special select committee of the U.S. Senate to investigate Russian meddling in the election,[216][217] and called election meddling an "act of war".[218]

The Senate Intelligence Committee began work on its bipartisan inquiry in January 2017.[219] In May, the committee voted unanimously to give both Chairmen solo subpoena power.[220][221] Soon after, the committee issued a subpoena to the Trump campaign for all Russia-related documents, emails, and telephone records.[222] In December, it was also looking at the presidential campaign of Green Party's Jill Stein for potential "collusion with the Russians".[223]

In May 2018, the Senate Intelligence Committee released the interim findings of their bipartisan investigation, finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of helping Trump gain the presidency, stating: "Our staff concluded that the [intelligence community's] conclusions were accurate and on point. The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton."[224]

http://time.com/5340060/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-summit-russia-meddling/
When President Donald Trump appeared to accept Russian President Vladimir Putin?s denials of Russian meddling in the 2016 election Monday, he wasn?t just breaking with Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

He was also disagreeing with U.S. intelligence agencies; two congressional committees that investigated the issue; his own Defense secretary, director of national intelligence and national security adviser; and private cybersecurity experts.

TheIronRuler:
Trump did nothing wrong and was exonerated for 'colluding with the Russians' and people still can't stomach it.

From what I hear, I haven't read it myself at this point, is that Barr used very specific language in his summary. And he stated that no one in the Trump organization/campaign coordinated (he even added a legal definition of coordinating in a footnote) with the Russian Government. That doesn't mean that Trump people did not coordinate/collude/scheme/etc. with Russian entities that then handed stuff off to the Russian Government. I firmly believe that Putin is smart enough to use middle-men, fronts and shell companies to hide the shady and dirty shit he gets up to.

Asita:

What you've been arguing is closer to "it's ridiculous to have ever suspected Trump at all" than it is "Trump's guilt was never proven".

But I'm arguing exactly the opposite of that. It's not ridiculous to have suspected Trump, not was it ridiculous to suspect his actions were intended to to cover up his crimes. But the reason it wasn't ridiculous to think he was trying to obstruct justice was because it wasn't ridiculous to think he was guilty in the first place.

Go to the metaphor I made, and humor me enough to concede there may be one married person somewhere in the world who hasn't gone through same physicality studies you have and might not recognize the specific variations of smiles. Just take the example as its meant to be, the women in the example was not being unreasonable to suspect something was up (I can just decide this because I'm the person making it up, don't argue the point, just accept it). The example I intended was to illustrate a series of events where a person was justified to suspect wrongdoing and thus equally justified in suspecting they were hiding the wrongdoing. But once you find out the actual wrongdoing wasn't going on, it's unreasonable to still suspect the person of hiding things.

It's not ridiculous to have suspected Trump of colluding with Russia, nor was it ridiculous to suspect he was trying to ruin the investigation. But now that the investigation finished un-ruined and concluded he didn't collude with Russia, it is ridiculous to to still accuse him of attempted obstruction.

Lil devils x:

So you are actually trying to state that Trump's campaign did not in any way " collude" with Russia when it has already been shown that they did, just it isn't illegal?

To clarify:
1) Do you believe that Donald Trump Jr. met with Russians to get "dirt on Hillary" as he has stated he has?
2) Do you believe that Cohen stated that Trump was aware of Trump tower meeting ahead of time?
3) Do you believe Donald Trump jr was in direct contact with Wikileaks?
4) Do you believe that the Ukraine has a ledger that shows that Manafort was on Russia's payroll to influence Ukrainian elections to favor the Pro Russia candidate?
5) Do you believe that Flynn has admitted he was a foreign agent when Trump appointed him as head of National Security?
6) Do you believe that Trump openly, publicly asked for a US official's hacked emails near near the time of the Trump Tower meeting?
7) Do you believe Roger Stone was in direct contact with Wikileaks?

To clarify, none of those things are what the investigation was really about. The question wasn't "were there connections between Trump and Russia." Frankly, the people charged for lying about this were largely lying because they made this mistake. The question was not "did they talk to Russia" or "have they worked with Russia", the question is specifically "did Trump or his campaign coordinate with the Russian government to fraudulently impact the results of the 2016 election."

Talking to foreign agents not only isn't illegal, it's not even immoral. The Russia investigation itself was instigated in part by the DNC paying a foreign operative for opposition research on Trump. Trump's campaign being interested in Clinton's faults is right. If the opposition is obligated to ignore dirt on someone, who's supposed to care? Now if the Trump campaign was giving Russia Clinton's emails to give to wikileaks to impact the election, that would be coordinated fraud. And that's the sort of thing it takes an investigation to find out about.

Like, sure, there's known events where Trump or people connected to him worked with Russia or Russians, but the question of collusion is whether they worked together to deceive or defraud the American people. Do any of the things you listed suggest to you that Trump coordinated with Russia to deceive the public or change the election's results?

tstorm823:

Asita:

What you've been arguing is closer to "it's ridiculous to have ever suspected Trump at all" than it is "Trump's guilt was never proven".

But I'm arguing exactly the opposite of that. It's not ridiculous to have suspected Trump, not was it ridiculous to suspect his actions were intended to to cover up his crimes. But the reason it wasn't ridiculous to think he was trying to obstruct justice was because it wasn't ridiculous to think he was guilty in the first place.

Go to the metaphor I made, and humor me enough to concede there may be one married person somewhere in the world who hasn't gone through same physicality studies you have and might not recognize the specific variations of smiles. Just take the example as its meant to be, the women in the example was not being unreasonable to suspect something was up (I can just decide this because I'm the person making it up, don't argue the point, just accept it). The example I intended was to illustrate a series of events where a person was justified to suspect wrongdoing and thus equally justified in suspecting they were hiding the wrongdoing. But once you find out the actual wrongdoing wasn't going on, it's unreasonable to still suspect the person of hiding things.

