# 13 Russians, 3 businesses indicted by Mueller/Rosenstein in connection to Trump



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2018)

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43092085

Needless to say, but this is huge.  The indictments specifically mention several methods of interfering with the 2016 election to benefit Trump, also conspiracy on several counts.  What they're actually being charged on are federal crimes, "the indictment charges all of the defendants with conspiracy to defraud the United States, three defendants with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, and five defendants with aggravated identity theft."

It will be interesting to see how Trump reacts and if there are more indictments to come for the other side of this criminal conspiracy.

Here's a long list of other sources for the same story if anyone's interested: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/7y0ldo/megathread_office_of_special_counsel_indicts_13/

EDIT: Not only did they work to help him in the general election, but "ADDITIONALLY: The Russians worked during the primaries to undermine Republicans that weren't Donald Trump -- like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. We're asking Cruz for comment."  From Texas Tribune.


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 16, 2018)

I'll grab the popcorn for the long haul


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Feb 16, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It will be interesting to see how Trump reacts



Pretty much this:


which is pretty much like his statement regarding the release of his tax papers.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2018)

*snip*
Fuggin' crazy times we live in.  Internet elected a Russian puppet and now the checks and balances are kicking in.  Hopefully things remain (mostly) peaceful.  The NRA's connections with Russia are a different problem entirely.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Feb 16, 2018)

Good, this is hopefully something everyone will support. We need to send the message to the world that our elections are our business and our business alone, not Russia's.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Feb 16, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Good, this is hopefully something everyone will support. We need to send the message to the world that our elections are our business and our business alone, not Russia's.


Yup. Sometimes I worry about this nation...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 16, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Good, this is hopefully something everyone will support. We need to send the message to the world that our elections are our business and our business alone, not Russia's.


We also need to send a message to our elected leaders that if they commit impeachable offenses, they WILL be impeached. Trump has coasted far too long despite all of the shady shit he's done in office


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Feb 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> We also need to send a message to our elected leaders that if they commit impeachable offenses, they WILL be impeached. Trump has coasted far too long despite all of the shady shit he's done in office


His loud mouth will only go so far.


----------



## GBAer (Feb 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> We also need to send a message to our elected leaders that if they commit impeachable offenses, they WILL be impeached. Trump has coasted far too long despite all of the shady shit he's done in office


And what has trump done exactly for him to be impeached?


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 16, 2018)

I hardly see how Trump being removed and Pence taking his place would be any better, but whatever. If Clinton gets in office, I'm gonna GTFO from the US. Yeah, I couldn't give a rat's arse what I said, I said it and I'm gonna be brutally honest towards my feelings of other politicians.

I just didn't want a politician on either extreme to be POTUS.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Feb 16, 2018)

I'm just here to see how this plays out don't mind me.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 16, 2018)

GBAer said:


> And what has trump done exactly for him to be impeached?


Blatant disregard for the Emoluments Clause, obstruction of justice, and potential collusion with a foreign agent all come to mind


----------



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I hardly see how Trump being removed and Pence taking his place would be any better, but whatever. If Clinton gets in office, I'm gonna GTFO from the US. Yeah, I couldn't give a rat's arse what I said, I said it and I'm gonna be brutally honest towards my feelings of other politicians. Come at me.


Well, even if Pence somehow isn't involved or indicted for perjury at the very least, anybody who replaces Trump will be toothless as president after he brings the entire Republican party down in flames.  They all showed support for everything Trump did and said, and most of it was motivated by the Russian desire to cause chaos and division within the US.


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 16, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Well, even if Pence somehow isn't involved or indicted for perjury at the very least, anybody who replaces Trump will be toothless as president after he brings the entire Republican party down in flames.  They all showed support for everything Trump did and said, and most of it was motivated by the Russian desire to cause chaos and division within the US.



There was already political division since Bush, I don't see this as being any worse than usual. I just didn't want another Clinton in office. Sorry,  not sorry, I never agreed with her in any way, all because she was a Clinton. Too bad there weren't other candidates who weren't complete douchebags.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> There was already political division since Bush, I don't see this as being any worse than usual. I just didn't want another Clinton in office. Sorry,  not sorry, I never agreed with her in any way, all because she was a Clinton. Too bad there weren't other candidates who weren't complete douchebags.


They're not going to hold a new election, just punish those responsible for fucking up the old one.  And you must be living under a rock if you think political divisions are no worse than previous.  All Trump's done since entering office is insult basically everybody and throw out all presidential norms.  His government has attacked net neutrality, legal weed/states rights, freedom of speech/the press and even clean air FFS.  Trump has touched every fucking nerve.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Feb 16, 2018)

Possibly unpopular opinion: I'm not sold in impeachment. 

I wanna see Trump gone, but I don't know how much of thst is cuz of the recent investigation and how much of that is because I hate his opinions and his rudeness. And honestly, I think that most of what he's done so far can be explained by the fact that he's a stupid and greedy little shit, which isn't unique for a president. If Mueller decides he's directly guilty of collusion with Russia, Ill support impeachment, but I'll withhold my support until thst moment. 

It really pains me to say that, cuz I miss not having him as President, but I have to be aware of my bias against him.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 16, 2018)

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."


----------



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> "There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election."


Not in this indictment, but you'd be a fool to think this is the end of the indictments.  This is just the biggest mass drop of indictments so far, and it specifically contradicts Trump's claims that Russian efforts in the 2016 election weren't to help him.

Four Trump campaign officials had already been indicted by Mueller previously: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-mueller-white-house-20171202-story.html

And including those flipped I think we're up to like six by now.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 16, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Possibly unpopular opinion: I'm not sold in impeachment.
> 
> I wanna see Trump gone, but I don't know how much of thst is cuz of the recent investigation and how much of that is because I hate his opinions and his rudeness. And honestly, I think that most of what he's done so far can be explained by the fact that he's a stupid and greedy little shit, which isn't unique for a president. If Mueller decides he's directly guilty of collusion with Russia, Ill support impeachment, but I'll withhold my support until thst moment.
> 
> It really pains me to say that, cuz I miss not having him as President, but I have to be aware of my bias against him.


Even ignoring anything Russia related, him breaking the Emoluments Clause by keeping control of his hotels and businesses (and SPECIFICALLY hosting foreign leaders at a Trump hotel, at that) made him impeachable day one in office


----------



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Even ignoring anything Russia related, him breaking the Emoluments Clause by keeping control of his hotels and businesses (and SPECIFICALLY hosting foreign leaders at a Trump hotel, at that) made him impeachable day one in office


Even ignoring all the actual laws he's broken, the bar for president used to be set higher than town drunk.  Insulting veterans and gold star families definitely would have gotten any other president impeached, and that's the least of Trump's problematic mannerisms by now.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 16, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Even ignoring all the actual laws he's broken, the bar for president used to be set higher than town drunk.  Insulting veterans and gold star families definitely would have gotten any other president impeached, and that's the least of Trump's problematic mannerisms by now.


As much as I think everyone would love it to be, that unfortunately isn't and never has been impeachable


----------



## leon315 (Feb 16, 2018)

well, who will be next USA's next president?

Mccain lol


----------



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> As much as I think everyone would love it to be, that unfortunately isn't and never has been impeachable


I guess we wouldn't know, because no president has been that stupid in the age of reason before.  Trump gets a pass on everything and that's the only reason such a thing is an afterthought.  Let alone lying about the number of Americans who died as a result of hurricanes and a mismanaged relief effort.


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 16, 2018)

Xzi said:


> They're not going to hold a new election, just punish those responsible for fucking up the old one.  And you must be living under a rock if you think political divisions are no worse than previous.  All Trump's done since entering office is insult basically everybody and throw out all presidential norms.  His government has attacked net neutrality, legal weed/states rights, freedom of speech/the press and even clean air FFS.  Trump has touched every fucking nerve.


 don't forget SNAP/ food stamps I rely on those cause i have no job and have been looking for YEARS  one that i can afford to get off gov aid no luck

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

watch russia threaten a hot war with the US if trump is removed who knows maybe trump is working with north Korea on a contingency plan to kill us if impeached, i mean he hasn't done the "bloody nose" attack on N. Korea to cripple their military yet....makes you think if it's possiable of a N.Korea-Russia and trump pact to end the US if he's removed


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 16, 2018)

Ahhh, there it is! 

The Latest: Trump decries 'far-fetched' collusion theories


----------



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ahhh, there it is!
> 
> The Latest: Trump decries 'far-fetched' collusion theories


Maybe he forgot he was elected and there's no such thing as "far-fetched" any more.  Reality went off the rails.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Feb 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Even ignoring anything Russia related, him breaking the Emoluments Clause by keeping control of his hotels and businesses (and SPECIFICALLY hosting foreign leaders at a Trump hotel, at that) made him impeachable day one in office


For thst I personally think he should be fined a few million, maybe a billion. I don't think thsts worth impeachment because most people who voted him probsbly already realized he would do that, yet voted him in away for some reason. While I disagree with thst decision, the fact thst he got voted in anyway means impeachment is probably not the answer, but he still deserves consequences.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> For thst I personally think he should be fined a few million, maybe a billion. I don't think thsts worth impeachment because most people who voted him probsbly already realized he would do that, yet voted him in away for some reason. While I disagree with thst decision, the fact thst he got voted in anyway means impeachment is probably not the answer, but he still deserves consequences.


This argument doesn't hold water.  A foreign country got their agent of chaos elected in the US.  If he gets a slap on the wrist, the US is now a free-for-all for foreign countries wanting their slice of power.  Might as well join the EU if we're just going to give up our sovereignty piecemeal.

Additionally, a one-time fine does nothing.  Trump will be continuing to stay at his hotels/resorts throughout his entire presidency, meaning the taxpayers are inflating his bank accounts while he's president.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Feb 16, 2018)

Xzi said:


> This argument doesn't hold water.  A foreign country got their agent of chaos elected in the US.  If he gets a slap on the wrist, the US is now a free-for-all for foreign countries wanting their slice of power.  Might as well join the EU if we're just going to give up our sovereignty piecemeal.
> 
> Additionally, a one-time fine does nothing.  Trump will be continuing to stay at his hotels/resorts throughout his entire presidency, meaning the taxpayers are inflating his bank accounts while he's president.


If he keeps doing it, then he can get impeached, but impeachment isn't appropriate from the get-go just for that. 

And if Trump hasn't been directly collaborating with the Russians, then he'll get impeached soon enough, but let's not pounce on him before the conviction.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> If he keeps doing it, then he can get impeached, but impeachment isn't appropriate from the get-go just for that.


He's done it for over a year now, his entire presidency lol.  He spends more time at his own resorts/hotels than he does in the white house.  By a large margin.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Feb 16, 2018)

Xzi said:


> He's done it for over a year now, his entire presidency lol.  He spends more time at his own resorts/hotels than he does in the white house.  By a large margin.


Yeah, it's getting on my nerves big time. I don't think flat out impeachment is the answer, because that's too all or nothing, but he deserves conswuesnces. I absolutely hate it when he does that


----------



## Pickle_Rick (Feb 16, 2018)




----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Feb 16, 2018)

Pickle_Rick said:


>


It's against our laws for any foreign nationals to influence our elections, regardless of the candidate. Doesn't matter if it's trump or sanders


----------



## kuwanger (Feb 16, 2018)

Pickle_Rick said:


>



Which goes to show you, Russia abhors the establishment and wanted chaotic elements that couldn't get much done (Bernie Sanders) or chaotic elements that were sympathetic to their cult of personality oligarchy (Trump) who couldn't get much done.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> Which goes to show you, Russia abhors the establishment and wanted chaotic elements that couldn't get much done (Bernie Sanders) or chaotic elements that were sympathetic to their cult of personality oligarchy (Trump) who couldn't get much done.


Really it just goes to show you how much Putin hates Hillary.  It was propaganda against Hillary, not for Bernie.


----------



## kuwanger (Feb 16, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It was propaganda against Hillary, not for Bernie.



And Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.  All the GOP infighting helped Trump win the primary, but the Russian interference was meant to help him win just like the attacks on Hillary were meant to help Bernie win.  In Russia's mind, I think a Trump vs Bernie race would have been a win-win.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 16, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> And Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.  All the GOP infighting helped Trump win the primary, but the Russian interference was meant to help him win just like the attacks on Hillary were meant to help Bernie win.  In Russia's mind, I think a Trump vs Bernie race would have been a win-win.


Well yeah, but only because that means Hillary loses in round one.  Down to Bernie-Trump I'm fairly certain they still would've backed Trump, they have kompromat on him, not Bernie.  Also Trump they know would cause chaos and in-fighting naturally.  If Bernie got his way as a true populist, the US would've become stronger as a country, not weaker as we are now.

The Russian botfarms were also trying to frame Bernie and Trump as having basically the same policies, which was completely false.


----------



## DeslotlCL (Feb 17, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I hardly see how Trump being removed and Pence taking his place would be any better, but whatever. If Clinton gets in office, I'm gonna GTFO from the US. Yeah, I couldn't give a rat's arse what I said, I said it and I'm gonna be brutally honest towards my feelings of other politicians.
> 
> I just didn't want a politician on either extreme to be POTUS.


Arent you a furry? Or kind of? i mean, most furries are open minded people or liberals, or at least from what i have seen, so why would you support the conservatives (republicans)? How bad really is clinton as an option?


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 17, 2018)

DeslotlCL said:


> Arent you a furry? Or kind of? i mean, most furries are open minded people or liberals, or at least from what i have seen, so why would you support the conservatives (republicans)? How bad really is clinton as an option?



Well I'm not most furries, why is it such a bad thing to have an opposing view to the other parties? I don't feel comfortable discussing my political views in public on here, fear of backlash from those who do hold liberal views; it's bad enough some people hate my guts on here.  If people want my views, I'll save it to PMs. Sorry.  All I can say is I don't agree with her political views and other policies.

Apparently, I'm wrong for having different views than someone else, what a surprise.


----------



## DeslotlCL (Feb 17, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I don't feel comfortable discussing my political views in public on here, fear of backlash from those who do hold liberal views; it's bad enough some people hate my guts on here.  If people want my views, I'll save it to PMs. Sorry.  All I can say is I don't agree with her political views and other policies.


Aw it's okay, sorry for the uncomfortable question.


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 17, 2018)

DeslotlCL said:


> Aw it's okay, sorry for the uncomfortable question.



Don't apologize. I just have my reasons.  I don't feel comfortable because having conservative beliefs and/or not having any kind of liberal belief is a crime punishable by public humiliation.  I dare not express why I prefer one view over the other due to the fact I sense that there are people on here who hate my guts as is, due to recent actions. I'd best just... uh, be on my way.  I won't name names, but I feel a sense of dread for daring to even express non-liberal beliefs, people strongly dislike conservative political stances on here anyway, it's tantamount to criminal activity. If you want more info, I wish people to PM me instead.


----------



## kuwanger (Feb 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If Bernie got his way as a true populist, the US would've become stronger as a country, not weaker as we are now.



That's the core of it, though.  Republicans would have still had a strong hold on the House/Senate and currently D/R infighting means that opposing party Congress/President gets very little done as neither side wants the other to claim credit.  Add to that that most the Democrats in Congress do not support Bernie's populist agenda*, and I think he'd see the same warm reception that the GOP had had towards Trump.



Xzi said:


> The Russian botfarms were also trying to frame Bernie and Trump as having basically the same policies, which was completely false.



That's an interesting thing I hadn't heard.  Could you link me to a report outlining that?

* How much of the US population is for legalizing marijuana (or at least making it a State issue)?  How many American support DACA?  How many Americans want more gun regulation**?  Pretty much across the board, there's a sizable majority (70%+) that support a lot of positions that Congress is unwilling to budge on.  There's probably several other things that can be pointed to that have populist support which I don't see Congress moving on even with a very charismatic leader.

** People might not agree on things like the assault rifle ban, but they do tend to heavily agree on applying the same rules at gun shows as other places, limiting access to guns to those who have mental illness, and making sure current regulations are actually being enforced.  There's also, undoubtedly, disagreement on the exact language, exact rules, etc to spell out these new regulations, but the general sentiment is clearly there with specific proposals having strong support.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 17, 2018)

kuwanger said:


> That's the core of it, though.  Republicans would have still had a strong hold on the House/Senate and currently D/R infighting means that opposing party Congress/President gets very little done as neither side wants the other to claim credit.  Add to that that most the Democrats in Congress do not support Bernie's populist agenda*, and I think he'd see the same warm reception that the GOP had had towards Trump.


Trump has the ability to get a lot done right now.  He can't because his entire administration is a disorganized shitshow.  That's not surprising given he has no governing or legislative experience, but there's no way things would be the same under any other president.



kuwanger said:


> That's an interesting thing I hadn't heard.  Could you link me to a report outlining that?


TBH it may have been many real Trump supporters claiming that as well, to try and sway Bernie voters who were angry at his primary loss.  I can find stuff that briefly mentions these comparisons, but no articles specifically about that.



kuwanger said:


> * How much of the US population is for legalizing marijuana (or at least making it a State issue)?  How many American support DACA?  How many Americans want more gun regulation**?  Pretty much across the board, there's a sizable majority (70%+) that support a lot of positions that Congress is unwilling to budge on.  There's probably several other things that can be pointed to that have populist support which I don't see Congress moving on even with a very charismatic leader.


Not moving on this stuff is different from directly attacking it.  Thankfully weed legalization will continue moving through the states, and DACA was upheld by the courts.


----------



## DeslotlCL (Feb 17, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Don't apologize. I just have my reasons.  I don't feel comfortable because having conservative beliefs and/or not having any kind of liberal belief is a crime punishable by public humiliation.  I dare not express why I prefer one view over the other due to the fact I sense that there are people on here who hate my guts as is, due to recent actions. I'd best just... uh, be on my way.  I won't name names, but I feel a sense of dread for daring to even express non-liberal beliefs, people strongly dislike conservative political stances on here anyway, it's tantamount to criminal activity. If you want more info, I wish people to PM me instead.


Don't be afraid of sharing your thoughts, i can be an asshole sometimes, but in no way i will judge someone, no matter what they believe or think about. Of course i could get upset if someone hate or dislike, non straight people for example, but i wont judge him and will try to be as polite as possible.

Anyway, sorry again. You didnt have to reply back so for the third time, sorry for making that question


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 17, 2018)

DeslotlCL said:


> Don't be afraid of sharing your thoughts, i can be an asshole sometimes, but in no way i will judge someone, no matter what they believe or think about. Of course i could get upset if someone hate or dislike, non straight people for example, but i wont judge him and will try to be as polite as possible.
> 
> Anyway, sorry again. You didnt have to reply back so for the third time, sorry for making that question



Don't be sorry, I've just had bad experiences in the past, that's all.


----------



## DeslotlCL (Feb 17, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Don't be sorry, I've just had bad experiences in the past, that's all.


That's why im still telling you sorry for the love of everything that is good xD


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 17, 2018)

yeſ
mother Ruſsia is comiŋ!


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 17, 2018)

DeslotlCL said:


> That's why im still telling you sorry for the love of everything that is good xD



You've done nothing wrong though.


----------



## matpower (Feb 17, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Good, this is hopefully something everyone will support. We need to send the message to the world that our elections are our business and our business alone, not Russia's.


You should tell that to every country where the US decided to meddle in.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Feb 17, 2018)

matpower said:


> You should tell that to every country where the US decided to meddle in.


I'm not trying to say the US has never done it themselves, but that doesn't mean we should just bend over when Russia joins in.


----------



## mikey420 (Feb 17, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> There was already political division since Bush, I don't see this as being any worse than usual. I just didn't want another Clinton in office. Sorry,  not sorry, I never agreed with her in any way, all because she was a Clinton. Too bad there weren't other candidates who weren't complete douchebags.


Too bad you don't know how to write in. You don't have to vote for either side. And before you say it's just a waist of your vote just stop because it's exactly that thought process that keeps the sheeple in this loop of pseudo democracy....


----------



## the_randomizer (Feb 17, 2018)

mikey420 said:


> Too bad you don't know how to write in. You don't have to vote for either side. And before you say it's just a waist of your vote just stop because it's exactly that thought process that keeps the sheeple in this loop of pseudo democracy....



Gee, thank you *so *bloody much for assuming that you know *everything *there is to know about me, no really, I appreciate it. I'll be sure to take your advice more seriously from here on out.  Not.

*Bending over* Please sir, may I have another?

Gimme a break.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 17, 2018)

matpower said:


> You should tell that to every country where the US decided to meddle in.


Amen


----------



## Xzi (Feb 17, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I'm not trying to say the US has never done it themselves, but that doesn't mean we should just bend over when Russia joins in.


Also, Putin is a dictator.  Nobody can mess with Russia's elections or they get polonium tea.  They've been the US' biggest adversary for some time now, it should've been a big red flag when Trump started being buddy-buddy with Russia during the campaign.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Feb 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Also, Putin is a dictator.  Nobody can mess with Russia's elections or they get polonium tea.  They've been the US' biggest adversary for some time now, it should've been a big red flag when Trump started being buddy-buddy with Russia during the campaign.


No comrade, those are suicides, Dear Leader Putin deeply saddened by them.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 17, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> No comrade, those are suicides, Dear Leader Putin deeply saddened by them.


"Another senseless suicide by two shots to the back of the head, is tragedy comrade.

Da."


----------



## Xzi (Feb 18, 2018)

"Trump says he 'never said Russia did not meddle in the election.' He did."

http://theweek.com/speedreads/756194/trump-says-never-said-russia-did-not-meddle-election-did

He's gonna break his neck pulling a 180 that fast if he's not careful.


----------



## GBAer (Feb 20, 2018)

Now that Mueller has cleared Trump of any collusion with Russian and has found that the only Russian inteference in the 2016 election was a handfull of Twitter trolls, we can now give all
our support for...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 20, 2018)

GBAer said:


> Now that Mueller has cleared Trump of any collusion with Russian and has found that the only Russian inteference in the 2016 election was a handfull of Twitter trolls, we can now give all
> our support for...
> View attachment 114914


Except he hasn't


----------



## GBAer (Feb 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Except he hasn't


On all the evidence  we've been show so far he has.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 20, 2018)

GBAer said:


> On all the evidence  we've been show so far he has.


You specifically said that Mueller has cleared Trump of any suspicion of collusion, which he has not. That's false. It's either an uninformed statement made from consuming propaganda or an outright lie


----------



## digipimp75 (Feb 20, 2018)

fake news


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 20, 2018)

digipimp75 said:


> fake news


Which is


----------



## GBAer (Feb 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You specifically said that Mueller has cleared Trump of any suspicion of collusion, which he has not. That's false. It's either an uninformed statement made from consuming propaganda or an outright lie


I'm guessing that you get your real CNN and MSNBC?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 20, 2018)

GBAer said:


> I'm guessing that you get your real CNN and MSNBC?


I get my news from a variety of sources that come through my Flipboard feed. I tend to ignore sources from FOX and Breitbart though, for example, for obvious reasons.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Feb 20, 2018)

Mueller will destroy him, and in the process, Fox News as well.



GBAer said:


> I'm guessing that you get your real CNN and MSNBC?



I'm actually curious where you heard the Mueller cleared Trump? I feel like it's just you trying to spread your right wing nut job propaganda, aka Fox News/Breirbart/InfoWars.

I shit you not when I tell you a favorite game of me and my mates is to turn on Fox News and catch as many lies as we can. Whoever catches the least buys lunch.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 20, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> Mueller will destroy him, and in the process, Fox News as well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just gave a damn

Congrats


----------



## dpad_5678 (Feb 20, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Which is


Anything Trump and/or a trump supporter doesn't agree with is automatically "fake news".

Still can't believe that hardly-grammatically-correct moronic phrase was made up by an 70-something year old AND the fucking president of the USA.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Feb 20, 2018)

#MAGA2020!!!


----------



## dpad_5678 (Feb 20, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> #MAGA2020!!!


Don't worry, the investigation won't take that long.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Feb 20, 2018)

GBAer said:


> Now that Mueller has cleared Trump of any collusion with Russian and has found that the only Russian inteference in the 2016 election was a handfull of Twitter trolls, we can now give all
> our support for...
> View attachment 114914


Even if that was true, it doesn't change the fact that he knows nothing about any policy issue ever


----------



## Xzi (Feb 22, 2018)

Paul Manafort and Rick Gates have been indicted on _additional_ charges of tax evasion and bank fraud.  Mueller is gonna bury these two deeper than hell, and it shows he's not fucking around.

The amount of money involved in these schemes was $75,000,000.  Odds are there are connections to Trump somewhere in that money since Manafort offered to work "for free" for the Trump campaign.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...charges-of-tax-and-bank-fraud-in-russia-probe


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Feb 23, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Paul Manafort and Rick Gates have been indicted on _additional_ charges of tax evasion and bank fraud.  Mueller is gonna bury these two deeper than hell, and it shows he's not fucking around.
> 
> The amount of money involved in these schemes was $75,000,000.  Odds are there are connections to Trump somewhere in that money since Manafort offered to work "for free" for the Trump campaign.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...charges-of-tax-and-bank-fraud-in-russia-probe


Manafort and Gates are sketchy as fuck. Im sure they did some illegal stuff in Trump's name, but even if they hadn't ever met him they'd already done plenty of illegal stuff before hand. They're gonna be in jail for a few decades at least. 

If you don't believe me,  look up the leaked texts between Manafort's daughters. They talk about how Manafort has directly caused several deaths while working for an oppressive government in Ukraine. 

Even if you're a Trump supporter, you should be happy these guys are locked up. Manafort wasn't even a good campaign manager for Trump, Lewandowski and Conway are the only ones that actually accomplished anything. Chances are Manafort was in some way using Trump for his own illegal operations. These guys are among the worst people that America ever gave to the world, and they haven't even done much for Trump. They only ever do stuff to become rich and influential.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Feb 24, 2018)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-aide-rick-gates-formally-pleads-guilty-counts/story?id=53274680

Rick Gates pleaded guilty. What he admitted to was lying to Mueller about Manafort's actions and to helping Manafort evade taxes.

A note: I don't know if anyone has a problem with abc, but if you do I'll try to find an article from another news outlet.


----------



## Don Jon (Feb 24, 2018)

"As part of this plea deal, Gates is giving up his rights under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act — as the special counsel’s office might seek certain information or documents from him."

spill the beans Gates...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



GBAer said:


> Now that Mueller has cleared Trump of any collusion with Russian and has found that the only Russian inteference in the 2016 election was a handfull of Twitter trolls, we can now give all
> our support for...
> View attachment 114914


russian fake news from russian bots
nothing to see here folks


why did Sessions recuse himself
why is Bannon not complying with the subpoena?


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Feb 24, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> "As part of this plea deal, Gates is giving up his rights under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act — as the special counsel’s office might seek certain information or documents from him."
> 
> spill the beans Gates...


It's worth noting that the charge of lying to Mueller is cuz he pretended to cooperate and be an informant only to give Mueller false information. It's highly likely he'll seek to falsify other things, including any documents he hands over. He has nothing to lose now

Mueller knows this tho, so he'll take anything Gates says with a million grains of salt.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Feb 24, 2018)

Fuck dude can you imagine being in an interrogation room with Mueller? I'd be shitting bricks have you seen that guy?


----------



## Xzi (Feb 25, 2018)

This is hilarious but it's also a good summary of Manafort's new charges:

https://gfycat.com/MarriedImperfectAfricanwilddog


----------



## Xzi (Feb 28, 2018)

Jared Kushner (Trump's son-in-law tasked with fixing the world) has lost his top secret clearance access:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/27/jared-kushner-security-clearance-downgrade-427178

Reports are that he was vulnerable to manipulation by four foreign countries in particular:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...bbc052-18c3-11e8-942d-16a950029788_story.html

Late-breaking story edit: 'Mueller team asks about Trump's Russian business dealings as he weighed a run for president'

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/trump-russia-investigation/index.html


----------



## Old (Mar 14, 2018)

Bob & his team will have the entire filthy NEST burned to the ground by late Spring!  Indictments are-a-comin!  

And no, sexually repressed Jesus freak Pence will *NOT* be stepping in for the dotard, he's got his own criminal charges to answer for.  Slimy complicit worm.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 14, 2018)

Oh, also, Manifort is facing a maximum of up to 305 years in prison right now


----------



## Old (Mar 14, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Oh, also, Manifort is facing a maximum of up to 305 years in prison right now



Yep!  Ol' Paulie's been choking on Vlad's pecker for years, maybe decades.  Same goes for Roger Stone, Mr. filthbag.   It's gonna be glorious seeing these career criminals receive their comeuppance!


----------



## Xzi (Mar 15, 2018)

Trump Organization (businesses) have been subpoenaed today for any documents relating to Russia:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/us/politics/trump-organization-subpoena-mueller-russia.html

Also today, 'Trump Organization 'negotiated with sanctioned Russian bank in 2016,'' during the campaign.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...gotiated-with-sanctioned-russian-bank-in-2016


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Trump Organization (businesses) have been subpoenaed today for any documents relating to Russia:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/us/politics/trump-organization-subpoena-mueller-russia.html
> 
> ...





bet you most of thos records got destroyed when muller started the investigation just like my hospital records from detroit when my mother tried to lawyer up the first time (Millions of dollars for medical care up in smoke)


----------



## Xzi (Mar 15, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> bet you most of thos records got destroyed when muller started the investigation just like my hospital records from detroit when my mother tried to lawyer up the first time (Millions of dollars for medical care up in smoke)


If you destroy records, the prosecution is free to speculate about what was in those records and have it accepted as evidence.

Mueller likely already has the vast majority of these documents as well.  He's subpoenaing them because he can charge Trump if the organization doesn't turn over all matching documents.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If you destroy records, the prosecution is free to speculate about what was in those records and have it accepted as evidence.
> 
> Mueller likely already has the vast majority of these documents as well.  He's subpoenaing them because he can charge Trump if the organizations don't turn over all matching documents.




then that lawyer was a dumbass we tried to use SOB!!! then again they said (the hospital) said something bout we routienly purge record as a certain number of decades (mind you was born in 86) and the second retrieval was when i was 27-28 anyways enough of my life story


----------



## Viri (Mar 15, 2018)

GBAer said:


> Now that Mueller has cleared Trump of any collusion with Russian and has found that the only Russian inteference in the 2016 election was a handfull of Twitter trolls, we can now give all
> our support for...
> View attachment 114914


Nah, didn't you get the memo? Trump lost the election, and Hillary won! She's planning to run in 2020! 

http://www.hillarybeattrump.org/home/2017/10/17/clinton-announces-shell-run-for-re-election-in-2020


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 15, 2018)

Ooh, a fiercely thickening plot, I must simply grab my lawn chair and buttered popcorn!


----------



## Xzi (Mar 15, 2018)

Viri said:


> Nah, didn't you get the memo? Trump lost the election, and Hillary won! She's planning to run in 2020!
> 
> http://www.hillarybeattrump.org/home/2017/10/17/clinton-announces-shell-run-for-re-election-in-2020


That's hilarious that site exists.  The only other place Hillary is president is on Fox News.



chrisrlink said:


> then that lawyer was a dumbass we tried to use SOB!!! then again they said (the hospital) said something bout we routienly purge record as a certain number of decades (mind you was born in 86) and the second retrieval was when i was 27-28 anyways enough of my life story


I'm not sure if it's the same for medical records or what the circumstances of your case were, so I can't say for sure.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 15, 2018)

Viri said:


> Nah, didn't you get the memo? Trump lost the election, and Hillary won! She's planning to run in 2020!
> 
> http://www.hillarybeattrump.org/home/2017/10/17/clinton-announces-shell-run-for-re-election-in-2020


Is this like

News from the superior timeline where the electoral college was abolished?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 15, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Is this like
> 
> News from the superior timeline where the electoral college was abolished?


Or even better, a timeline where the EC did its job and rejected an unstable nutjob who was also in debt to several foreign countries.  Trump would not be able to obtain a security clearance if he weren't elected.  There are supposed to be more checks in place for president than for a fucking Burger King job.


----------



## Old (Mar 15, 2018)

Me & mine will be popping bottles by Spring -- Woot!


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 15, 2018)

I can't wait to see peoples' reactions when Pence takes over Trump's position as POTUS


----------



## Old (Mar 15, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I can't wait to see peoples' reactions when Pence takes over Trump's position as POTUS



Not going to happen.  Pency is neck-deep in the dotard/Putin/GOP sludge and it will be his undoing.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 15, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I can't wait to see peoples' reactions when Pence takes over Trump's position as POTUS


Even if Pence isn't implicated (Flynn at a minimum), whoever is next in line will be neutered in terms of overall power.  Doubly so if Democrats take the vast majority of mid-term elections, as has been the trend with special elections since Trump got elected.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Even if Pence isn't implicated (Flynn at a minimum), whoever is next in line will be neutered in terms of overall power.  Doubly so if Democrats take the majority of mid-term elections, as has been the trend since Trump got elected.



Yeah, I'd rather not the Dems take the majority of the house again; sorry not sorry. We already had them take the majority during Obama, I'd rather not they didn't. That's just me.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 15, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Yeah, I'd rather not the Dems take the majority of the house again; sorry not sorry. We already had them take the majority during Obama, I'd rather not they didn't. That's just me.