It's not ridiculous to have suspected Trump of colluding with Russia, nor was it ridiculous to suspect he was trying to ruin the investigation. But now that the investigation finished un-ruined and concluded he didn't collude with Russia, it is ridiculous to to still accuse him of attempted obstruction.

Except that here's the thing: We haven't found out that the actual wrongdoing wasn't going on. What we have is the characterization of Mueller's report by someone who had by all appearances decided by June of last year that the investigation was "fatally misconceived" and felt strongly enough about it to submit a unsolicited, publicly available 20 page memo on the matter. One wherein he made a lot of assumptions about the investigation. As perhaps best put by Marty Lederman, "from all that appears, Barr was simply conjuring from whole cloth a preposterously long set of assumptions about how Special Counsel Mueller was adopting extreme and unprecedented-within-DOJ views about every pertinent question and investigatory decision - and that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein was allowing him to do so".

Consequentially, there have been concerns about his impartiality since Trump's nomination of him in December[1]. Even less charitably, since that nomination speculation has been that it was that exact memo that made Trump want Barr.

Incidentally, this neatly demonstrates why recusal is a thing. Recusal is not about guilt or innocence, it's about being able to trust the judicial process itself. That Barr had seemed to have reached his conclusions about the investigation, its validity, and its premises (or rather, his assumptions about its premises) long before he actually saw the results begs the question of his ability to fairly evaluate the investigation's results, as he had displayed a strong inclination to be dismissive of them before they were even submitted.

To build on the analogy you're insisting upon[2], here's where it falls flat. The wife doesn't hear it from the PI. The PI told her mother-in-law, who never made a secret of the fact that she disapproved of their marriage and actually favored other lady suitors for her son. And it's her mother-in-law who is telling her that the PI found nothing. So the question becomes "should the wife trust what the mother-in-law said the PI found".

[1] Note the dates. This is not a new concern that only just popped up, despite what Trump et al and conservative pundits supporting him are trying to claim now.
[2] Setting aside, for a moment that you don't need physicality studies to know the difference. Recognizing the difference between a wistful smile and an entertained smile is not difficult. The difficulty is in learning how to fake it, not recognize it.

tstorm823:

Asita:

What you've been arguing is closer to "it's ridiculous to have ever suspected Trump at all" than it is "Trump's guilt was never proven".

But I'm arguing exactly the opposite of that. It's not ridiculous to have suspected Trump, not was it ridiculous to suspect his actions were intended to to cover up his crimes. But the reason it wasn't ridiculous to think he was trying to obstruct justice was because it wasn't ridiculous to think he was guilty in the first place.

Go to the metaphor I made, and humor me enough to concede there may be one married person somewhere in the world who hasn't gone through same physicality studies you have and might not recognize the specific variations of smiles. Just take the example as its meant to be, the women in the example was not being unreasonable to suspect something was up (I can just decide this because I'm the person making it up, don't argue the point, just accept it). The example I intended was to illustrate a series of events where a person was justified to suspect wrongdoing and thus equally justified in suspecting they were hiding the wrongdoing. But once you find out the actual wrongdoing wasn't going on, it's unreasonable to still suspect the person of hiding things.

It's not ridiculous to have suspected Trump of colluding with Russia, nor was it ridiculous to suspect he was trying to ruin the investigation. But now that the investigation finished un-ruined and concluded he didn't collude with Russia, it is ridiculous to to still accuse him of attempted obstruction.

Lil devils x:

So you are actually trying to state that Trump's campaign did not in any way " collude" with Russia when it has already been shown that they did, just it isn't illegal?

To clarify:
1) Do you believe that Donald Trump Jr. met with Russians to get "dirt on Hillary" as he has stated he has?
2) Do you believe that Cohen stated that Trump was aware of Trump tower meeting ahead of time?
3) Do you believe Donald Trump jr was in direct contact with Wikileaks?
4) Do you believe that the Ukraine has a ledger that shows that Manafort was on Russia's payroll to influence Ukrainian elections to favor the Pro Russia candidate?
5) Do you believe that Flynn has admitted he was a foreign agent when Trump appointed him as head of National Security?
6) Do you believe that Trump openly, publicly asked for a US official's hacked emails near near the time of the Trump Tower meeting?
7) Do you believe Roger Stone was in direct contact with Wikileaks?

To clarify, none of those things are what the investigation was really about. The question wasn't "were there connections between Trump and Russia." Frankly, the people charged for lying about this were largely lying because they made this mistake. The question was not "did they talk to Russia" or "have they worked with Russia", the question is specifically "did Trump or his campaign coordinate with the Russian government to fraudulently impact the results of the 2016 election."

Talking to foreign agents not only isn't illegal, it's not even immoral. The Russia investigation itself was instigated in part by the DNC paying a foreign operative for opposition research on Trump. Trump's campaign being interested in Clinton's faults is right. If the opposition is obligated to ignore dirt on someone, who's supposed to care? Now if the Trump campaign was giving Russia Clinton's emails to give to wikileaks to impact the election, that would be coordinated fraud. And that's the sort of thing it takes an investigation to find out about.

Like, sure, there's known events where Trump or people connected to him worked with Russia or Russians, but the question of collusion is whether they worked together to deceive or defraud the American people. Do any of the things you listed suggest to you that Trump coordinated with Russia to deceive the public or change the election's results?

That isn't how Russia works, When Russia had forces in the Ukraine, they claimed they were not Russian forces. When They had Russian forces in Syria, they claimed they were not Russian forces. When Russian Hackers hacked the US Department of defense, Russia claimed they did not. That is the reality here.

Trump's campaign was not just talking to foreign agents, Trump appointed a foreign agent to head up US national security at the highest possible level. Michael Flynn already stated he was a foreign agent. Why would anyone possibly think it is okay to have an admitted foreign agent in charge of US national security?!