It's that or watch the current leadership go down in flames anyway.  Republicans are simply incapable of leading this country anywhere but straight into the dumpster.  Talking, tweeting, and golfing, sure, but leading no.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's that or watch the current leadership go down in flames anyway.  Republicans are simply incapable of leading this country anywhere but straight into the dumpster.  Talking, tweeting, and golfing, sure, but leading no.



There are idiots on both sides, let's just agree to that.


----------



## Old (Mar 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's that or watch the current leadership go down in flames anyway.  Republicans are simply incapable of leading this country anywhere but straight into the dumpster.  Talking, tweeting, and golfing, sure.



The G(L)OP is a 'party' of vile racist dinosaurs. They've got no place in modern/properly functioning society. We're witnessing their death rattle, desperate/shameless conspiracy theories and all.  
Extinction time.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 15, 2018)

Old said:


> The G(L)OP is a 'party' of vile racist dinosaurs. They've got no place in modern/properly functioning society. We're witnessing their death rattle, desperate/shameless conspiracy theories and all.
> Extinction time.



And every single Democrat is an exemplary angel and perfectly compassionate on human lives? Both parties have corruption to some degree.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 15, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> There are idiots on both sides, let's just agree to that.


Disagreeing with someone's political views does not make either party an idiot.  *Incompetence* is the trend among Republican presidents and leadership, however, and that runs rampant in the Trump administration more than any other before.  They're shedding employees faster than Trump's friends dumped steel stock before the tariffs were known.

I'm pretty sure half of all federal agencies are only staffed by an answering machine by now.  Ryan, McConnell, and the rest all hitched their wagons to Trump, so they deserve whatever  comes their way.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Disagreeing with someone's political views does not make either party an idiot.  *Incompetence* is the trend among Republican presidents and leadership, however, and that runs rampant in the Trump administration more than any other before.  They're shedding employees faster than Trump's friends dumped steel stock before the tariffs were known.
> 
> I'm pretty sure half of all federal agencies are only staffed by an answering machine by now.



Well, I shall remain neutral and forego further discussion on the topic.

Apparently it's  worthy of ridicule for someone to agree with anyone but Democrats.

"Agree with us, or we'll call you out and ridicule you ad nauseum"


----------



## Old (Mar 15, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> And every single Democrat is an exemplary angel and perfectly compassionate on human lives? Both parties have corruption to some degree.



There is corruption and then there is _abject greed and avarice_.  You're comparing a shoplifter to a cannibalistic serial killer.  To most folks outside the rust/bible belts & flyover states, the term 'Republican' has become synonymous with evil.
The backwater bergs will always be susceptible to brainwashing -- fox 'news', alex jones, (insert nutball-of-the-week) -- but even they are beginning to wake up to reality. 

The times they are a changing; I'm hopeful that we can return to Kennedy's America, before Nixon slithered his way into the White House and set us on a course of decades of corruption and selfishness.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 15, 2018)

Old said:


> There is corruption and then there is _abject greed and avarice_.  You're comparing a shoplifter to a cannibalistic serial killer.  To most folks outside the rust/bible belts & flyover states, the term 'Republican' has become synonymous with evil.
> The backwater bergs will always be susceptible to brainwashing -- fox 'news', alex jones, (insert nutball-of-the-week) -- but even they are beginning to wake up to reality.
> 
> The times they are a changing; I'm hopeful that we can return to Kennedy's America, before Nixon slithered his way into the White House and set us on a course of decades of corruption and selfishness.



Apparently it's worthy of ridicule for someone to agree with anyone but Democrats. Welcome to 2018, agree with us or get called out.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 15, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Apparently it's worthy of ridicule for someone to agree with anyone but Democrats. Welcome to 2018, agree with us or get called out.


The problem isn't Democrats, they're only the ones who get the blame for the downfall of the Republican party.  It's a downfall they can never fix if they don't admit to it having happened, however.  There's something slightly "off" about religious leaders giving Trump a pass for cheating on his third wife with a porn star, I think everybody should be able to agree on that.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> The problem isn't Democrats, they're only the ones who get the blame for the downfall of the Republican party.  It's a downfall they can never fix if they don't admit to it having happened, however.  There's something slightly "off" about religious leaders giving Trump a pass for cheating on his third wife with a porn star, I think everybody should be able to agree on that.



My point still stands, having a different political view or having different political beliefs is something that people feel justified in ridiculing others for, just my two cents.

If people can have any view they want, even if it's not popular, without backlash, then I'd be happy to participate more willingly in discussions.


----------



## Old (Mar 15, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Apparently it's worthy of ridicule for someone to agree with anyone but Democrats.



A standard repub/drumpf drone non-reply when confronted with reality.  Broken record.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 15, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> My point still stands, having a different political view or having different political beliefs is something that people feel justified in ridiculing others for, just my two cents.


It's not about the views, it's about what you're getting when you vote Republican.  Which is too often not at all representative of true Republican views.  It's become a party of Trump, which is a party of making up your own facts and rejecting reality.  Also hypocrisy, in that everything Trump said would go wrong under Clinton has, in fact, gone wrong under his administration.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 15, 2018)

Old said:


> A standard repub/drumpf drone non-reply when confronted with reality.  Broken record.



I think you've proven my point, much appreciated for the animosity. Sod politics.



Xzi said:


> It's not about the views, it's about what you're getting when you vote Republican.  Which is too often not at all representative of true Republican views.  It's become a party of Trump, which is a party of making up your own facts and rejecting reality.



So I didn't want Clinton in the White House, but when you're presented with two assclowns as candidates, it's kinda hard to choose.

And people ask me why I'm cynical.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 16, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Apparently it's worthy of ridicule for someone to agree with anyone but Democrats. Welcome to 2018, agree with us or get called out.


It's one thing to agree with an opposing party because you genuinely agree with their policy, but it's something entirely different to use neutrality as a shield to deflect criticism of a party you support exclusively to spite the side that you feel has wronged you based mostly on media sensationalism

Note that that's not a criticism exclusively of you, I've seen stuff like that occuring a lot more over the last few years and it kind of frustrates me, in general


----------



## Xzi (Mar 16, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> So I didn't want Clinton in the White House, but when you're presented with two assclowns as candidates, it's kinda hard to choose.


Not really.  Clinton ran a bad campaign, but we still knew which candidate would cause more chaos, because we knew which candidate had more experience with governing and legislation.  Trump talked about running government like a business, but all of his businesses have been run into the ground.  It should be no surprise that the same is happening to his administration.

The problem is people treating federal elections like reality TV.  Trump is the second guy after GWB to get elected seemingly only because he was the preferred candidate to "have a beer with."  So we got two town drunks in a row from the Republicans.


----------



## JellyPerson (Mar 16, 2018)

Paul Manafort is in house arrest in a condo 5 miles away from where I live

awesome


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 16, 2018)

Old said:


> A standard repub/drumpf drone non-reply when confronted with reality.  Broken record.


You're not exactly doing much to help your cause. @the_randomizer isn't a "drone" or a "shill," from what I've seen he's just frustrated by a few very specific things that Democrats did over the last 8 years and is using that animosity to justify support for the Republican side

(That sound about right?)


----------



## JellyPerson (Mar 16, 2018)

I'm a Republican, but I don't side with Trump. I kinda think he's a bad president, but my parents still make fun of me for being a supporter. (We're all muslim)


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 16, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> Paul Manafort is in house arrest in a condo 5 miles away from where I live
> 
> awesome


You should bring him a warm meal and ask what motivated his blatantly Anti-American money laundering scheme

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JellyPerson said:


> I'm a Republican, but I don't side with Trump. I kinda think he's a bad president, but my parents still make fun of me for being a supporter. (We're all muslim)


Wait... Are you or are you not a Trump Supporter?...


----------



## JellyPerson (Mar 16, 2018)

Ha maybe, if i could what should i get him


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 16, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> Ha maybe, if i could what should i get him


Something Russian

Or lasagna or cornbread casserole or something, I dunno


----------



## JellyPerson (Mar 16, 2018)

Goulash it is


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You're not exactly doing much to help your cause. @the_randomizer isn't a "drone" or a "shill," from what I've seen he's just frustrated by a few very specific things that Democrats did over the last 8 years and is using that animosity to justify support for the Republican side
> 
> (That sound about right?)



Let's just say that I'm cynical of most politicians, regardless of their political spectrum.  There are certain words I wish to say right now, but I won't.  But what Old say,  no offense, was a very douchebag thing to say about me. Not sorry. Call me what you will, but the only thing I ask is for people not to be a jerk about it.

You don't want to screw with me, Old.

Is it even remotely possible to have a discussion without people being a douche to me about it?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 16, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Is it even remotely possible to have a discussion without people being a douche to me about it?


If I might offer some constructive criticism, you tend to go off the deep end whenever someone responds to something you say with any kind of counterargument, even if they aren't be rude... Other than the occasional asshole, maybe you're just _perceiving_ people to be "douche-y"?...


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> If I might offer some constructive criticism, you tend to go off the deep end whenever someone responds to something you say with any kind of counterargument, even if they aren't be rude... Other than the occasional asshole, maybe you're just _perceiving_ people to be "douche-y"?...



Old sure as hell was being a jerk to me, there's no defending his BS. It's people like him that make this place toxic. What am I supposed to say, "thank you for making me feel like an idiot"? People like him are more than
capable of disagreeing without bringing other people down, surely, you know that.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 16, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Old sure as hell was being a jerk to me, there's no defending his BS. It's people like him that make this place toxic. What am I supposed to say, "thank you for making me feel like an idiot"? People like him are more than
> capable of disagreeing without bringing other people down, surely, you know that.


I'm obviously not defending Old, I think (hope?) you know that. But you also need to learn to better judge whether or not something is intentionally trying to insult you, or if they're reasonably debating you or trying to refute/criticize an argument you made, and, if they are in fact intentionally insulting you, you should try just letting it roll off like water on a ducks back; if it's particularly offensive, report it for harassment. If not, then they've made themselves look like an ass and you're ultimately the bigger man. If you wanna respond, just tell them that wasn't very nice and you'd appreciate it if they wouldn't say that. Don't escalate by trying to turn it into a dick-measuring contest


----------



## leon315 (Mar 16, 2018)

dunno if whose Russians are involved in Trump's election campaign, seems there's no evidence to prove it, beside trump is also a business man, are they presumably someone involved in his business affairs?

the whole story is like accusing a chinese trader for treason of Communist party cauz he did some trades with some japaneses...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 16, 2018)

leon315 said:


> dunno if whose Russians are involved in Trump's election campaign, seems there's no evidence to prove it, beside trump is also a business man, are they presumably someone involved in his business affairs?
> 
> the whole story is like accusing a chinese trader for treason of Communist party cauz he did some trades with some japaneses...


... Have you not been paying attention at all to any of the Russia-related news in this thread? A few times would be a coincidence, but MULTIPLE high-level campaign staff secretly meeting with high-level Russian officials or undercover operatives is a definite trend


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 16, 2018)

Aren't politics the best??


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 16, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Aren't politics the best??


Rarely, but they're a necessity in a true democracy


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Rarely, but they're a necessity in a true democracy



Let me rephrase, "aren't political discussions the best??" They are necessary, but rarely does discussing them go smoothing, parties and people often never come to any kind of agreement.
Call me cynical, but political discussions almost always rub me the wrong way.


----------



## leon315 (Mar 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> ... Have you not been paying attention at all to any of the Russia-related news in this thread? A few times would be a coincidence, but MULTIPLE high-level campaign staff secretly meeting with high-level Russian officials or undercover operatives is a definite trend


nope, i don't pay attention at all to states' politic situations, i'm not a states and i don't live there neither, is  the source that confirms they are Russian operatives' reliable?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 16, 2018)

leon315 said:


> nope, i don't pay attention at all to states' politic situations, i'm not a states and i don't live there neither, is  the source that confirms they are Russian operatives' reliable?


Aha, that makes sense. 

I don't recall exact details about all the instances, but from what I remember whenever stuff comes up about any meeting with a Russian during the campaign, the Trump administration played it off as discussing something benign (e.g. Russian adoption programs (wtf?)), and it is shortly after either leaked or revealed that the person they were meeting with did in fact have ties to the Kremilin and was giving the election-altering information (e.g. dirt on Hillary Clinton)


----------



## Don Jon (Mar 16, 2018)

A strong opposer to Putin was found dead recently.
A Russian spy was killed by nerve agent means supposebly tied to Russia.
Russia is corrupt as fuck.
Crooked Donnie karma wil be a bitch.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 18, 2018)

"Trump says 'Mueller probe should never have been started' hours after his lawyer called for it to be shut down"

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tweet-mueller-probe-should-never-have-been-started-2018-3

If Trump fires Rosenstein or Mueller, he's essentially admitting guilt, this would be Watergate all over again.  Of course, Trump has too little foresight to realize this, so he'll probably attempt to anyway.  Word is this is in response to Mueller's team sending over a list of questions the president would be asked in an interview.

For anyone interested, there is a rapid response protest plan in place across the country should Rosenstein/Mueller be fired.  If it happens before 2 PM, events take place at 5 PM, after 2 PM, events at noon the next day.  All times local.

https://act.moveon.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response-events/search/


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 18, 2018)

Mueller now has memos McCabe kept on Trump dealings

Clench your assholes, lads, the time is almost upon us


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Mueller now has memos McCabe kept on Trump dealings
> 
> Clench your assholes, lads, the time is almost upon us


It probably is.

Trump's lead lawyer, John Dowd, has resigned, and Trump says he'd like to testify to Mueller:

https://www.apnews.com/94f0078aba70...ump-says-he'd-like-to-testify-in-Russia-probe

Trump isn't exactly known for honesty, so I'm not trusting him on this yet, but if it happens it'd be glorious.  Mueller, being the veteran prosecutor he is, would simply sit back and let Trump lie thirty times a minute.  The more you have against him on record, the better.

My bet's on Trump trying to fire Mueller somehow instead, but we'll see.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Mueller now has memos McCabe kept on Trump dealings
> 
> Clench your assholes, lads, the time is almost upon us



I genuinely wonder what people will think if Trump is impeached and Pence takes over, I doubt people will be any happier *shrug*. With all the indictments and corruption going on, you'd think the ulterior motive for doing all this is solely based off the fact that the POTUS isn't liberal, and wasn't Clinton in office. Had Clinton won, pretty sure nothing would've happened to find evidence against her wrongdoings. I'll grab the popcorn.


IMHO, the only reason they're even doing all these investigations is merely an expressing of distaste that Clinton should've won and that a liberal POTUS isn't in power, had a liberal candidate won, no investigations would've been done against Clinton. Just saying.  I doubt Pence will be any better. Hey, maybe California's dumbass governor Jerry Brown won't try to sue Trump over his trying to criminal sanctuary cities?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 23, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I genuinely wonder what people will think if Trump is impeached and Pence takes over, I doubt people will be any happier *shrug*. With all the indictments and corruption going on, you'd think the ulterior motive for doing all this is solely based off the fact that the POTUS isn't liberal, and wasn't Clinton in office. Had Clinton won, pretty sure nothing would've happened to find evidence against her wrongdoings. I'll grab the popcorn.


The idea is that a) It'll prove that America is not unwilling to impeach a President that is blatantly violating the Constitution, which means that Pence better watch out as well (and he'd be pretty neutered in terms of policy-making for the next two years, anyway, considering he was in this for the long haul), and b) as toxic as Pence may be in terms of lawmaking, everything he would do is reversible by both Congress and the next President, and Pence is 100% less likely to make a power grab for something... higher than US President... and at least 90% less likely to get us in an international war over a dick measuring contest



> IMHO, the only reason they're even doing all these investigations is merely an expressing of distaste that Clinton should've won and that a liberal POTUS isn't in power, had a liberal candidate won, no investigations would've been done against Clinton. Just saying.  I doubt Pence will be any better. Hey, maybe California's dumbass governor Jerry Brown won't try to sue Trump over his trying to criminal sanctuary cities?


You say that as though Hillary's email scandal wasn't going to follow her into office, even though Republicans tried on nine different occasions to prosecute her based on that and couldn't find anything that would stick. Plus, you can't exactly say there isn't a point to this investigation, what with all the blatant evidence of both shady money dealings and international influence on an election that have been cropping up. To quote a friend of mine, "gee, this 'witch hunt' sure is turning up a lot of witches..."


----------



## Don Jon (Mar 23, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I genuinely wonder what people will think if Trump is impeached and Pence takes over, I doubt people will be any happier *shrug*. With all the indictments and corruption going on, you'd think the ulterior motive for doing all this is solely based off the fact that the POTUS isn't liberal, and wasn't Clinton in office. Had Clinton won, pretty sure nothing would've happened to find evidence against her wrongdoings. I'll grab the popcorn.
> 
> 
> IMHO, the only reason they're even doing all these investigations is merely an expressing of distaste that Clinton should've won and that a liberal POTUS isn't in power, had a liberal candidate won, no investigations would've been done against Clinton. Just saying.  I doubt Pence will be any better. Hey, maybe California's dumbass governor Jerry Brown won't try to sue Trump over his trying to criminal sanctuary cities?




Youre wrong.  The same person, Comey who laid the finger on Hillary is the same person who laid it on Trump.  There is clearly no bias here.  You seem to have something against "sanctuary" cities.  Though i bet you probably live in the middle of no where and have never even co existed with those you hate(non whites)


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> Youre wrong.  The same person, Comey who laid the finger on Hillary is the same person who laid it on Trump.  There is clearly no bias here.  You seem to have something against "sanctuary" cities.  Though i bet you probably live in the middle of no where and have never even co existed with those you hate(non whites)



Oh and you're 100% right every time? Nice try, but you're wrong. Thanks for assuming me to be a certain way, really appreciate it. I have nothing against immigrants, I just wish that immigration laws were better, and I wish California wasn't the hellhole it was when it came to laws, but thanks. The only thing I have against sanctuary cities is the fact that the people who run them refuse to cooperate with law enforcement and act as though illegal immigrants have 100% the same rights as legal citizens; PS, they don't. Don't be so bloody rude to me, you don't know me, so zip it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 23, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> Youre wrong.  The same person, Comey who laid the finger on Hillary is the same person who laid it on Trump.  There is clearly no bias here.


Correct


> You seem to have something against "sanctuary" cities.  Though i bet you probably live in the middle of no where and have never even co existed with those you hate(non whites)


*sobbing* you were doing so well, why did you have to ruin it with a personal attack


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Correct
> 
> *sobbing* you were doing so well, why did you have to ruin it with a personal attack



Because someone clearly pissed in his cheerios. I have nothing against people of a different race, illegality is NOT a race, it's a crime. Why is he so bloody blind? Maybe if immigration laws would be changed to where the process was more streamlined, I'd have nothing against people who break the law regardless of their background? But no, he's gonna keep participating in a pissing contest to stroke his epeen. If he tries personal attacks, I'm just gonna tell him to piss up a rope.

Newsflash to those trying to attack me:

Illegal != race = criminal activity
Mexican = race = nothing to do with breaking the law

So please, haters, shut up.  Illegal immigrants should be able to obtain citizen easier, yes, but when California tries to sue the president over his trying to make stricter laws against sanctuary cities, that's called a dick move. To me,
it's a cover up from California to hide their inaction and inability to uphold the law. I don't seem to recall anything in the Constitution that states illegal immigrants have to be hidden from law enforcement. If someone can cite a
source, i'd be willing to listen. But to people who are attacking me for an opinion on immigration, either be respectful of others' opinions or shut the hell up, thanks.


----------



## Don Jon (Mar 23, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Oh and you're 100% right every time? Nice try, but you're wrong. Thanks for assuming me to be a certain way, really appreciate it. I have nothing against immigrants, I just wish that immigration laws were better, and I wish California wasn't the hellhole it was when it came to laws, but thanks. The only thing I have against sanctuary cities is the fact that the people who run them refuse to cooperate with law enforcement and act as though illegal immigrants have 100% the same rights as legal citizens; PS, they don't. Don't be so bloody rude to me, you don't know me, so zip it.




So what is it youre on welfare and believe these immigrants are taking some of your benefits or what?
Also immigrants are the less paid of all. First its white, than blacks, than hispanics. And sometimes their treated like shit, get no holiday pay, and no paid sick days.  Youre right, they dont have the same rights you do. And that is when they get screwed over by their employers.  But guess what. They have to work to feed their families.  So instead of crying and complaining they just say " yes sir".


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 23, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Because someone clearly pissed in his cheerios.


You need to come up with a different analogy, that's becoming your catchphrase  


> I have nothing against people of a different race, illegality is NOT a race, it's a crime. Why is he so bloody blind? Maybe if immigration laws would be changed to where the process was more streamlined, I'd have nothing against people who break the law regardless of their background? But no, he's gonna keep participating in a pissing contest to stroke his epeen. If he tries personal attacks, I'm just gonna tell him to piss up a rope.


Curious, and not trying to detail the thread too far, but food for thought; supposing that there was an implementation that from now on, only white European immigrants were allowed past the border, while everyone else was an "illegal alien". Is illegal still illegal, or does the fact that the law is blatantly unjust excuse the people who, under it, are labeled as criminals?


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> So what is it youre on welfare and believe these immigrants are taking some of your benefits or what?
> Also immigrants are the less paid of all. First its white, than blacks, than hispanics. And sometimes their treated like shit, get no holiday pay, and no paid sick days.  Youre right, they dont have the same rights you do. And that is when they get screwed over by their employers.  But guess what. They have to work to feed their families.  So instead of crying and complaining they just say " yes sir".



Oh blah blah blah blah blah. If you can stop being a jerk about my opinion, then I can agree. But if you're going to insist that I say things because I'm against immigrants, then please do me a favor and shut the hell up. Sound good?

I have nothing against LEGAL immigration. I have everything against illegal immigration. See the difference? No, of course you don't, you just want to keep on pissing in my mouth and pass it off as lemonade. I'm sick of politicians trying to shield them as being 100% innocent for breaking the law. They broke the law, they are consequences for breaking the law. By that same vain, if they can break the law and get off free, I should be able to break any law I want and not get fined or jailed. Sound good?

Either come up with a good argument and sources to where I'm actually saying what you think I say, or just *shut the hell up already with your ad hominem bullshit*. Stop being a jerk.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 23, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> So what is it youre on welfare and believe these immigrants are taking some of your benefits or what?
> Also immigrants are the less paid of all. First its white, than blacks, than hispanics. And sometimes their treated like shit, get no holiday pay, and no paid sick days.  Youre right, they dont have the same rights you do. And that is when they get screwed over by their employers.  But guess what. They have to work to feed their families.  So instead of crying and complaining they just say " yes sir".


Dude... Stop... If it comes up directly feel free to dig into him, but until then you're derailing the thread and making potentially false statements about character, unless you can find specific quotes


----------



## Don Jon (Mar 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Dude... Stop... If it comes up directly feel free to dig into him, but until then you're derailing the thread and making potentially false statements about character, unless you can find specific quotes


Fair enough I don't know if he's on welfare and I don't know if he lives in the middle of nowhere not close by to Sanctuary cities so because of that I'll just stop replying to him


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> Fair enough I don't know if he's on welfare and I don't know if he lives in the middle of nowhere not close by to Sanctuary cities so because of that I'll just stop replying to him



Please do, because you're derailing with bullshit and attacks, and it's just driving me to wanting to block people like you. Just, cut it out, like, seriously. I'm done talking to people like you. You don't know me, you can't
make assumptions about me, so don't even try any funny stuff, you got that? Good, now, back to the thread at hand. I'm done here, and until you can just accept others' posts without being hostile, then we have a deal, deal?
Have a nice day now.

You started it and I'm here to stop it. Period.


----------



## McWhiters9511 (Mar 23, 2018)

this stuff takes so long his last 3 years will be up before anything comes out of it lol


----------



## Don Jon (Mar 23, 2018)

https://twitter.com/JimCarrey/status/976505375661867008?s=20


----------



## Joe88 (Mar 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You say that as though Hillary's email scandal wasn't going to follow her into office, even though Republicans tried on nine different occasions to prosecute her based on that and couldn't find anything that would stick. Plus, you can't exactly say there isn't a point to this investigation, what with all the blatant evidence of both shady money dealings and international influence on an election that have been cropping up. To quote a friend of mine, "gee, this 'witch hunt' sure is turning up a lot of witches..."


from the bill clinton loretta lynch tarmac meeting https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/comey-loretta-lynch-clinton-tarmac-meeting/index.html
it's a "matter", not an "investigation"  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...candal_a_matter_and_not_an_investigation.html
james comey writing his letter of innocence for hillary months before the investigation was concluded and important people were interviewed http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...efore-completing-interviews-fbi-confirms.html
then the whole gross negligence being changed to extremely careless by peter strzok http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...anged-comeys-language-of-clinton-email-use-to

This sure does look like a ton of corruption to me



Don Jon said:


> https://twitter.com/JimCarrey/status/976505375661867008?s=20


oh look another hollywood liberal elite thats anti trump, how... not very shocking at all


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 23, 2018)

Since we're extending the courtesy of not using sources you find biased, maybe find a source that isn't Fox News? I find that HIGHLY suspicious considering it was James Comey's dickering that was widely considered to be one of the biggest factors in her LOSING the election in the first place


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Since we're extending the courtesy of not using sources you find biased, maybe find a source that isn't Fox News? I find that HIGHLY suspicious considering it was James Comey's dickering that was widely considered to be one of the biggest factors in her LOSING the election in the first place



Do people honestly think that Clinton would've been liked more, given her past and her legacy (her being a Clinton)? People would be unhappy regardless of who the President is, it's always been that way. It's a sad day when people are forced to either be a liberal and believe in liberalism or get ridiculed for conservative beliefs.


Pro gun? Ridiculed.
Anti abortion? Ridiculed.
Christian beliefs? Ridiculed. 
Oh and my personal favorite, don't agree with liberal politicians or beliefs? ridiculed.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> from the bill clinton loretta lynch tarmac meeting https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/comey-loretta-lynch-clinton-tarmac-meeting/index.html
> "ts a "matter", not an "investigation"  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...candal_a_matter_and_not_an_investigation.html
> james comey writing his letter of innocence for hillary months before the investigation was concluded and important people were interviewed http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...efore-completing-interviews-fbi-confirms.html
> then the whole gross negligence being changed to extremely careless by peter strzok http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...anged-comeys-language-of-clinton-email-use-to
> ...


You're shitting me, right?  The Trump administration kicks out that much corruption in five minutes out of their day.  Trump's even had bigger e-mail scandals.

If Trump was willing to let this investigation complete on him like Hillary let so many complete on her, we wouldn't have an issue.  Then again, Hillary Clinton has the mind of an adult, and Trump has the mind of a 12-year-old XBL player who somehow also has Alzheimer's.  So it's probably foolish to expect him to go along with anything peacefully.



the_randomizer said:


> Do people honestly think that Clinton would've been liked more, given her past and her legacy (her being a Clinton)? People would be unhappy regardless of who the President is


Unfortunately I think you're correct, but that's only because we wouldn't have anything to compare her to.  If we could go back in time and elect her president, we'd have a lot more appreciation for status quo bureaucracy.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You're shitting me, right?  The Trump administration kicks out that much corruption in five minutes out of their day.  Trump's even had bigger e-mail scandals.
> 
> If Trump was willing to let this investigation complete on him like Hillary let so many complete on her, we wouldn't have an issue.  Then again, Hillary Clinton has the mind of an adult, and Trump has the mind of a 12-year-old XBL player who somehow also has Alzheimer's.  So it's probably foolish to expect him to go along with anything peacefully.



And do you think Pence will fare better than Trump if/when he gets impeached? I sure as hell wouldn't want a Clinton running the country again either.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> And do you think Pence will fare better than Trump if/when he gets impeached? I sure as hell wouldn't want a Clinton running the country again either.


I think Pence is implicated, he definitely perjured himself over Flynn, but regardless he'd be a lame duck for two years if he does replace Trump.  If Mueller issues indictments before the mid-term elections and the Republicans inevitably fail to act, that will be a lot more fire for Democrats going into the voting booth.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I think Pence is implicated, he definitely perjured himself over Flynn, but regardless he'd be a lame duck for two years if he does replace Trump.  If Mueller issues indictments before the mid-term elections and the Republicans inevitably fail to act, that will be a lot more fire for Democrats going into the voting booth.



Gee, I can't *wait *for them to take over the White House majority yet again. How _*joyous*_. I think I've proven my point, having conservative beliefs is tantamount to being a registered sex offender on the internet.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Gee, I can't *wait *for them to take over the White House majority yet again. How _*joyous*_.


Until we get more than two parties, this is how it works, back and forth.  The problem is we're really down to only _one_ party who knows how to lead responsibly.  The other thinks that reality TV stars are acceptable presidential candidates.


----------



## Old (Mar 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Since we're extending the courtesy of not using sources you find biased, maybe find a source that isn't Fox News?



Not gonna happen.  Brainwashing is a powerful tool, particularly effective on the willfully ignorant.  The Ailes beast knew it well and based his empire on Goebbels’ model.

If you’re able to appeal to the disenfranchised - those with lower IQs, racist tendencies, those that are failing or have failed at life - and are able to convince them that their woes are the fault of the “*others*” , then you’ve got yourself a fully operational propaganda machine. 
I mean, it’s not _your _fault that you have failed repeatedly; lost your job at Walmart, can’t find a girlfriend, etc., right?  It’s the fault of those damned lib-rul eeeleets!/Mexicans!/ho-mo-sexuals!/illegals!/muz-lums!/HILLURRYY!!, RIGHT?   Fox ‘news’, Jones, and about a dozen toxic YouTube channels will have you believing so.
“B-b-but her EMAILZ!!”  “Ben-GAHH-zeeee!!”  “URANIUMMMM!!”, etc. etc., all loooonnnng disproven canards.  Hillary’s biggest “crimes” are being an awkward government nerd & having a vagina.  The Clinton years were great years for many, prosperous years, before 8 dark years of Bush.   Meanwhile, we’ve got an _actual _monster - a nazi robber baron, conman, and rapist - polluting our White House and the planet.

Thankfully, their days are numbered.  Fox ‘conditioning’ dies with grandpa, and where Millennials have failed us Generation  Z will help save us.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Until we get more than two parties, this is how it works, back and forth.  The problem is we're really down to only _one_ party who knows how to lead responsibly.  The other thinks that reality TV stars are acceptable presidential candidates.



Thus proving that it's immoral and criminal NOT to support liberalism. Gotcha. It's so nice to be so accepted and loved by others for having a difference of opinion. Gee, you know what? I think I should express my thoughts and opinions more often, I'm sure that'll be just dandy, don't you?? Awesome! What a wonderful day I'm having, no really, and I have the internet to thank for that.  This calls for a celebration.

Edit: Curious, if people are allowed to treat those with different opinions like garbage, then why on earth should I treat others who treat me the same, with respect? I have been nothing but trying to be respectful
of those who have liberal beliefs, and this is how I get treated? Sorry, but fair is fair, they treat me like garbage, I have the right to do the same back.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Thus proving that it's immoral and criminal NOT to support liberalism. Gotcha. It's so nice to be so accepted and loved by others for having a difference of opinion. Gee, you know what? I think I should express my thoughts and opinions more often, I'm sure that'll be just dandy, don't you??


That's not remotely what I said.  You need to understand there's a big difference between conservatism and Trumpism, the latter of which has co-opted the former.  Conservatives used to be able to reason, negotiate, and get shit done, even with Democrats in charge.  Trumpists deny reason and logic, only accepting things as fact when they fit a positive narrative for Trump.  Much of the time this involves denying reality altogether.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That's not remotely what I said.  You need to understand there's a big difference between conservatism and Trumpism, the latter of which has co-opted the former.  Conservatives used to be able to reason, negotiate, and get shit done, even with Democrats in charge.  Trumpists deny reason and logic, only accepting things as fact when they fit a positive narrative for Trump.  Much of the time this involves denying reality altogether.



And you're implicating that I, having voted for Trump back in 2016, is automatically labeled as a Trumpist and refuse to listen to logic and reason. Gee, that makes me feel so much better. First I have some baseless punk accuse me of being racist for wanting to have the country have stricter immigration laws to curtail illegal immigration and criminalizing sanctuary cities *cough* California's governor is a dumbass *cough*,  and now this. Fantastic.

Edit: What do you suggest I do if I have conservative beliefs but don't want to get ridiculed?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> And you're implicating that I, having voted for Trump back in 2016, is automatically labeled as a Trumpist and refuse to listen to logic and reason. Gee, that makes me feel so much better. First I have some baseless punk accuse me of being racist for wanting to have the country have stricter immigration laws to curtail illegal immigration and criminalizing sanctuary cities *cough* California's governor is a dumbass *cough*,  and now this. Fantastic.
> 
> 
> Puck Folitics.


I wasn't implying anything, I didn't know you voted Trump.  Regardless, you're clearly level-headed enough to sustain a conversation for a bit, so you probably are more toward the conservative side and unwilling to follow Trump all the way down the rabbit hole, so to speak.