Clinton was not just anyone however, She is former First Lady of the United States, Former senator and former secretary of state who is protected for life by US secret service. She is a protected US official, not just his " opponent" and hacking her is hacking a protected US official. It is an attack on the US government to do so, not just attacking a US citizen. Even hacking US citizens is illegal, but it is also considered hacking the US government to hack Clinton. It should be considered no different than receiving stolen property, and in Clinton's case, that would be stolen property belonging to the US government. Receiving stolen email should be considered no different under the law, as they were illegally obtained. That is far worse than anything Clinton has done.

Yes, they were working with Russia if Donald Trump Jr and Roger Stone were working with Wikileaks to time releases. Yes, they were defrauding people by spreading falsehoods about Clinton, Which both the GOP and Russia did in fact do. What else do you call spreading and promoting fraudulent stories in mass as they did? Spreading falsehoods about Sandy Hook is what Alex Jones is in court for. Why would it somehow be okay to spread the made nonsense the GOP and Russia did about Clinton? Their entire purpose was to deceive.

twistedmic:
Republicans control the Senate. As long as they do Trump will not be impeached, regardless of what he has done.

To be fair, I don't think Republican Senators would swallow Trump being deemed guilty of serious breaches of the law.

tstorm823:

Like, sure, there's known events where Trump or people connected to him worked with Russia or Russians, but the question of collusion is whether they worked together to deceive or defraud the American people. Do any of the things you listed suggest to you that Trump coordinated with Russia to deceive the public or change the election's results?

I agree.

But even so, Trump accepting or agreeing to accept dirt on his opponents from Russians - with a high likelihood they may be working the Kremlin's business - suggests a disturbing lack of sound judgement. To add to the countless other instances of poor judgement he's displayed.

Imagine you saw a drunk driver occasionally losing control of his car narrowly missing pedestrians and other cars. You can have the conclusion "everything's okay, he didn't hit them", but I would suggest a better one is "call the police and have that guy pulled over". Trump should be removed in 2019 under the same rationale: even if the worst hasn't yet happened, he's a liability. Replace him with a better Republican candidate, for heaven's sakes.

Trump has a record of not showing his records. I wont even believe he was actually born in New York until I see his birth certificate, and I bet if asked he wouldn't show it.

Havent seen his taxes, haven't seen his school records, and now this. Trump is guilty, his whole life is literally built on a lie. Anyone who is willing to believe Trump is innocent because of a report we haven't seen, it is you who are showing your hand as willing to believe whatever garbage Trump throws at you.

Agema:
Replace him with a better Republican candidate, for heaven's sakes.

Throw a rock into an Insane Clown Posse mosh pit. You'd hit a better candidate.

Trump not releasing the report is an admission of guilt.

Saelune:
Trump not releasing the report is an admission of guilt.

In a very rare moment of me having to side with Trump on this one, Trump does say that he'd want it released, McConnell is the one blocking the release of the report, mostly because it makes him look absolutely horrible due to him actively rejecting to co-sign Obama's condemnation of meddling in the 2016 election.

Sonmi:

Saelune:
Trump not releasing the report is an admission of guilt.

In a very rare moment of me having to side with Trump on this one, Trump does say that he'd want it released, McConnell is the one blocking the release of the report, mostly because it makes him look absolutely horrible due to him actively rejecting to co-sign Obama's condemnation of meddling in the 2016 election.

Trump said he was going to release his taxes, has he done that yet? Trump says a lot of things, but doesn't actually mean them. It is like Trump's inauguration cake, it is fake, just a con, for show and really Styrofoam on the inside.

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/trumps-inaugural-cake-wasnt-just-a-copy-of-obamas-it-was-fake/

You can't believe anything Trump says, he just says things he thinks will make him look good and then forgets he even said them.

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/trump-hinting-changed-mind-releasing-full-mueller-report-62062090

Abomination:

Agema:
Replace him with a better Republican candidate, for heaven's sakes.

Throw a rock into an Insane Clown Posse mosh pit. You'd hit a better candidate.

Trump is the epitome of the Republican party and knows how to keep the supporters hyped above anything else. For the purposes of winning the elections (which has become a popularity contest with no relation with the skills required to guide the country), they don't have a better candidate.

Lil devils x:

Sonmi:

Saelune:
Trump not releasing the report is an admission of guilt.

In a very rare moment of me having to side with Trump on this one, Trump does say that he'd want it released, McConnell is the one blocking the release of the report, mostly because it makes him look absolutely horrible due to him actively rejecting to co-sign Obama's condemnation of meddling in the 2016 election.

Trump said he was going to release his taxes, has he done that yet? Trump says a lot of things, but doesn't actually mean them. It is like Trump's inauguration cake, it is fake, just a con, for show and really Styrofoam on the inside.

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/trumps-inaugural-cake-wasnt-just-a-copy-of-obamas-it-was-fake/

You can't believe anything Trump says, he just says things he thinks will make him look good and then forgets he even said them.

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/trump-hinting-changed-mind-releasing-full-mueller-report-62062090

I absolutely believe that he's a liar and that, rule of thumb, don't believe what he says... the fact that Schumer's motion to demand the release of the report was unanimously supported by both Democrats AND Republicans is what leads me to believe the blame entirely falls on Turtle Mitch. If Republicans (and Trump) seriously believed there was anything that could hurt them further with the report, they wouldn't have supported the release of it in the first place.

Trump (and the GOP) flip-flopping is pretty much par for the course at this point, it's part of what makes following American politics so exhausting, and makes me wish I could just stick to my local Canadian politics, the rank hypocrisy is draining.

Sonmi:

Saelune:
Trump not releasing the report is an admission of guilt.

In a very rare moment of me having to side with Trump on this one, Trump does say that he'd want it released, McConnell is the one blocking the release of the report, mostly because it makes him look absolutely horrible due to him actively rejecting to co-sign Obama's condemnation of meddling in the 2016 election.

Trump says a lot of things. If Trump wanted it released, it would be released. Trump doesn't want it released because it doesn't exonerate him.