You're taking light conversation way too seriously, I haven't insulted you or your views at any point here.


----------



## DeslotlCL (Mar 23, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> And you're implicating that I, having voted for Trump back in 2016, is automatically labeled as a Trumpist and refuse to listen to logic and reason. Gee, that makes me feel so much better. First I have some baseless punk accuse me of being racist for wanting to have the country have stricter immigration laws to curtail illegal immigration and criminalizing sanctuary cities *cough* California's governor is a dumbass *cough*,  and now this. Fantastic.
> 
> Edit: What do you suggest I do if I have conservative beliefs but don't want to get ridiculed?


I suggest you to keep an eye on those you are talking with. You just have had bad experiences thus far, but not all liberals trash talk to conservatives, just like not all conservatives trash talk to liberals. As i have said, you are a nice one, but i feel like you always find yourself being persecuted or threatned by others. 

For example, i am angaist some comservatives beliefs, but i have nothing wrong with people that follow those belief if they are able enough to respect others that doent follow them. If is respect, i expect the same back.

Also, contain yourself man, dont fall to the insulting game, you are better than that.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 23, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I sure as hell wouldn't want a Clinton running the country again either.


I dunno if you know this, but Bill Clinton had a 66% approval rating in his last year in office, even _after_ the whole Monica Lewinsky thing

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



the_randomizer said:


> Thus proving that it's immoral and criminal NOT to support liberalism. Gotcha.


... What?...


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Mar 23, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That's not remotely what I said.  You need to understand there's a big difference between conservatism and Trumpism, the latter of which has co-opted the former.  Conservatives used to be able to reason, negotiate, and get shit done, even with Democrats in charge.  Trumpists deny reason and logic, only accepting things as fact when they fit a positive narrative for Trump.  Much of the time this involves denying reality altogether.


Ironic that you, one who blindly Hates Trump, would say this. I agree with, and respect some of your points. He's a tool. However I can't believe that the democratic party would fare any better if Hilary would have won. Both had problematic stances. Both had enemies in certain parts of the world. One would have incited a war just to try and hide their wrongdoings. Honestly..


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2018)

Memoir said:


> Ironic that you, one who blindly Hates Trump, would say this.


That's not really irony, and my hatred of Trump is anything but blind.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Mar 23, 2018)

Memoir said:


> one who blindly Hates Trump


I'd argue that someone that hates Trump is anything BUT blind


Memoir said:


> One would have incited a war just to try and hide their wrongdoings.


I understand the whole "Hillary would be just as bogged down by investigations!" argument, but this?... What wars do you think she would have started? We've already got one unjust war that's murdering civilians in the Middle East, and I doubt she'd end that (but, then, neither is Trump), but I fail to see what other foreign entities she would be even remotely interested in going to war with


----------



## Old (Mar 23, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That's not really irony, and my hatred of Trump is anything but blind.



Yeah, it’s nigh impossible to “blindly” hate the very _definition _of inhumanity and repulsion.  Me and mine - native NYers - have been hip to the dotard’s bullshit for decades. 
Unfortunately, between tossing Vlad’s salad and fleecing flyover state racists, he was able to get where he is now.  It’s crumbling FAST, though, and has become a source of joy on a near daily basis.

Say, speaking of, I’m sure you’ve heard about Dowd by now, yes?    The rats are fleeing the drumpfster fire just as fast as they can, lol, gleefully crushing each OTHER to death in the process.  
You *know* that Bob’s got Stone AND Bannon by the tonsils at this point.   Popcorn stocks must be through the ROOF!


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 23, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I dunno if you know this, but Bill Clinton had a 66% approval rating in his last year in office, even _after_ the whole Monica Lewinsky thing
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Nothing, threads like this are there reason I eschew political debates.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Mar 23, 2018)

I'm just enjoying the shit show American politics have become in the last few years. If anything I hope this wakes people up from the 2 party system.

I know this the people are more divided then ever before. It has become either you are with me or against me mentality and how are you supposed to have ano conversation in that environment?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> I'm just enjoying the shit show American politics have become in the last few years. If anything I hope this wakes people up from the 2 party system.
> 
> I know this the people are more divided then ever before. It has become either you are with me or against me mentality and how are you supposed to have ano conversation in that environment?


It's very much intentional, it means Russia was successful in what they set out to do: drive a bigger wedge between Americans on hot-button issues.  Thankfully a lot of people aren't biting on the distraction, so Russia can't get away with chemical attacks going unnoticed in the meantime.

Very relevant quote from Captain America Civil War: 

"An empire toppled by its enemies can rise again, but one which crumbles from within, that's dead forever." - Helmut Zemo


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 23, 2018)

Had to make sure that this was all real. Never seen so much corruption unfolded while seeing checks and balances work so well. 

So much shadiness around Trump, makes me wonder how anyone is still supporting him. Let me put it this way, how would have people reacted, if all this happen around Obama?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Had to make sure that this was all real. Never seen so much corruption unfolded while seeing checks and balances work so well.
> 
> So much shadiness around Trump, makes me wonder how anyone is still supporting him. Let me put it this way, how would have people reacted, if all this happen around Obama?


Obama's scandals were a tan suit and dijon mustard, so we can only imagine how many Republican heads would've exploded over emoluments violations, let alone Russia helping to win him elections.

In more recent news, Cambridge Analytica (Trump's digital partners during the election) has had its offices searched in the UK after the warrant was granted:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43522775

"‘You should do it.’ Trump officials encouraged George Papadopoulos’s foreign outreach, documents show."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...af3cdf3f6&tid=sm_tw&__twitter_impression=true

"Guccifer 2.0 unmasking makes it a lot harder for Trump to deny collusion"

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/paxb8z/guccifer-unmasking-trump-russia-collusion


----------



## Old (Mar 23, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Obama's scandals were a tan suit and dijon mustard, so we can only imagine how many Republican heads would've exploded over emoluments violations.



Which the Fox cronies and filth like Limbaugh (_how_ is he still alive, btw?) ran with and distorted for *years*.  Purely envy/race-based, in typical Fox style.  That's one 'good' thing I can say about the drumpf: everything he touches *dies*, and the Fox propaganda network's got his greasy little Cheeto fingerprints allllllll over it.


Truly a celebratory day when *this* vile blob left the mortal coil....


----------



## Xzi (Apr 10, 2018)

Posting this late, but it's a big one:

"F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen; Trump Calls It ‘Disgraceful’"

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/...-of-trumps-longtime-lawyer-michael-cohen.html

Cohen is in some deep shit.  It will be interesting to see if he flips on Trump.


----------



## Don Jon (Apr 10, 2018)

trump is pointing fingers
saying he is being biased against
if there is nothing to hide, than why is he crying?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 27, 2018)

'Flynn and his son met with Russian ambassador in 2015'

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/flynn-kislyak-meeting-december-2015

'Lawyer in Trump tower meeting admits to being informant for Moscow'

https://www.axios.com/russian-lawye...ant-a49a4eb4-6116-4978-8268-b064e6fbfd6c.html

Trump also had a phone interview with Fox and Friends yesterday where he becomes completely unglued.  Highly recommend watching the whole 30 minutes for entertainment value.  Among other things, he admitted during the interview for the first time that Cohen represented him on the Stormy Daniels payoff.  Guess it's hard to keep all the lies straight after a while.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Apr 27, 2018)

I watched the phone interview, it was... Painful


----------



## Xzi (Apr 28, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I watched the phone interview, it was... Painful


After something like that it's hard to believe anyone will deny that man has Alzheimer's or some form of dementia.  His lawyers are definitely going to be scrambling to keep him away from Mueller at all costs.  Trump would confess to crimes without even being asked a question.


----------



## Xzi (May 1, 2018)

[Newly edited]

Mueller has issued a subpoena to the social media consultant of Roger Stone, close Trump ally and advisor:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...dvisers-social-media-consultant-idUSKCN1IH2OB


----------



## Xzi (May 17, 2018)

Today was a big day for developments in the Senate Intelligence Committee's Russia investigation, they've concluded that Russia did work to help Trump win the 2016 election, breaking with the House's findings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gence-committee-says-breaking-with-house-gop/

Additionally, Senate transcripts show that Trump Jr. "wanted to collude with Russia."

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...that-trump-jr-wanted-to-collude-with-russians

"Kremlin used NRA to help funnel money to Trump in 2016"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/kreml...mp-in-2016-says-senate-intelligence-committee

And it's also being reported today that Cambridge Analytica shared data with Russia:

https://www.straitstimes.com/world/...alytica-shared-data-with-russia-whistleblower


----------



## Xzi (Jun 13, 2018)

Mueller today warned that active foreign election/politics meddling is ongoing.  He's seeking a lid on inappropriate evidence disclosure to avoid the Russian/foreign tamperers changing tactics to avoid detection.  Presumably to put a halt to constant evidence requests from Congress as well.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rder-protecting-evidence-in-russia-troll-case




			
				bloomberg said:
			
		

> “The substance of the government’s evidence identifies uncharged individuals and entities that the government believes are continuing to engage in interference operations like those charged in the present indictment,” prosecutors wrote.


----------



## Old (Jun 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Mueller today warned that active foreign election/politics meddling is ongoing.  He's seeking a lid on inappropriate evidence disclosure to avoid the Russian/foreign tamperers changing tactics to avoid detection.  Presumably to put a halt to constant evidence requests from Congress.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rder-protecting-evidence-in-russia-troll-case
> 
> ...



Paulie's facing the Axe of Justice on Friday.   How much longer do you think the Cohen weasel will hold out?  My money says he's already been singing like a canary to Bob & company.  
The end is in sight, amigo!


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 13, 2018)

"The Russians are accused of producing propaganda, posing as U.S. activists and posting political content on social media as so-called trolls to encourage strife in the U.S. The evidence includes between 1.5 and 2 terabytes of data and involves U.S. residents not charged with crimes who the government says were unwittingly recruited by Russians to engage in political activity, prosecutors wrote."

pretty scary shit
the arab spring comes to mind


----------



## Xzi (Jun 13, 2018)

Old said:


> Paulie's facing the Axe of Justice on Friday.   How much longer do you think the Cohen weasel will hold out?  My money says he's already been singing like a canary to Bob & company.
> The end is in sight, amigo!


Yeah, Trump's personal attorney is ready/expecting to be arrested, and people are still screaming that there's no connection to Trump.  

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...el-cohen-arrested-any-day-20180612-story.html


----------



## Old (Jun 13, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> "The Russians are accused of producing propaganda, posing as U.S. activists and posting political content on social media as so-called trolls to encourage strife in the U.S. The evidence includes between 1.5 and 2 terabytes of data and involves U.S. residents not charged with crimes who the government says were unwittingly recruited by Russians to engage in political activity, prosecutors wrote."
> 
> pretty scary shit
> the arab rising comes to mind



What's *truly* scary/sad?  The sheer volume of (mainly) young, disenfranchised white males that _swallowed every friggin drop of it _and continue to do so.  
Alex Jones, Stone, breitbart, Fox, etc. working in conjunction, a modern day 'axis of evil'.  Even YouTube is to blame, permitting everything from toxic conspiracy theories to blatantly racist/nationalistic channels.   We'll be digging out of this mess for years, man.

Hell, the Bannon beast *admitted* to directly targeting "sheltered/awkward/angry losers that do nothing but play video games all day".  He slithered right in like Grima Wormtongue with sickening alterations of the 'Pepe' character and violently misogynistic Hillary memes in-hand.  Sick beyond sick.


----------



## Don Jon (Jun 13, 2018)

Old said:


> What's *truly* scary/sad?  The sheer volume of (mainly) young, disenfranchised white males that _swallowed every friggin drop of it _and continue to do so.
> Alex Jones, Stone, breitbart, Fox, etc. working in conjunction, a modern day 'axis of evil'.  Even YouTube is to blame, permitting everything from toxic conspiracy theories to blatantly racist/nationalistic channels.   We'll be digging out of this mess for years, man.
> 
> Hell, the Bannon beast *admitted* to directly targeting "sheltered/awkward/angry losers that do nothing but play video games all day".  He slithered right in like Grima Wormtongue with sickening alterations of the 'Pepe' character and violently misogynistic Hillary memes in-hand.  Sick beyond sick.



ye
remember when that lady said illegals were voting because facebook said so, lol


----------



## kingfrost (Jun 13, 2018)

Old said:


> What's *truly* scary/sad?  The sheer volume of (mainly) young, disenfranchised white males that _swallowed every friggin drop of it _and continue to do so.
> Alex Jones, Stone, breitbart, Fox, etc. working in conjunction, a modern day 'axis of evil'.  Even YouTube is to blame, permitting everything from toxic conspiracy theories to blatantly racist/nationalistic channels.   We'll be digging out of this mess for years, man.
> 
> Hell, the Bannon beast *admitted* to directly targeting "sheltered/awkward/angry losers that do nothing but play video games all day".  He slithered right in like Grima Wormtongue with sickening alterations of the 'Pepe' character and violently misogynistic Hillary memes in-hand.  Sick beyond sick.



What's really bad to me is the amount of well adjusted socially normal people who show no other signs but are loyal to a fault to him. That scares me regardless of political party. You should never be that loyal to a person in power. 

The internet played a huge role in this too. Older people beleibe everything they read on the internet and don't understand that the same laws that apply to print journalism don't apply to it.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 13, 2018)

kingfrost said:


> What's really bad to me is the amount of well adjusted socially normal people who show no other signs but are loyal to a fault to him. That scares me regardless of political party. You should never be that loyal to a person in power.
> 
> The internet played a huge role in this too. Older people beleibe everything they read on the internet and don't understand that the same laws that apply to print journalism don't apply to it.


Very true, it's become cultish in nature.  It's a new phenomenon too, Obama supporters were not like this, and neither were GWB supporters.  Trump is just another rich asshole who puts corporate interests ahead of the American public, what it is that people think makes him worth idolizing is beyond me.  It's seemingly just a massive sunk cost fallacy.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 13, 2018)

Everyday this stuff... I mean come on, man. Rosenstein?!


----------



## Xzi (Jun 14, 2018)

Michael Cohen's lawyers have quit, suggesting he's about to cooperate with federal prosecutors and flip on Trump.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-law...perate-attorneys-leave-case/story?id=55861988


----------



## Lacius (Jun 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> suggesting he's about to cooperate with federal prosecutors and flip on Trump.


It doesn't necessarily suggest that. It just suggests he's changing his legal strategy.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 14, 2018)

Lacius said:


> It doesn't necessarily suggest that. It just suggests he's changing his legal strategy.


I was paraphrasing the article.



			
				abcnews.com said:
			
		

> As attorneys for Michael Cohen rush to meet Judge Kimba Wood’s Friday deadline to complete a privilege review of over 3.7 million documents seized in the April 9 raids of Cohen’s New York properties and law office, a source representing this matter has disclosed to ABC News that the law firm handling the case for Cohen is not expected to represent him going forward.
> 
> Cohen, now with no legal representation, is likely to cooperate with federal prosecutors in New York, sources said. This development, which is believed to be imminent, will likely hit the White House, family members, staffers and counsels hard.


----------



## Old (Jun 14, 2018)

Lacius said:


> It doesn't necessarily suggest that. It just suggests he's changing his legal strategy.



"Legal strategy"  = I'm scared shitless and currently flipping like a flapjack to avoid dying in prison! 


Between Paulie, the fixer, and Stone, it's looking baaaaadddddd for donny dotard.  I'm counting the hours/days!


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 14, 2018)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rder-protecting-evidence-in-russia-troll-case

Sounds like Mueller never expected any accussed Russians to actually show up and now he doesn't want to provide the evidence to make his case.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 14, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rder-protecting-evidence-in-russia-troll-case
> 
> Sounds like Mueller never expected any accussed Russians to actually show up and now he doesn't want to provide the evidence to make his case.


I already posted that article in this thread, and that's not at all what it states.  Very much the opposite, in fact, that Russian interference operations are still active in the US to this day and they have evidence of such.

Those seeking for evidence to be released as its found don't understand how investigators/prosecutors work.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Those seeking for evidence to be released as its found don't understand how investigators/prosecutors work.


Prosecutors are required to give the defense all evidence including that which may be favorable to the defendant as per Brady v. Maryland, but that doesn't mean it always or usually plays out this way as lawyers are usually scumbags.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 14, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> Prosecutors are required to give the defense all evidence including that which may be favorable to the defendant as per Brady v. Maryland, but that doesn't mean it always or usually plays out this way as lawyers are usually scumbags.


Yeah, once you're in the courtroom


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 14, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yeah, once you're in the courtroom


Ah, well, I guess I jumped ahead too much. Really, I'd still expect nothing to ever happen just as it never did for Clinton's crimes. No one at that level ever answers for anything, though I still consider the Russian collussion angle against trolls kind of a stretch.

I feel I should clarify that I kind of hate Trump ever since the attack on Syria and the garbage tactics he pulled with Palestine. I would never vote for him again, but would probably just not vote at all next time.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 14, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> Ah, well, I guess I jumped ahead too much. Really, I'd still expect nothing to ever happen just as it never did for Clinton's crimes. No one at that level ever answers for anything, though I still consider the Russian collussion angle against trolls kind of a stretch.


I'd like you to consider that maybe the reason Clinton was never charged with anything is because there was never anything anyone COULD charge her with. Just because something looks shady doesn't necessarily make it illegal


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 14, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'd like you to consider that maybe the reason Clinton was never charged with anything is because there was never anything anyone COULD charge her with. Just because something looks shady doesn't necessarily make it illegal


I appreciate your input, but refuse to consider that. The entire Clinton family should be hanged for treason.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 14, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> I appreciate your input, but refuse to consider that. The entire Clinton family should be hanged for treason.


If you think that you can produce better evidence than eight separate Republican-spearheaded hearings, absolutely be my guest. But either the prosecution did a shitty job or she's innocent, that's really all that can be said


----------



## Xzi (Jun 14, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> I appreciate your input, but refuse to consider that. The entire Clinton family should be hanged for treason.


Which part of a blowjob and a private e-mail server equates to treason, exactly?  For that matter, my history is a little rusty, but I don't believe either Clinton has ever been charged with treason.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Which part of a blowjob and a private e-mail server equates to treason, exactly?  For that matter, my history is a little rusty, but I don't believe either Clinton has ever been charged with treason.


Bill's shit is ancient history to me. By Clinton, I mean Hillary, but was trying to be respectful since that is what everyone says while using Trump's last name in attacks.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 14, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> Bill's shit is ancient history to me. By Clinton, I mean Hillary, but was trying to be respectful since that is what everyone says while using Trump's last name in attacks.


Still, she hasn't been charged with treason ever.  And Republicans would've loved to have done so if they had any evidence whatsoever.

Hillary is in the past, but Trump supporters have been programmed to point to her as a distraction as if she's relevant now.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jun 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Still, she hasn't been charged with treason ever.  And Republicans would've loved to have done so if they had any evidence whatsoever.
> 
> Hillary is in the past, but Trump supporters have been programmed to point to her as a distraction as if she's relevant now.


She's a god damn communist demon and so are you.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 14, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> She's a god damn communist demon and so are you.


If she was a communist, odds are the independent movement within the Democratic party (Bernie supporters) would've liked her better.  Hillary is a center-left bureaucrat at best.  Keep on spewing ridiculous hyperbole, though.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 14, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> She's a god damn communist demon and so are you.


Not only is that a really low retort, but what exactly about her screams "Comrade" to you?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 16, 2018)

Paul Manafort's house arrest was canceled and he was jailed today (yesterday), over allegations of witness tampering:

https://apnews.com/ead179c870e7493cae50decf85c102fc

Also, 'Feds have reassembled Michael Cohen's shredded documents, discovered over 700 pages of encrypted messages.'

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...edded-documents-encrypted-20180615-story.html


----------



## KingVamp (Jun 20, 2018)

Pretty crazy that Hillary emails were constantly brought up, while all this was going on.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 20, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Pretty crazy that Hillary emails were constantly brought up, while all this was going on.


More like expected.  They need to distract by throwing as much shit at the wall as possible and seeing what sticks.  "Buttery males" will forever be a classic red meat to the base move.


----------



## Joe88 (Jun 20, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Pretty crazy that Hillary emails were constantly brought up, while all this was going on.


Considering its now revealing corruption at the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI, I say its more than valid.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 20, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Considering its now revealing corruption at the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI, I say its more than valid.


What is it that you're referring to?


----------



## Xzi (Jun 21, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Considering its now revealing corruption at the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI, I say its more than valid.


The highest levels of the DOJ and FBI are all Trump appointees...


----------



## The Catboy (Jun 21, 2018)

Trump supporters always bring up Clinton as an attempt to redirect and control the conversation. Honestly don't encourage them and just ignore any parts about Clinton, they want a reaction and they want the conversation to be anything other than Trump.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jun 21, 2018)

uh think you're mistaken as Trump is the Communist here he sold his  already evil tainted black soul to Russia using dirty tricks such as having the russians leak clintons emails and cramming misguided fake news and scare tactics down you're throat and out your a$$ then again I'm waiting for the irl purge so i can kill as many alt right mofo's as i can


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jun 21, 2018)

chrisrlink said:


> uh think you're mistaken as Trump is the Communist here he sold his  already evil tainted black soul to Russia using dirty tricks such as having the russians leak clintons emails and cramming misguided fake news and scare tactics down you're throat and out your a$$ then again I'm waiting for the irl purge so i can kill as many alt right mofo's as i can


Yikes


----------



## Xzi (Jul 13, 2018)

Mueller indicted another twelve Russians today in connection with hacking the DNC during the election.  That brings the total number of indictments in this investigation so far to 35.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/13/6287...stein-unveils-new-hacking-charges-in-dnc-case


----------



## SG854 (Jul 13, 2018)




----------



## Ratatattat (Jul 13, 2018)

SG854 said:


>



Look at that belly.... must ate Kim Jong-un


----------



## SG854 (Jul 13, 2018)

Ratatattat said:


> Look at that belly.... must ate Kim Jong-un


Its suppose to be Baby Trump. Ga Ga Goo Goo You're Fired!


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 14, 2018)

Gotta love Republicans' stance on this whole situation.
Republicans: stop this investigation: there is no evidence
Mueller: here you go: evidence
Republicans: oh no! We cannot let this weaken the president's position

Put these guys on the Titanic and they'll stand up to their and in water, trying to convince everyone not to create the perception that the boat is sinking. 



Ratatattat said:


> Look at that belly.... must ate Kim Jong-un


It's a diaper. Not sure what Donald thinks of this, as it sure makes him looks much younger than he is.
Not sure what the relevance is either. That balloon is part of the UK protest because Donald is trying to divide Britain (by saying that Johnson would've been a better prime minister than May). It has nothing to do with this Russian affair.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 14, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Put these guys on the Titanic and they'll stand up to their and in water, trying to convince everyone not to create the perception that the boat is sinking.


The sad part is that historically speaking, that's a GREAT parallel, because that actually happened. There were people on the Titanic that were completely in denial and telling others to stop trying to convince everyone that the ship was sinking


> It's a diaper. Not sure what Donald thinks of this, as it sure makes him looks much younger than he is.
> Not sure what the relevance is either. That balloon is part of the UK protest because Donald is trying to divide Britain (by saying that Johnson would've been a better prime minister than May). It has nothing to do with this Russian affair.


He has stated (and he ACTUALLY said this!) that it makes him feel as though London is "unwelcoming"


----------



## mrdude (Jul 14, 2018)

I'm from Scotland, and myself and most people I know LIKE Trump, the media is portraying that everyone in the UK dislikes him - which is total bollocks.

Trump, unlike other politicians is delivering on promises he made in his election speeches, and seems to be 'getting the job done!'. I just wish other politicians would do the same.

As for Clinton - why isn't she in Jail yet?, she's a crook - anyone else in USA who's done the things she has would be in jail by now.

USA is a democratic county, the majority of people were tired of the stale politics and Voted for Trump - he's doing what he said, so give him a break and get behind the man. He's putting America first, which any leader of a country should do, look out for yourselves first, and everyone else second.


----------



## VartioArtel (Jul 14, 2018)

mrdude said:


> I'm from Scotland, and myself and most people I know LIKE Trump, the media is portraying that everyone in the UK dislikes him - which is total bollocks.
> 
> Trump, unlike other politicians is delivering on promises he made in his election speeches, and seems to be 'getting the job done!'. I just wish other politicians would do the same.
> 
> ...



Can someone on the mod staff check this guy's IP, I seriously doubt he's telling the truth.

Because anyone who's intelligent knows Trump's not even kept 20% of his promises. (See: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/ ).


----------



## mrdude (Jul 14, 2018)

VartioArtel said:


> Can someone on the mod staff check this guy's IP, I seriously doubt he's telling the truth.
> 
> Because anyone who's intelligent knows Trump's not even kept 20% of his promises. (See: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/ ).



FAKE NEWS!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 14, 2018)

mrdude said:


> FAKE NEWS!


Well, I guess that seals it


----------



## VartioArtel (Jul 14, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Well, I guess that seals it



Gets funnier when you consider Obama kept 48.4% of his promises: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

Clinton was mostly truthful if a bit exaggerative: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bill-clinton/

And Trump's a dumpster fire of lies: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

So yeaaaa....


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 14, 2018)

VartioArtel said:


> Can someone on the mod staff check this guy's IP, I seriously doubt he's telling the truth.
> 
> Because anyone who's intelligent knows Trump's not even kept 20% of his promises. (See: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/ ).


No, that's doxing


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 14, 2018)

Wales reporting here, I'm a big Trump fan, although most people hate him here since the area is heavily left-leaning due to the conservatives, rightly or wrongly, defunding and eventually closing down the mining industry way back when. As for politifact, they're insanely biased and I wouldn't take anything they write seriously without fact-checking it myself. Posting a link to someone's opinion piece is not an argument, construct an argument why you think something is right or wrong and provide actual supporting evidence if you want to make a cogent point.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 14, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Wales reporting here, I'm a big Trump fan, although most people hate him here since the area is heavily left-leaning due to the conservatives, rightly or wrongly, defunding and eventually closing down the mining industry way back when. As for politifact, they're insanely biased and I wouldn't take anything they write seriously without fact-checking it myself. Posting a link to someone's opinion piece is not an argument, construct an argument why you think something is right or wrong and provide actual supporting evidence if you want to make a cogent point.


How do you figure that they're biased? Yeah, I know that most of their opinion pieces are inherently liberal-biased, but the truth-o-meter is overwhelming honest, at least in my own experience. No matter what side of the political spectrum one falls on, they Fact-Check extremely judiciously


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 14, 2018)

mrdude said:


> FAKE NEWS!


Well, kind sir. While there's certainly some merit in expressing your feelings, I'd point out that merely proclaiming your adversary as inadequate to properly express a valid argument, it nonetheless stands until proven otherwise. So please be a sports and substantiate yer opinion as to why this Trump-lad achieved more of said electorial promises than brought forth in provided link, yeah? 

US translation: na-ah! REAL NEWS!!!!!!!!!


Gotta love the English language.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 14, 2018)

I'm wondering if an investigation would be similarly done if Clinton won and someone colluded with Russian during the election to ensure her victory. Probably not, since liberals hate people for not being liberal, IMO. I feel that they are doing this investigation almost solely on the fact a liberal POTUS isn't in power, and if the opposite had happened, there'd be no investigation so long as Clinton was in office. Where here's an unpopular opinion, both Trump and Clinton are assclowns.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 14, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> How do you figure that they're biased? Yeah, I know that most of their opinion pieces are inherently liberal-biased, but the truth-o-meter is overwhelming honest, at least in my own experience. No matter what side of the political spectrum one falls on, they Fact-Check extremely judiciously


Politifact has a nasty tendency to post articles that are either inaccurate or bordering on a lie and only correcting them once they're called out on it by someone big enough to damage their reputation if they don't. There are entire communities dedicated to picking Politifact's and Snopes' articles, it's very clear what they're trying to do. The fact that we even need fact checkers in the first place only goes to show how low the media has fallen - the trustworthy reporters now need a second unaffiliated branch of the "press" to fact check their fact checks of facts. I don't tend to believe anything until I can verify it myself, and I bin opinion pieces or magical meters straight away. There's no spectrum here, something is either true or it's not.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 14, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> I'm wondering if an investigation would be similarly done if Clinton won and someone colluded with Russian during the election to ensure her victory.


With the number of inconclusive Hillary investigations Republicans wasted taxpayer money on, you don't have to wonder.  There'd be another five investigations at least.  Trump can't even get through one investigation without the need to constantly obstruct justice.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> With the number of inconclusive Hillary investigations Republicans wasted taxpayer money on, you don't have to wonder.  There'd be another five investigations at least.  Trump can't even get through one investigation without the need to constantly obstruct justice.


There's no evidence of any obstruction of justice. If you're going to use legal terminology, be sure to post credible evidence of your accusations.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 14, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> There's no evidence of any obstruction of justice. If you're going to use legal terminology, be sure to post credible evidence of your accusations.


Several individuals connected with Trump have already been charged with obstruction of justice, and the Mueller investigation is nowhere near finished.  When they put this stuff in indictments it means they have the evidence to prove it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Several individuals connected with Trump have already been charged with obstruction of justice, and the Mueller investigation is nowhere near finished.  When they put this stuff in indictments it means they have the evidence to prove it.


If he's guilty by association then Hillary Clinton is guilty of obstruction of justice because her IT aide removed evidence during a pending investigation, and he was retarded enough to ask Reddit how to do it. When you're using a shitty measuring stick, be sure that someone can't pick the other end up and slap you with it. We're two years down the line now and we still haven't seen any credible evidence of obstruction, or collusion for that matter, just an attempt at collusion by Don Junior with no evidence that any information changed hands or any actions were taken. Chances are that he had the meeting not knowing that he's not supposed to and his legal advice team informed him about it later, so there was no follow through. As it stands today, there's no illegal activity that can be attributed to Trump,but there's plenty that can be attributed to Clinton.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 14, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> As it stands today, there's no illegal activity that can be attributed to Trump,but there's plenty that can be attributed to Clinton.


Delusional.  Hillary's been investigated how many times already?  Ten plus?  And come out without any charges being recommended every time.  She's never going to be investigated again, so she's just the right-wing boogeyman/distraction for the rest of time now.  

The Mueller investigation has 35 indictments so far.  That's 35 more than any Hillary investigation has produced.  Trump is the one under the microscope now, and he put himself in this position.  No amount of "buttery males" is going to stop the indictments.  Which is why Trump will likely move to oust Mueller or Rosenstein soon, they're getting too close.  Roger Stone is Trump's closest ally, and he's the unnamed American in the DNC hacking indictments.


----------



## VartioArtel (Jul 14, 2018)

WeedZ said:


> No, that's doxing


DOXing is inherently malevolent, aggressive, etc. By posing as a person from a foreign nation can lead to bias interpretation of individuals from that region, leading to distrust and fights caused over a lie. It is nothing but improper conduct to do such a thing. There is no malevolence involved in wanting someone who after I posted that, is clearly trolling, to be checked to ensure they are who they are, and are where they say they are (if they really are hearing Scottish opinions first hand, they would most likely have IPs in Scotland). As such this can't be claimed as 'DOXing'.

And before you even try to change DOXing's meaning, I go by semantics, good sir/madam. By semantics, that is definitional not DOXing on basis of it being for the prevention of unnecessary conflict, preventing potential falsely made conflicts between individuals in the U.S. and Scotland, and to set a moral standard that is worth believing in.



Foxi4 said:


> Politifact has a nasty tendency to post articles that are either inaccurate or bordering on a lie and only correcting them once they're called out on it by someone big enough to damage their reputation if they don't. There are entire communities dedicated to picking Politofact's and Snopes' articles, it's very clear what they're trying to do. The fact that we even need fact checkers in the first place only goes to show how low the media has fallen - the trustworthy reporters now need a second unaffiliated branch of the "press" to fact check their fact checks of facts. I don't tend to believe anything until I can verify it myself, and I bin opinion pieces or magical meters straight away. There's no spectrum here, something is either true or it's not.


Sorry but you don't make a point other than "Oh these people's articles are biased". But you've yet to prove the actual trackers and meters tracking common lies and truths are biased. Your whole argument's unaffiliated with the evidence, and it's akin to the Strzok hearing: to saying their articles, which are more opinion pieces (Strzok's emails), completely nullifies any and all work on the trackers for lies/truth (Strzok's FBI work).



Foxi4 said:


> There's no evidence of any obstruction of justice. If you're going to use legal terminology, be sure to post credible evidence of your accusations.



I do hope you're joking.

He has himself claimed he fired Comey for the "Russia thing", which was the investigation into Russian collusion between Trump and Russia that Comey was doing. At that time, Trump knew nothing that we know now about Comey's beliefs/mentality.

Not to mention all the times he's threatened to replace Rosenstein, and shut down the Mueller investigation into himself. Not a true obstruction, but close enough as it's attempting to shut down an investigation into himself.

*Edit:* Or mentioning Jeff Sessions and threatening to remove him. Because, y'know: blaming him that Mueller got appointed to investigate Trump.