A couple of times 'in the pursuit of fairness', I too tried to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Every-single-time that turned out to be a mistake.

Trump not releasing the report is an admission of guilt, along with every other thing that he refuses to release even though it 'proves him innocent'. Having evidence that 'proves you innocent' that you intentionally hide, is an admission of guilt. 'Innocent until proven guilty' doesn't mean they are actually innocent, it is just a method (often not actually followed by the US legal system) that is supposed to think better of people.

Plus we have over 40 years of evidence that Trump is every horrible thing we say he is. I doubt Republicans cared to disagree back when he was shit talking them too.

Trump and his minions continue to intentionally obfuscate evidence that 'totally clears him of wrong doing'. That is what someone does when it doesn't clear him.

If Trump is innocent you should prove it. Stop expecting other people to do your research for you.

twistedmic:

Republicans control the Senate. As long as they do Trump will not be impeached, regardless of what he has done. The Republicans do not care that he is an evil and vile man, they want to keep their power. They have shown time and again that they will follow Trump and protect him as long as it means denying Democrats power.

Impeaching Trump wouldn't hurt the GOP's power, aside from possibly losing the Cult of Trump voters next time - the office of POTUS would move from the Fool to the Theocrat. So long as they didn't then impeach Pence before he picked a new VP the GOP would hold onto the office.

Lil devils x:
It should be considered no different than receiving stolen property, and in Clinton's case, that would be stolen property belonging to the US government. Receiving stolen email should be considered no different under the law, as they were illegally obtained. That is far worse than anything Clinton has done.

Releasing or discussing leaked confidential or otherwise secret documents is not the same thing as receiving stolen property. It's not even illegal to do so. The actual act of the leak of such things happening can be (and usually is) illegal, but once it's out, it's out (more or less). The New York Times fought a case over that basic concept regarding the Pentagon Papers, with the US government arguing they were illegal to write about because they were illegally leaked confidential documents.

See New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713).

Unless you are arguing that the contents of the DNC emails and Podesta emails are a matter of national defense or something...

Saelune:
Trump has a record of not showing his records. I wont even believe he was actually born in New York until I see his birth certificate, and I bet if asked he wouldn't show it.

I am totally for demanding to see his birth certificate, it is after all tied to an actual requirement to hold the office.

Saelune:
Havent seen his taxes, haven't seen his school records, and now this.

None of those are actually, you know, a hard requirement. Hell, the tax returns thing isn't even that old of a tradition, relatively speaking.

Saelune:
Anyone who is willing to believe Trump is innocent because of a report we haven't seen, it is you who are showing your hand as willing to believe whatever garbage Trump throws at you.

I want the House Judiciary Committee to have unrestricted access to the report and free reign to decide what needs done with it after, I want a redacted version made public, and I want Mueller to testify as to whether or not the report provided is the report he submitted (to remove the possibility that it was "edited" before release). Here's the real question - will it change or effect your position at all if exactly that does happen and there's nothing against Trump sufficient to impeach in the report?

After all, even if the report has nothing but sunshine and roses about Trump, he can't make it easy for his opposition to have access to it. Consider how it will look if after all this hemming and hawing demanding the report because it will prove Trump's guilt it just...doesn't? How do you think that will effect the next set of elections? Hint: It would make the loudest voices demanding it look like they really *were* participating in a witch hunt.

If I gave Trump more strategic props than I think he deserves, he'd want to delay releasing it till closer to elections if it didn't prove his guilt of anything. Because the Dems will hang onto that and being able to throw it back in their face at the right time would be massively advantageous.

Schadrach:

Saelune:
Anyone who is willing to believe Trump is innocent because of a report we haven't seen, it is you who are showing your hand as willing to believe whatever garbage Trump throws at you.

I want the House Judiciary Committee to have unrestricted access to the report and free reign to decide what needs done with it after, I want a redacted version made public, and I want Mueller to testify as to whether or not the report provided is the report he submitted (to remove the possibility that it was "edited" before release). Here's the real question - will it change or effect your position at all if exactly that does happen and there's nothing against Trump sufficient to impeach in the report?

After all, even if the report has nothing but sunshine and roses about Trump, he can't make it easy for his opposition to have access to it. Consider how it will look if after all this hemming and hawing demanding the report because it will prove Trump's guilt it just...doesn't? How do you think that will effect the next set of elections? Hint: It would make the loudest voices demanding it look like they really *were* participating in a witch hunt.

If I gave Trump more strategic props than I think he deserves, he'd want to delay releasing it till closer to elections if it didn't prove his guilt of anything. Because the Dems will hang onto that and being able to throw it back in their face at the right time would be massively advantageous.

If God came down from the heavens and said 'I created everything' and then showed his God powers, I would believe in God.

But I have learned to call the pro-Trump bluff, cause LITERALLY every time I turn out to be right. But hey, remember when he solved the problem with North Korea, and now Korea has re-unified peacefully and everything is fine? Oh wait, that didnt happen, cause despite how he solved the problem, turns out, he didnt.

And remember how all of us nay-sayers just had to 'Wait and see' that Trump would not be racist, would not be incompetent, and not actually be very comparible to Hitler? I mean, I guess we were wrong in that he was actually even worse than we thought.

In short, Trump COULD be innocent, and I could win the lottery, and aliens could be watching us right now, controlling our thoughts. But there is an important distinction between possible and probable.

I have never seen so much effort be put into a side hiding evidence that proves them innocent.

Drathnoxis:
If Trump is innocent you should prove it. Stop expecting other people to do your research for you.

Well, no, Saelune doesn't have hundreds of pages of evidence and testimony. William Barr does. The responsibility is not equal.

Schadrach:

None of those are actually, you know, a hard requirement. Hell, the tax returns thing isn't even that old of a tradition, relatively speaking.

No, but given that Trump demanded Clinton's tax returns, to fail to provide his own would be ludicrous hypocrisy.

Silvanus:
... would be ludicrous hypocrisy.

Ummm, that is basically his strategy for everything he does. It has absoltely no consequence for him.

Silvanus:

Drathnoxis:
If Trump is innocent you should prove it. Stop expecting other people to do your research for you.

Well, no, Saelune doesn't have hundreds of pages of evidence and testimony. William Barr does. The responsibility is not equal.

Since when are you an expert on what Saelune does and does not have? I believe she does have the evidence to prove him innocent and is simply hoarding it to herself.

Schadrach:

twistedmic:

Republicans control the Senate. As long as they do Trump will not be impeached, regardless of what he has done. The Republicans do not care that he is an evil and vile man, they want to keep their power. They have shown time and again that they will follow Trump and protect him as long as it means denying Democrats power.

Impeaching Trump wouldn't hurt the GOP's power, aside from possibly losing the Cult of Trump voters next time - the office of POTUS would move from the Fool to the Theocrat. So long as they didn't then impeach Pence before he picked a new VP the GOP would hold onto the office.

Lil devils x:
It should be considered no different than receiving stolen property, and in Clinton's case, that would be stolen property belonging to the US government. Receiving stolen email should be considered no different under the law, as they were illegally obtained. That is far worse than anything Clinton has done.

Releasing or discussing leaked confidential or otherwise secret documents is not the same thing as receiving stolen property. It's not even illegal to do so. The actual act of the leak of such things happening can be (and usually is) illegal, but once it's out, it's out (more or less). The New York Times fought a case over that basic concept regarding the Pentagon Papers, with the US government arguing they were illegal to write about because they were illegally leaked confidential documents.

See New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713).

Unless you are arguing that the contents of the DNC emails and Podesta emails are a matter of national defense or something...

That is a false equivalency. Hacked and leaked are two entirely different things. Leaking = someone who had legal access to said information chose to share it with someone else willingly. Hacked= someone illegally broke into someone else's property without a warrant and illegally stole information that they did not have legal access to. There is a huge difference between someone giving something they had legal access to and someone breaking in and stealing something they did not have legal access to. This is why to even use such information in court, it has to be obtained legally otherwise it is illegal search and seizure or aka THEFT. It is stealing plain and simple and to receive stolen information is no different than receiving stolen property. Why else do you think courts toss information pertaining to cases all the time because they were obtained illegally? It is stolen property. We have laws against illegal search and seizure for a reason.

Lil devils x:
That is a false equivalency. Hacked and leaked are two entirely different things. Leaking = someone who had legal access to said information chose to share it with someone else willingly. Hacked= someone illegally broke into someone else's property without a warrant and illegally stole information that they did not have legal access to. There is a huge difference between someone giving something they had legal access to and someone breaking in and stealing something they did not have legal access to. This is why to even use such information in court, it has to be obtained legally otherwise it is illegal search and seizure or aka THEFT. It is stealing plain and simple and to receive stolen information is no different than receiving stolen property. Why else do you think courts toss information pertaining to cases all the time because they were obtained illegally? It is stolen property. We have laws against illegal search and seizure for a reason.

It's really not, no matter how much CNN wanted to be gatekeepers on the Podesta and DNC emails (they literally claimed on camera that it was illegal for you to read the emails, but media is special so you'll just have to get all your information from them).

And they aren't as different as you think - you emphasize that it was someone with legal access deciding to willingly share in one case, but it was also illegal to share as in the case of most government "leaks" it's classified info. In the DNC and Podesta emails the method of obtaining them originally was illegal, but there's nothing illegal about discussing or reading them once published.

Although the US is looking to push back the line set by NYT v US after the diplomatic cables leak, which is why they are so eager to get a hold of Assange and have been for a decade. Of course, most of the people here and now supported the diplomatic cable leak because it largely made the Bush administration look bad, that was before Wikileaks released something negative about Clinton and magically morphed from "bastion of transparency and free information" to "Russian propaganda outlet." Because knowing that a political party was functionally purchased by a candidate to advantage her during the primaries is definitely not a matter of public interest or import. Not at all.

Saelune:

But I have learned to call the pro-Trump bluff, cause LITERALLY every time I turn out to be right.

The pro-Trump bluff that innocence is the default position and none of the evidence is publicly available yet but I'd really like it to be? All I'm saying is you can't assume guilt without evidence and since it's in Trump's best interest to not push the release of the evidence but to make Congress and the DOJ fight it out whether it damns him or exculpates him so he's highly unlikely to do so and his not doing so cannot itself be treated as proof of guilt.

Also, in reference to the line under your avatar, Obama also put kids in cages, mostly the same cages. The facilities in question for the most part weren't built by Trump's administration, and separating minors from adults for processing is not a new Trump policy (it was originally put in place to try to filter for kids brought across by human traffickers pretending to be their parents).

Saelune:

I have never seen so much effort be put into a side hiding evidence that proves them innocent.

It might, it might not. We can't know until we see it. Either way, it benefits Trump to not help push it out the door -- either it delays the inevitable proof of his guilt or it allows him to prolong the "witch hunt" which would be good for his reelection campaign.

Schadrach:

Lil devils x:
That is a false equivalency. Hacked and leaked are two entirely different things. Leaking = someone who had legal access to said information chose to share it with someone else willingly. Hacked= someone illegally broke into someone else's property without a warrant and illegally stole information that they did not have legal access to. There is a huge difference between someone giving something they had legal access to and someone breaking in and stealing something they did not have legal access to. This is why to even use such information in court, it has to be obtained legally otherwise it is illegal search and seizure or aka THEFT. It is stealing plain and simple and to receive stolen information is no different than receiving stolen property. Why else do you think courts toss information pertaining to cases all the time because they were obtained illegally? It is stolen property. We have laws against illegal search and seizure for a reason.