There's also the countless times he's done 'indirect obstruction'. Every lie, every little thing he does to attempt to discredit the FBI, the Media, Etc, is considered an impeachable offense. And in constantly attacking the FBI, attempting to destroy their credibility, he is in essence itself obstructing justice, by trying to discredit the entire prosecution before a case is even filed, because if a large enough majority (except the jury, presuming they can find a clean jury) believes the FBI has been on a biased witch hunt against trump or whatever other narrative he spins, then it will cause only more chaos and discord as nobody will believe that result and claim the judicial system a fraud, resulting in Justice itself being viewed as a sham, and permanently obstructed as nobody will agree with courts anymore because they "believe the crooked FBI".

And yes, lying as blatantly as he does, every attempt to down every single media source, regardless how live and clear the material they present, is an impeachable offense in itself. It's not something a president has, to my knowledge, been impeached for, but it is indeed an impeachable offense as it is defacement to the country of America, and such actions are not supposed to be welcome to representing the United States.

Yes, I admit, two paragraphs on a non-actual obstruction. But there are other crimes too we can pin on Trump. Very easily in fact. Do ask me to do those, I can start a list.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 14, 2018)

VartioArtel said:


> DOXing is inherently malevolent, aggressive, etc. Wanting to know whether or not someone's trolling by posing as a person from a foreign nation can lead to bias interpretation of individuals from that region, leading to distrust and fights caused over a lie. It is nothing but improper conduct to do such a thing. There is no malevolence involved in wanting someone who after I posted that, is clearly trolling, to be checked to ensure they are who they are, and are where they say they are (if they really are hearing Scottish opinions first hand, they would most likely have IPs in Scotland).
> 
> And before you even try to change DOXing's meaning, I go by semantics, good sir/madam. By semantics, that is definitional not DOXing on basis of it being for the prevention of unnecessary conflict, preventing potential falsely made conflicts between individuals in the U.S. and Scotland, and to set a moral standard that is worth believing in.
> 
> ...



Dude, you talk some "Pish" as they say here in Bonnie Scotland, did you forget to put your tinfoil hat on today? Also if I say I'm from Scotland - I am, and there's no need to give any proof to some random guy on the internet that I've never met. I literally don't care one iota if you believe me or not.

My personal opinion is - I like Trump & despise Clinton, you have a different opinion! But the thing about me is that I can accept that other people's views on things are not the same as mine, and I go about my own business without getting my knickers in a twist because someone disagrees with me. So grow up, as you sound like you're mentally challenged.


----------



## WeedZ (Jul 14, 2018)

VartioArtel said:


> DOXing is inherently malevolent, aggressive, etc. By posing as a person from a foreign nation can lead to bias interpretation of individuals from that region, leading to distrust and fights caused over a lie. It is nothing but improper conduct to do such a thing. There is no malevolence involved in wanting someone who after I posted that, is clearly trolling, to be checked to ensure they are who they are, and are where they say they are (if they really are hearing Scottish opinions first hand, they would most likely have IPs in Scotland). As such this can't be claimed as 'DOXing'.
> 
> And before you even try to change DOXing's meaning, I go by semantics, good sir/madam. By semantics, that is definitional not DOXing on basis of it being for the prevention of unnecessary conflict, preventing potential falsely made conflicts between individuals in the U.S. and Scotland, and to set a moral standard that is worth believing in.
> 
> ...


Youve already pm'd me, that should be enough. I'm not giving you personal info on any of our members, if you agree with the definition of doxing or not. To do so would be a huge violation of my position.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 14, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> There's no evidence of any obstruction of justice. If you're going to use legal terminology, be sure to post credible evidence of your accusations.


Foxi come on, he literally fired the man who opened an investigation on him. That's what spurred off the whole Mueller investigation in the first place... I know the mainstream media has a pretty short memory nowadays, given how rapidly news is being shot at us, but I expected more from you, given past interactions


----------



## SG854 (Jul 14, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Politifact has a nasty tendency to post articles that are either inaccurate or bordering on a lie and only correcting them once they're called out on it by someone big enough to damage their reputation if they don't. There are entire communities dedicated to picking Politifact's and Snopes' articles, it's very clear what they're trying to do. The fact that we even need fact checkers in the first place only goes to show how low the media has fallen - the trustworthy reporters now need a second unaffiliated branch of the "press" to fact check their fact checks of facts. I don't tend to believe anything until I can verify it myself, and I bin opinion pieces or magical meters straight away. There's no spectrum here, something is either true or it's not.


In the debate realm people argue to the best of their knowledge. I know many times people get attacked and accused of purposely trying to leave out information or not talking about certain things as if their is malicious intent to mislead. But lots of times it's just everyones knowledge is limited, and the reason people leave out certain points is because they don't know about them.

The whole purpose of debates is to express what you know and bring your argument points. And if their is someone that knows something you don't then they'll point that out. And you keep doing that till you get closer to the truth. The problem is people expects everyone to be perfect and know everything or shut up and don't say anything. People aren't going to know everything, and debates are good for bringing up points you don't know about, and if people don't debate things regardless of how limited their knowledge is, then they will never learn and get closer to the truth.

Bias is bad and its good to point it out, but I think people are too quick to accuse that someone of lying and purposely trying leave out things when it could be that they just don't know the full picture. No one will know everything so its an impossible expectation. Maybe they are lying, maybe not, but this is something that i've noticed in debates and has been bugging me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Delusional.  Hillary's been investigated how many times already?  Ten plus?  And come out without any charges being recommended every time.  She's never going to be investigated again, so she's just the right-wing boogeyman/distraction for the rest of time now.
> 
> The Mueller investigation has 35 indictments so far.  That's 35 more than any Hillary investigation has produced.  Trump is the one under the microscope now, and he put himself in this position.  No amount of "buttery males" is going to stop the indictments.  Which is why Trump will likely move to oust Mueller or Rosenstein soon, they're getting too close.  Roger Stone is Trump's closest ally, and he's the unnamed American in the DNC hacking indictments.


I don't particularly care if she gets investigated by a proper team again, it's inconsequential and low on the agenda.


VartioArtel said:


> DOXing is inherently malevolent, aggressive, etc. By posing as a person from a foreign nation can lead to bias interpretation of individuals from that region, leading to distrust and fights caused over a lie. It is nothing but improper conduct to do such a thing. There is no malevolence involved in wanting someone who after I posted that, is clearly trolling, to be checked to ensure they are who they are, and are where they say they are (if they really are hearing Scottish opinions first hand, they would most likely have IPs in Scotland). As such this can't be claimed as 'DOXing'.
> 
> And before you even try to change DOXing's meaning, I go by semantics, good sir/madam. By semantics, that is definitional not DOXing on basis of it being for the prevention of unnecessary conflict, preventing potential falsely made conflicts between individuals in the U.S. and Scotland, and to set a moral standard that is worth believing in.
> 
> ...


Go nuts. It's funny that you know of crimes the Mueller either doesn't or has no evidence of to make an accusation. Maybe you should be investigating the campaign instead, perhaps then it wouldn't take 2 years.



SG854 said:


> In the debate realm people argue to the best of their knowledge. I know many times people get attacked and accused of purposely trying to leave out information or not talking about certain things as if their is malicious intent to mislead. But lots of times it's just everyones knowledge is limited, and the reason people leave out certain points is because they don't know about them.
> 
> The whole purpose of debates is to express what you know and bring your argument points. And if their is someone that knows something you don't then they'll point that out. And you keep doing that till you get closer to the truth. The problem is people expects everyone to be perfect and know everything or shut up and don't say anything. People aren't going to know everything, and debates are good for bringing up points you don't know about, and if people don't debate things regardless of how limited their knowledge is, then they will never learn and get closer to the truth.
> 
> Bias is bad and its good to point it out, but I think people are too quick to accuse that someone of lying and purposely trying leave out things when it could be that they just don't know the full picture. No one will know everything so its an impossible expectation. Maybe they are lying, maybe not, but this is something that i've noticed in debates and has been bugging me.


Oh, don't worry - I normally attribute to stupid what seemingly attributes to malice as well. In the case of Politifact it's malice.


----------



## VartioArtel (Jul 14, 2018)

mrdude said:


> Dude, you talk some "Pish" as they say here in Bonnie Scotland, did you forget to put your tinfoil hat on today? Also if I say I'm from Scotland - I am, and there's no need to give any proof to some random guy on the internet that I've never met. I literally don't care one iota if you believe me or not.
> 
> My personal opinion is - I like Trump & despise Clinton, you have a different opinion! But the thing about me is that I can accept that other people's views on things are not the same as mine, and I go about my own business without getting my knickers in a twist because someone disagrees with me. So grow up, as you sound like you're mentally challenged.



Your personal opinion never mattered. You spoke on behalf of, quote unquote:



mrdude said:


> I'm from Scotland, and myself and most people I know LIKE Trump, *the media is portraying that everyone in the UK dislikes him - which is total bollocks.*
> 
> *Trump, unlike other politicians is delivering on promises he made in his election speeches*, and seems to be 'getting the job done!'. I just wish other politicians would do the same.
> 
> ...



I can point out that

1: You said that it's "Total Bollocks". But the fact is that "everyone" is used in a 'majority' aspect, and you are claiming that this 'majority' doesn't exist. While I can give that it's *obvious* that not everyone in Europe agrees with him, you've been implying that a sizeable enough volume exists that the idea that the majority of the UK doesn't agree with him's bollocks. PS: It's funny because so many were there to protest Trump when he landed in Scotland for his golf.

2: That Trump's delivering on Promises, when he already has a substantial amount of BROKEN or STALLED (which means effectively no more progress can be made, as good as a 'failed promise' at this point) than 'completed' promises (41-19). Also there's a number of compromises that are clearly broken promises (IE: the government's building a fence, not a wall. And the walls shown are test models that are definitely not keeping out anything except maybe a whale, presuming it didn't knock over the walls).

3: He's putting America first. This has been heavily disproven. Every flight he takes to Mar-a-Lago or his golf courses uses up Taxpayer money. Every time he uses his golf courses or Mar-a-lago, he's dumping tax-payer money into his own businesses, which goes to his own pockets (in short, he's profitting on our taxpayer money). This excludes that every single politician who uses his companies is paying his businesses to use these locations. In short, they're paying him for his favor.

3.1: This isn't excluding his tariffs, which have not put America first but rather hurt the country severely (mind you, he doesn't even have the authority to raise Tariffs unless a nation is a legitimate national security threat, and Congress had to tell him to sit down and stop taking their power).

3.2: Also excluding the public relations nightmare that has been the immigration fiasco with kids. This has not put America first, but rather put us in the limelight for human rights issues.

3.3: This is ALSO excluding the public relations nightmare of NATO, which again, Congress voted we stay into overriding Trump again.

I can probably keep going on but this is just a small taste of how you're off.

OH btw:




mrdude said:


> USA is a democratic county, the majority of people were tired of the stale politics and Voted for Trump - he's doing what he said, so give him a break and get behind the man.



Actually, Trump won due a few things. One being lies about improving our economy (which is now suffering due to the Trade War), attempting to push for a return to a coal industry driven america (which won him coal miner votes and plenty of electorals), the Russian interference swaying opinion against Hillary (which, let's be real, after the last big surge of russian interference caused a huge sway in opinion), etc. Acting like Trump won *entirely* legitimately is a joke. We've got indisputable proof of Russian interference, and plenty of proof from Trump's own campaign staff colluding with Russians with 5 guilty-pleas and an indictment running down on Manafort.  There was such a smear campaign it was hard for Trump NOT to win the presidency.



Foxi4 said:


> Go nuts. It's funny that you know of crimes the Mueller either doesn't or has no evidence of to make an accusation. Maybe you should be investigating the campaign instead, perhaps then it wouldn't take 2 years.



You are another who don't get how indictments work in cases like this, I suppose.

You start from the bottom, work up.

Mueller hasn't dropped indictments on Trump for 3 core reasons:

1: Every single person who talks in courts before Trump, adds more to the big picture, and more evidence to use against Trump, while also removing avenues for Trump to say he was unaware of this, that, or the other.

2: Because to date, most things place the President above prosecution.

3: Because even if he indicts, as long as a Republican biased congress is in control, they could just refuse to Impeach him either way, allowing him to pardon himself.

Not only the above, but even if Mueller indicts, he can still take a good 9 more years before he wraps up the investigation. Since 1979, the shortest special council investigation (one of three, mind you) was a bit over 1.5 years long : the Lyn Nofziger improper lobbying during the Reagan presidency. That was one of three investigations again: with the longest of those 3 being the Iran Contra investigation lasting nearly 7 years (based on my reading of this graph).

The shortest group of special counsels ended at a little over 3 years: during W.Bush's eras investigations.

The longest special counsels since 79 were Samuel Pierce's Influence Peddling during H.W. Bush's Presidency (nearly 9 years) and the Henry Cisneros prosecution charges during Clinton's era (over 9 years).

Let those last 2 sink in: Special Counsels that go on longer than a president's entire 2 terms.

Mueller isn't likely to end this soon. He's got a lot of evidence to sift through. Every crime that's talked about with Trump is quite possibly very very real, and the only reason Trump's not on that bench yet is because A: They are not going to rush an indictment before they have the whole picture on every single thing Trump's done; and B: Because he is currently above the law (indictment) because the Supreme Courts have never had the need to have such a course brought to them, and the current supreme court's incomplete (missing a justice), not to mention the worries about a partisan biased Supreme Court.

You say that "Mueller either doesn't [know of] nor have evidence to these crimes to make an accusation". You forget he's yet to actually unleash his indictments towards anyone higher than some of Trump's non-familiar campaign staff and Russians.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 14, 2018)

VartioArtel said:


> Your personal opinion never mattered. You spoke on behalf of, quote unquote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't assume what I do and don't know about indictments or about this particular case, making assumptions have burned people much smarter than yourself.


----------



## mrdude (Jul 14, 2018)

@*VartioArtel*

I read the first few lines of your post, and then my eyes started glazing over, so I stopped just before I fell asleep.

It will however give me great pleasure tonight, knowing that Trump is president and you'll be sitting at home (probably alone), somewhere, being all pissed off about that. Also I'd have love to have seen the look on your face when he was elected. I just hope come the next election - he gets re-elected. That would be the icing on the cake :-)


----------



## SG854 (Jul 14, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't particularly care if she gets investigated by a proper team again, it's inconsequential and low on the agenda.
> Go nuts. It's funny that you know of crimes the Mueller either doesn't or has no evidence of to make an accusation. Maybe you should be investigating the campaign instead, perhaps then it wouldn't take 2 years.
> 
> Oh, don't worry - I normally attribute to stupid what seemingly attributes to malice as well. In the case of Politifact it's malice.


I tend to separate stupid from malice since they are not the same thing. Because they are not stupid if they know about it, but purposely leaving things out to mislead.

I'm gunna have to fact checked politifact more. There are times when they were spot on and there were times they were flat out wrong i've noticed. But not always wrong, politifact is just one source of many I use. I always go under never use only 1 source, use many to get an overall picture.

I have heard that Trump did keep a lot of his promises but TBH I haven't done research on this myself to see of thats true. So I have no opinion on this right now.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 14, 2018)

Trump 2020 is pretty much a given unless the DNC comes up with a real heavyweight champion in the next 2 years - so far no such champion appeared on the scene.



SG854 said:


> I tend to separate stupid from malice since they are not the same thing. Because they are not stupid if they know about it, but purposely leaving things out to mislead.
> 
> I'm gunna have to fact checked politifact more. There are times when they were spot on and there were times they were flat out wrong i've noticed. But not always wrong, politifact is just one source of many I use. I always go under never use only 1 source, use many to get an overall picture.
> 
> I have heard that Trump did keep a lot of his promises but TBH I haven't done research on this myself to see of thats true. So I have no opinion on this right now.


Let's put it this way - they're mostly right, which I'm willing to admit, except in cases when they don't want to be right, which is malice, or in cases where their perception of reality is warped by bias, which is equal parts stupidity and the inability to disassociate themselves from the facts they're analysing.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 14, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Trump 2020 is pretty much a given unless the DNC comes up with a real heavyweight champion in the next 2 years - so far no such champion appeared on the scene.
> 
> Let's put it this way - they're mostly right, which I'm willing to admit, except in cases when they don't want to be right, which is malice, or in cases where their perception of reality is warped by bias, which is equal parts stupidity and the inability to disassociate themselves from the facts they're analysing.


Bias is going to happen whether people realize it or not. And debates are perfect for keeping people in check.

Sometimes a warped perception of reality doesn't have malicious intent, but it can lead to dangerous consequences. Soviet Russia and Maoist China and millions that died.