It's really not, no matter how much CNN wanted to be gatekeepers on the Podesta and DNC emails (they literally claimed on camera that it was illegal for you to read the emails, but media is special so you'll just have to get all your information from them).

And they aren't as different as you think - you emphasize that it was someone with legal access deciding to willingly share in one case, but it was also illegal to share as in the case of most government "leaks" it's classified info. In the DNC and Podesta emails the method of obtaining them originally was illegal, but there's nothing illegal about discussing or reading them once published.

Although the US is looking to push back the line set by NYT v US after the diplomatic cables leak, which is why they are so eager to get a hold of Assange and have been for a decade. Of course, most of the people here and now supported the diplomatic cable leak because it largely made the Bush administration look bad, that was before Wikileaks released something negative about Clinton and magically morphed from "bastion of transparency and free information" to "Russian propaganda outlet." Because knowing that a political party was functionally purchased by a candidate to advantage her during the primaries is definitely not a matter of public interest or import. Not at all.

Saelune:

But I have learned to call the pro-Trump bluff, cause LITERALLY every time I turn out to be right.

The pro-Trump bluff that innocence is the default position and none of the evidence is publicly available yet but I'd really like it to be? All I'm saying is you can't assume guilt without evidence and since it's in Trump's best interest to not push the release of the evidence but to make Congress and the DOJ fight it out whether it damns him or exculpates him so he's highly unlikely to do so and his not doing so cannot itself be treated as proof of guilt.

Also, in reference to the line under your avatar, Obama also put kids in cages, mostly the same cages. The facilities in question for the most part weren't built by Trump's administration, and separating minors from adults for processing is not a new Trump policy (it was originally put in place to try to filter for kids brought across by human traffickers pretending to be their parents).

Saelune:

I have never seen so much effort be put into a side hiding evidence that proves them innocent.

It might, it might not. We can't know until we see it. Either way, it benefits Trump to not help push it out the door -- either it delays the inevitable proof of his guilt or it allows him to prolong the "witch hunt" which would be good for his reelection campaign.

Trump doesn't get that card, cause he didn't give it to anyone else. By Trump's own rules, or lack there-of, we owe Trump no concessions of innocence. Trump's side doesnt believe in innocent until proven guilty, so his side doesnt get to hide behind that. Turnabout is fair play.

Citation needed. Trump murdered children with HIS policies that HE chose to enforce. Claiming Obama did the same thing is a lie and blatant distortion of fact. Obama's policy was to make sure kids were with family, Trump's was to seperate them and put them in literal internment camps.

If Trump gets a second term, then the US government has completely and utterly failed as a system. It would be the final nail in the notion of checks and balances, which already is close to dead.

Kwak:

Ummm, that is basically his strategy for everything he does. It has absoltely no consequence for him.

Well, yes, but I'd hope that such would at least convince forumites not to defend it.

Saelune:
Citation needed. Trump murdered children with HIS policies that HE chose to enforce. Claiming Obama did the same thing is a lie and blatant distortion of fact. Obama's policy was to make sure kids were with family, Trump's was to seperate them and put them in literal internment camps.

In both cases the policy was to separate kids from adults if there was suspicion that the adult was not a parent, if the kids appeared to be mistreated, or if the adults were being prosecuted for the border crossing. The only difference was Trump's admin being more likely to prosecute illegal border crossings than Obama's. Not a new policy, just more enforcement of the existing policy.

In fact many of the first round of "Trump put kids in cages!" photos that made the rounds were actually taken in 2014. It's the same cages, the same foil blankets, etc now as then - Trump didn't build a bunch of internment camps to lock children in or anything.

Saelune:
If Trump gets a second term, then the US government has completely and utterly failed as a system. It would be the final nail in the notion of checks and balances, which already is close to dead.

If Trump gets a second term, that means that the Democrats "done fucked up somethin' royal." It shouldn't be hard to beat him, he's not a good president. All you have to do is appeal to folks who aren't on the coasts because having a massive lead in California or New York doesn't help you if everywhere in between goes to the other side.

The party you oppose winning the presidency isn't the death of checks and balances though, any more than they were dead in 2008 when we had a Dem president and Dem majorities in both houses of congress.

Schadrach:

Saelune:
Citation needed. Trump murdered children with HIS policies that HE chose to enforce. Claiming Obama did the same thing is a lie and blatant distortion of fact. Obama's policy was to make sure kids were with family, Trump's was to seperate them and put them in literal internment camps.

In both cases the policy was to separate kids from adults if there was suspicion that the adult was not a parent, if the kids appeared to be mistreated, or if the adults were being prosecuted for the border crossing. The only difference was Trump's admin being more likely to prosecute illegal border crossings than Obama's. Not a new policy, just more enforcement of the existing policy.

In fact many of the first round of "Trump put kids in cages!" photos that made the rounds were actually taken in 2014. It's the same cages, the same foil blankets, etc now as then - Trump didn't build a bunch of internment camps to lock children in or anything.

Saelune:
If Trump gets a second term, then the US government has completely and utterly failed as a system. It would be the final nail in the notion of checks and balances, which already is close to dead.

If Trump gets a second term, that means that the Democrats "done fucked up somethin' royal." It shouldn't be hard to beat him, he's not a good president. All you have to do is appeal to folks who aren't on the coasts because having a massive lead in California or New York doesn't help you if everywhere in between goes to the other side.

The party you oppose winning the presidency isn't the death of checks and balances though, any more than they were dead in 2008 when we had a Dem president and Dem majorities in both houses of congress.

Arent you one of the people wo hates being accused of defending and supporting Trump?

Thats not true. Trump ripped families apart, refused to keep track of the families, and let multiple children die in their 'care'. How many kids did Obama kill with this 'same policy'. The point is, this claim is a load of lies.

It means that Democracy is dead in America. Trump is a terrorist, rapist, racist, liar, and overall incompetent moron. He didnt even get more votes. The Electoral College is corrupt by design, and the rest is corrupt by decades of Republicans corrupting it.

You keep doing that thing where you claim 'both sides are the same' when facts have proven that super untrue. But hey, I mean, Trump thinks Nazis = People who oppose Nazis.

Schadrach:

Lil devils x:
That is a false equivalency. Hacked and leaked are two entirely different things. Leaking = someone who had legal access to said information chose to share it with someone else willingly. Hacked= someone illegally broke into someone else's property without a warrant and illegally stole information that they did not have legal access to. There is a huge difference between someone giving something they had legal access to and someone breaking in and stealing something they did not have legal access to. This is why to even use such information in court, it has to be obtained legally otherwise it is illegal search and seizure or aka THEFT. It is stealing plain and simple and to receive stolen information is no different than receiving stolen property. Why else do you think courts toss information pertaining to cases all the time because they were obtained illegally? It is stolen property. We have laws against illegal search and seizure for a reason.

It's really not, no matter how much CNN wanted to be gatekeepers on the Podesta and DNC emails (they literally claimed on camera that it was illegal for you to read the emails, but media is special so you'll just have to get all your information from them).

And they aren't as different as you think - you emphasize that it was someone with legal access deciding to willingly share in one case, but it was also illegal to share as in the case of most government "leaks" it's classified info. In the DNC and Podesta emails the method of obtaining them originally was illegal, but there's nothing illegal about discussing or reading them once published.

Although the US is looking to push back the line set by NYT v US after the diplomatic cables leak, which is why they are so eager to get a hold of Assange and have been for a decade. Of course, most of the people here and now supported the diplomatic cable leak because it largely made the Bush administration look bad, that was before Wikileaks released something negative about Clinton and magically morphed from "bastion of transparency and free information" to "Russian propaganda outlet." Because knowing that a political party was functionally purchased by a candidate to advantage her during the primaries is definitely not a matter of public interest or import. Not at all.

I could care less about what CNN wanted, hell I hold them partially responsible for helping elect Trump, it is all a show for them. Trump and CNN play off each other trying to make each other relevant, they help one another more than they harm each other.

Breaching a NDA is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. Theft is a criminal matter. Yes, they are different. I do think they should roll back that precedent and start treating stolen property as stolen property as it should be. All they are doing by not doing so is encouraging people to hack into other's people's property and steal from them and I cannot support that. The whole Podesta Emails BS was not even anything of value, it was petty and insignificant really. It was the press building it up that was worse than the actual content. That isn't the point though, no matter how miniscule it was, it was stolen. I don't even think it met the " whistleblower" criteria as it was not for the better good of society, no lives were saved from this, and hell my Dad was an actual whistleblower. But he saved actual lives with the information he released about the Nuclear reactor not being installed properly and leaking dangerous radiation to surrounding neighborhoods and a day care, soil and groundwater. This nonsense stolen and released from the DNC was just soap opera BS irrelevant for the most part.

I support whistleblowers and spent part of my childhood in hiding due to one of the other whistleblowers having their car blown up. I do not see hacking people to get soap opera BS as whistleblowing, I see it as no different than stealing someone's diary and personal letters to friends and should be condemned. It is a federal offense to break into someone's mail box and steal their letters, this is no different and should be treated no different under the law.

Also as for Manning:

According to the newly unsealed indictment made public on Thursday, in early March 2010, Assange agreed to help Manning, an Army intelligence analyst, with cracking an administrative password to the military's classified internet system. Getting access to the password would have made it harder for investigators to track Manning as the source of the information being posted by Wikileaks.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/julian-assange-chelsea-manning-intertwined/story?id=62344376
Sounds like theft to me.

Saelune:

Thats not true. Trump ripped families apart, refused to keep track of the families, and let multiple children die in their 'care'. How many kids did Obama kill with this 'same policy'. The point is, this claim is a load of lies.

Again, the same policy being followed, just with more willingness to prosecute. If there was suspicion the kids were with adults other than their parents, suspicion they were mistreated, or the parents were being prosecuted kid were separated from adults by both admins. I'll agree that of the 70-ish people that died in border patrol and ICE care during the Obama admin, none of them were kids. The last kids that died in CBP/ICE care before those were over a decade prior. Border Patrol and ICE have never been particularly cuddly departments, but the main difference in actual policies is Trump's admin being more willing to prosecute illegal crossings.

Saelune:
It means that Democracy is dead in America.

Was it dead in 2008 when Dems controlled both houses of congress and the presidency?

Saelune:
Trump is a terrorist, rapist, racist, liar, and overall incompetent moron.

Racist, liar and moron I'll give you no argument. Rapist and Terrorist require actual hard proof, and let's be honest if there was hard proof of terrorism the House would be trying to impeach on that rather than fighting over getting to see the Mueller report to see if Trump said or did something that can count as obstruction of justice. Actual terrorism is a much stronger and harder to defend charge.

Saelune:
He didnt even get more votes. The Electoral College is corrupt by design, and the rest is corrupt by decades of Republicans corrupting it.

How did Republicans corrupt it? Are you about to invoke gerrymandering and project REDMAP here? Because gerrymandering doesn't effect the electoral college except in a couple of states (where electors are distributed by congressional district rather than being proportional or all in with state popular vote). Gerrymandering effects the House and state legislature, not Senate or Presidential elections.

The electoral college is "corrupt by design" in almost exactly the same way the House of Representatives or European Parliament is. For European folks, complaints about the Electoral College being "corrupt" or "unrepresentative" is akin to people complaining that Germany doesn't have enough MEPs or that Luxembourg has too many MEPs, because citizens of Luxembourg are overrepresented and citizens of Germany are underrepresented. Except that the American case isn't as drastic.

Schadrach:

Saelune:

Thats not true. Trump ripped families apart, refused to keep track of the families, and let multiple children die in their 'care'. How many kids did Obama kill with this 'same policy'. The point is, this claim is a load of lies.

Again, the same policy being followed, just with more willingness to prosecute. If there was suspicion the kids were with adults other than their parents, suspicion they were mistreated, or the parents were being prosecuted kid were separated from adults by both admins. I'll agree that of the 70-ish people that died in border patrol and ICE care during the Obama admin, none of them were kids. The last kids that died in CBP/ICE care before those were over a decade prior. Border Patrol and ICE have never been particularly cuddly departments, but the main difference in actual policies is Trump's admin being more willing to prosecute illegal crossings.

Saelune:
It means that Democracy is dead in America.

Was it dead in 2008 when Dems controlled both houses of congress and the presidency?

Saelune:
Trump is a terrorist, rapist, racist, liar, and overall incompetent moron.

Racist, liar and moron I'll give you no argument. Rapist and Terrorist require actual hard proof, and let's be honest if there was hard proof of terrorism the House would be trying to impeach on that rather than fighting over getting to see the Mueller report to see if Trump said or did something that can count as obstruction of justice. Actual terrorism is a much stronger and harder to defend charge.

Saelune:
He didnt even get more votes. The Electoral College is corrupt by design, and the rest is corrupt by decades of Republicans corrupting it.

How did Republicans corrupt it? Are you about to invoke gerrymandering and project REDMAP here? Because gerrymandering doesn't effect the electoral college except in a couple of states (where electors are distributed by congressional district rather than being proportional or all in with state popular vote). Gerrymandering effects the House and state legislature, not Senate or Presidential elections.

The electoral college is "corrupt by design" in almost exactly the same way the House of Representatives or European Parliament is. For European folks, complaints about the Electoral College being "corrupt" or "unrepresentative" is akin to people complaining that Germany doesn't have enough MEPs or that Luxembourg has too many MEPs, because citizens of Luxembourg are overrepresented and citizens of Germany are underrepresented. Except that the American case isn't as drastic.

That's not how that works. If Trump chooses to abuse and corrupt something Obama set up to help people so he could instead hurt people, that is not Obama's fault.

Trump kills kids just for being immigrants.

Democrats don't believe in the corruption that Republicans clearly do. Obama had this crazy notion of co-operation and compromise. Fat lot of good that did him or us. And Obama was ya know, Democratically elected.

'Grab em by the pussy' Trump have no doubt, is a rapist. And terrorist he also is. This country would not be so bad off if he wasnt. He actively encourages white supremacy. That is a terrorist, as are all white supremacists. From Nazis, to the KKK, From Dylan Roof, to the Synagogue shooter, to the Trump Van bomber.

I have been nothing but honest. Facts do not defend Trump.

It is corrupt because Republicans refuse to go against Trump. McConnel keeps vetoing every single thing that would endanger Trump at all, he stops Merrick Garland from his rightful position, and he and Graham put rapist Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court which he has no right to be on, for being a rapist, a liar, and an incompetent drunken baffoon. Checks and Balances are dead thanks to McConnel, Graham and Kavanaugh. Thank God my home State of New York is full of ethical Judges. Ironic that State Rights have a powerful Democrat tool.

The Electoral College was created to defend slavery and promote the power of slave states so that slaves could count without getting representation, which goes in the face of the supposed reason we revolted in the first place!

So you do not deny being a Trump supporter? Good to know. I tire of people defending Trump all the time but complaining when I point it out.

Saelune:
It is corrupt because Republicans refuse to go against Trump.

Republicans as a party tend to strongly value party loyalty, moreso than Democrats. It's really the only reason they're a political threat in some places, because you can rely on them to come out and consistently vote for the party, pretty much regardless of what the party is doing or who's running under it. That's not exactly a positive quality, but it's an effective one.

Saelune:
The Electoral College was created to defend slavery and promote the power of slave states so that slaves could count without getting representation, which goes in the face of the supposed reason we revolted in the first place!

You've done this before, you're confusing the Electoral College and the 3/5 compromise. The 3/5 compromise was created to increase the effective population of slave states despite those slaves not having the rights of citizens. Slave states wanted them to count, other states did not, and the 3/5 compromise was the agreement that both were willing to go along with rather than risk splintering into at least two smaller nations immediately after the revolution.

The Electoral College was designed to both 1) make running the presidential election feasible at the time and 2) also prevent the largest population centers from concentrating too much power, and thus functionally ruling the country (this being necessary to get the smaller states to agree to membership in the first place). In fact early on it tamped down on the influence of Virginia in the same ways and for the same reasons it does California now and acted to benefit places like Rhode Island and Delaware for the same reasons it benefits Wyoming now. Which would suggest the actual opposite of your position, as the largest population states (like Virginia) also tended to have the largest slave populations and the largest economic reasons to persist the institution of slavery.

It's a thing I see you do pretty often, it's basically the "basket of deplorables" problem, wherein you take things you disagree with and just clump them together and pretend all are the same thing and there's no reason to give it any further though or consideration. It's why I'm deemed a Trump supporter by you because (despite openly agreeing he's a shitty president, albeit one legally elected according to the rules set forth and thus the one we're stuck with at least until the end of his term unless someone reveals serious proof of an impeachable offense).

Saelune:
So you do not deny being a Trump supporter? Good to know. I tire of people defending Trump all the time but complaining when I point it out.

Oh, I certainly deny being a Trump supporter, you just tend to attack him on incredibly poor grounds, most of the time. You confuse disagreeing with your arguments with supporting the guy you're attacking.

It would be like if I looked at your response to the accusation made against Neil deGrasse Tyson a while back and just said you were a rape supporter because you weren't demanding his career be immediately ended based on the accusation alone. Though I've gotten tired of repeating it, when Kavanaugh comes up I've pointed out time and again that SCOTUS justices are not immune to the law, and even pointed out the correct jurisdiction to investigate Ford's claims and that to date she has made no complaint to them and that prevents them from going anywhere with it. If Ford really wanted justice, that is who she needs to talk to to get the investigation in motion, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high bar.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 21 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here