Or German's not wanting to accept Jewish people on average had higher IQ's, so they got rid of IQ tests and blamed them for their problems of not being able to move up the social economic ladder and the discrepancy between wages. And started the Holocaust. Sometimes people warp reality because they don't like the truth themselves which is another problem. I see that with both the left and right on the political spectrum.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 14, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Bias is going to happen whether people realize it or not. And debates are perfect for keeping people in check.
> 
> Sometimes a warped perception of reality doesn't have malicious intent, but it can lead to dangerous consequences. Soviet Russia and Maoist China and millions that died.
> 
> Or German's not wanting to accept Jewish people had higher IQ's, so they got rid of IQ tests and blamed them for their problems of not being able to move up the social economic ladder and the discrepancy between wages. Sometimes people warp reality because they don't like the truth themselves which is another problem. I see that with both the left and right on the political spectrum.


Everyone is biased, so am I, and I can accept that, but I have no respect for people who omit facts that are inconvenient for their agenda. You don't do that by accident, it's not bad judgement, it's intent.


----------



## Coto (Jul 14, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Everyone is biased, so am I, and I can accept that, but I have no respect for people who omit facts that are inconvenient for their agenda. You don't do that by accident, it's not bad judgement, it's intent.



That's what I like about Foxi4 he never hides the truth nor tries to play dumb, or innocent. Dude, you are right in my eyes. Fuck people trying to cover their asses by hiding facts.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 14, 2018)

Xzi said:


> With the number of inconclusive Hillary investigations Republicans wasted taxpayer money on, you don't have to wonder.  There'd be another five investigations at least.  Trump can't even get through one investigation without the need to constantly obstruct justice.



I'm just saying, part of me genuinely makes me wonder if the only reason they're investigating this is solely based on the fact, or reason, that Trump is neither a Clinton, nor a liberal. If a Democrat was the POTUS, they would likely throw any and all cases out the window, saying "meh, forget about it."  Yes, he says and does stupid things, but what president hasn't? Obama wasn't exactly a knight in shining armor, either. Nor was Bush, or Clinton before him. I find this whole investigation is at least partly done out of spite solely for the sake of Trump not having liberal political views, and because he's a Republican, that gives them a subterfuge to go after him.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 14, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Foxi come on, he literally fired the man who opened an investigation on him. That's what spurred off the whole Mueller investigation in the first place... I know the mainstream media has a pretty short memory nowadays, given how rapidly news is being shot at us, but I expected more from you, given past interactions


As the head of the executive he's entitled to do that, and judging by the recent review of the FBI and DOJ he was right to do so. Comey was an incompetent investigator who overstepped the boundaries of his authority. He also clearly stated that he had no plans to push for a Trump prosecution because he had no evidence, but refused to pronounce him innocent as he did with Hillary. He's as guilty in the whole election debacle as anybody else so far, it's pretty clear that his decision process had more to do with the upcoming election than it did with the truth.


----------



## VartioArtel (Jul 14, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> As the head of the executive he's entitled to do that, and judging by the recent review of the FBI and DOJ he was right to do so. Comey was an incompetent investigator who overstepped the boundaries of his authority. He also clearly stated that he had no plans to push for a Trump prosecution because he had no evidence, but refused to pronounce him innocent as he did with Hillary. He's as guilty in the whole election debacle as anybody else so far, it's pretty clear that his decision process had more to do with the upcoming election than it did with the truth.



Technically, the president's supposed to be allowed to fire the FBI director - except in times when he's under investigation by the FBI due to a conflict in interests. The sole reason he's gotten away with it is the republican/allied Supreme Court, and a Republican Majority Congress. He is basically given free grounds to 'screw the rules' as he pleases and the democrats have no power to fight against it in this current sub-era of the administration until the October (or is it November?) election for Congress, hence why this election is considered possibly as important, if not more so, than the presidential election of 2016.

Then there's the fact that the Supreme Court wouldn't even be an issue if not for the intentional barring of even hearing for Obama's final Supreme Court pick - the first incident of its kind in U.S. history. What was picked and voted through instead was a partisan judge with a pre-designated agenda in Trump's favor. And the Supreme Court again is why the Democrats are pulling the same trick the republicans did and desiring to Block Trump's pick. If not for the current environment, Trump's firing of Comey would have been deemed unconstitutional. It doesn't matter if Comey was fired or not, moment his impartiality in the office was revealed a special counsel would still have been elected (still most likely Mueller), and even Comey would probably be under fire anyhow. What matters isn't Comey's behavior, but rather what was in the FBI's care at the time. The fact Sessions was elected by Trump as Comey's successor, and recused himself quickly has been a topic of Trump's own ire - because Sessions wouldn't dismiss Mueller to break up the investigation.

There's far more than enough proof that while Comey did wrong, nothing he did wrong excuses firing Comey the timing Trump did. I will emphasize that again: *there is absolutely no reason for Trump to have dismissed Comey at the point in time that Comey was fired from the FBI. *That firing was entirely to protect Trump's own being, and trying to draw it away from Trump and onto Comey is absurdity, because when one will look at the law pertaining to obstruction of Justice, then intent can and will fit in a huge part of the picture. At that time, *there existed no evidence of Comey's uncouth behavior for intent for his dismissal.* As such, any defense that Trump firing Comey was not obstruction of justice will implode on itself.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 14, 2018)

VartioArtel said:


> Technically, the president's supposed to be allowed to fire the FBI director - except in times when he's under investigation by the FBI due to a conflict in interests. The sole reason he's gotten away with it is the republican/allied Supreme Court, and a Republican Majority Congress. He is basically given free grounds to 'screw the rules' as he pleases and the democrats have no power to fight against it in this current sub-era of the administration until the October (or is it November?) election for Congress, hence why this election is considered possibly as important, if not more so, than the presidential election of 2016.
> 
> Then there's the fact that the Supreme Court wouldn't even be an issue if not for the intentional barring of even hearing for Obama's final Supreme Court pick - the first incident of its kind in U.S. history. What was picked and voted through instead was a partisan judge with a pre-designated agenda in Trump's favor. And the Supreme Court again is why the Democrats are pulling the same trick the republicans did and desiring to Block Trump's pick. If not for the current environment, Trump's firing of Comey would have been deemed unconstitutional. It doesn't matter if Comey was fired or not, moment his impartiality in the office was revealed a special counsel would still have been elected (still most likely Mueller), and even Comey would probably be under fire anyhow. What matters isn't Comey's behavior, but rather what was in the FBI's care at the time. The fact Sessions was elected by Trump as Comey's successor, and recused himself quickly has been a topic of Trump's own ire - because Sessions wouldn't dismiss Mueller to break up the investigation.
> 
> There's far more than enough proof that while Comey did wrong, nothing he did wrong excuses firing Comey the timing Trump did. I will emphasize that again: *there is absolutely no reason for Trump to have dismissed Comey at the point in time that Comey was fired from the FBI. *That firing was entirely to protect Trump's own being, and trying to draw it away from Trump and onto Comey is absurdity, because when one will look at the law pertaining to obstruction of Justice, then intent can and will fit in a huge part of the picture. At that time, *there existed no evidence of Comey's uncouth behavior for intent for his dismissal.* As such, any defense that Trump firing Comey was not obstruction of justice will implode on itself.


We'll all be waiting with bated breath as we enjoy Trump's second term.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 14, 2018)

mrdude said:


> USA is a democratic county, the majority of people were tired of the stale politics and Voted for Trump - he's doing what he said, so give him a break and get behind the man. He's putting America first, which any leader of a country should do, look out for yourselves first, and everyone else second.


Can't believe I didn't notice this earlier (granted, I was tired), but;

No, a majority of our country didn't vote for Trump. Not even a plurality did. He had the second-most number of votes and yet won the election due to the fact that, unfortunately, the USA is NOT a democracy, it's a democratic republic with antiquated voting policies. I genuinely don't think that there's a single rational citizen here who would be opposed to just letting the popular vote decide everything (considering that would kick gerrymandering to the curb), but yet here we are, still allowing the Electorate to effectively make important decisions for us


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Can't believe I didn't notice this earlier (granted, I was tired), but;
> 
> No, a majority of our country didn't vote for Trump. Not even a plurality did. He had the second-most number of votes and yet won the election due to the fact that, unfortunately, the USA is NOT a democracy, it's a democratic republic with antiquated voting policies. I genuinely don't think that there's a single rational citizen here who would be opposed to just letting the popular vote decide everything (considering that would kick gerrymandering to the curb), but yet here we are, still allowing the Electorate to effectively make important decisions for us


They're neither antiquated nor bad policies, the Electoral College plays an important role in American politics. There's absolutely no reason why the densely populated costal states which are eternally blue should dictate policy to all of the states that are caught in-between, regardless of how few citizens those states have. The United States are, as the name implies, a union of quite independent states under the banner of the federal government. Without the Electoral College there would never be a Republican, or more broadly, a conservative president, all presidents would be liberal Democrats until the end of time. If the costal states are unhappy with the outcome, they're more than welcome to secede - California certainly tried and fell flat on its face during the attempt.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 15, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> They're neither antiquated nor bad policies, the Electoral College plays an important role in American politics. There's absolutely no reason why the densely populated costal states which are eternally blue should dictate policy to all of the states that are caught in-between, regardless of how few citizens those states have. The United States are, as the name implies, a union of quite independent states under the banner of the federal government. Without the Electoral College there would never be a Republican, or more broadly, a conservative president, all presidents would be liberal Democrats until the end of time. If the costal states are unhappy with the outcome, they're more than welcome to secede - California certainly tried and fell flat on its face during the attempt.


I see no reason why the entire populous of the nation shouldn't be able to decide who their next leader is. The electorate takes voices away from individuals and compartmentalizes them into arbitrary borders set by the people who are in office and have a clear incentive to maintain their power; how is that not a blatant conflict of interest? On top of that, I wouldn't be so sure about the idea that we'd never have a conservative president: yes, the political spectrum would most likely shift left in the short term (which would honestly still probably leave us further right than the rest of the world), but I see no evidence that traditionally red States wouldn't continue to vote conservative congressmen and senators into office, ultimately balancing everything back out. The way I see it, if the prevailing social idea is popular enough to get the majority vote, it should win. If it's clear that it's not working, a majority WILL vote to overturn it.

And besides, I don't understand why densely populated areas shouldn't have just as much of a say as any other area; in the end, one vote would equal one voice. You mentioned that the States, in terms of government, are generally speaking rather individual; if the local government were one that you don't particularly agree with, you'd have two options: change it next election cycle, or move to an area that's more in line with your stance. That mentality is exactly why I think there wouldn't be a significant change in conservative candidates: that mentality would ride all the way up to the top, given that it would be more democratic than what we currently have


----------



## mrdude (Jul 15, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Can't believe I didn't notice this earlier (granted, I was tired), but;
> 
> No, a majority of our country didn't vote for Trump. Not even a plurality did. He had the second-most number of votes and yet won the election due to the fact that, unfortunately, the USA is NOT a democracy, it's a democratic republic with antiquated voting policies. I genuinely don't think that there's a single rational citizen here who would be opposed to just letting the popular vote decide everything (considering that would kick gerrymandering to the curb), but yet here we are, still allowing the Electorate to effectively make important decisions for us



You could say the same about every election you guys have had, and every president that's been elected. I guess losers of a vote will always be pissed about 'their guy' not winning. Lets face it though - you had a choice over The criminal bitch Clinton or Trump, the public decided they would rather have trump - I can't blame them.

Have you ever seen the South Park episode when they voted against a giant douche or a turd sandwich? well that was you choice. You have a population of 325 million people, and these were the best two you could find out of all of those??? go figure!


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I see no reason why the entire populous of the nation shouldn't be able to decide who their next leader is. The electorate takes voices away from individuals and compartmentalizes them into arbitrary borders set by the people who are in office and have a clear incentive to maintain their power; how is that not a blatant conflict of interest? On top of that, I wouldn't be so sure about the idea that we'd never have a conservative president: yes, the political spectrum would most likely shift left in the short term (which would honestly still probably leave us further right than the rest of the world), but I see no evidence that traditionally red States wouldn't continue to vote conservative congressmen and senators into office, ultimately balancing everything back out. The way I see it, if the prevailing social idea is popular enough to get the majority vote, it should win. If it's clear that it's not working, a majority WILL vote to overturn it.
> 
> And besides, I don't understand why densely populated areas shouldn't have just as much of a say as any other area; in the end, one vote would equal one voice. You mentioned that the States, in terms of government, are generally speaking rather individual; if the local government were one that you don't particularly agree with, you'd have two options: change it next election cycle, or move to an area that's more in line with your stance. That mentality is exactly why I think there wouldn't be a significant change in conservative candidates: that mentality would ride all the way up to the top, given that it would be more democratic than what we currently have


If you don't see that reason then you don't quite grasp why states' rights are important. Imagine this, America is now a building. There are 10 flats in the building, and the whole building gets to vote on who is in charge of what gets done. 8 flats want someone who's going to keep it tidy, nicely renovated and in working order, 2 flats want someone who will paint it in rainbow colours and put flower beds on every dilapidated windowsill. One big problem - the 2 dissenting flats have 15 occupants each because they're hippy-dippy while the remainder of the flats have only 3 each. Now it's time for simple math, 2x15=30, 8x3=24. Is it fair to let the *2* flats dictate how the entire building operates? No, it is not. They can have hippy-dippy flowers in their flats if they want to, but the whole building is a shared space. This is why flats have representatives and the amount of representatives is adjusted so that each flat has a say in what the future of the building will be. It's nice to have flowers, but it's even nicer to have a roof above your head and wall paint that doesn't peel, that's why there's an electoral college in place. America is composed of many states with a variety of interests that often clash with eachother, so you need a system that allows even the smallest states to represent their interests on equal footing.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 15, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> If you don't see that reason then you don't quite grasp why states' rights are important. Imagine this, America is now a building. There are 10 flats in the building, and the whole building gets to vote on who is in charge of what gets done. 8 flats want someone who's going to keep it tidy, nicely renovated and in working order, 2 flats want someone who will paint it in rainbow colours and put flower beds on every dilapidated windowsill. One big problem - the 2 dissenting flats have 15 occupants each because they're hippy-dippy while the remainder of the flats have only 3 each. Now it's time for simple math, 2x15=30, 8x3=24. Is it fair to let the *2* flats dictate how the entire building operates? No, it is not. They can have hippy-dippy flowers in their flats if they want to, but the whole building is a shared space. This is why flats have representatives and the amount of representatives is adjusted so that each flat has a say in what the future of the building will be. It's nice to have flowers, but it's even nicer to have a roof above your head and wall paint that doesn't peel, that's why there's an electoral college in place. America is composed of many states with a variety of interests that often clash with eachother, so you need a system that allows even the smallest states to represent their interests on equal footing.


Except you're painting it (no pun intended see) as though the choice would be binary, when it absolutely shouldn't be. Like... Sure, that's the way it is now, but the two-party politics game that the American political system has become has kind of proven itself to be a lose-lose scenario, time and time again. For as long as there are only two parties that produce one candidate with a limited set of ideals, there will realistically be a significant portion of the population who, even if they may vote for one of the candidates, will not be completely satisfied with their decision

Look... We can argue the merits of either changing or holding onto certain individual parts of our voting system all day and get nowhere, but if we're going to reach an ideal scenario a LOT of things would need to change, and they can't happen in a vacuum


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't particularly care if she gets investigated by a proper team again, it's inconsequential and low on the agenda.


That's fine, but it means your previous statement that there's "plenty of illegal activity which can be attributed to Clinton" is demonstrably false.



Foxi4 said:


> Trump 2020 is pretty much a given unless the DNC comes up with a real heavyweight champion in the next 2 years - so far no such champion appeared on the scene.


There are far more registered Democrats than Republicans, so all Democrats have to do to win is show up.  They've seen what happens when they don't now, and any candidate that the Democrats choose has to be a better campaigner than Hillary, so I have a hard time believing that Trump has much of a chance in 2020.  The biggest hurdles are still gerrymandering and Russian interference, but cheating only goes so far.



the_randomizer said:


> I'm just saying, part of me genuinely makes me wonder if the only reason they're investigating this is solely based on the fact, or reason, that Trump is neither a Clinton, nor a liberal. If a Democrat was the POTUS, they would likely throw any and all cases out the window, saying "meh, forget about it."


Historically speaking it's been the opposite.  Republicans tried to remove Bill Clinton from office for a blowjob, and they tried to turn a tan suit and dijon mustard into scandals for Obama.  Whenever a Democrat is president, Republicans do nothing but work tirelessly to find any scandal, and if they can't find one they just make one up.  So there's absolutely no reason to concern yourself that a Democrat using foreign assistance to rig an election would fly under the radar.  It wouldn't.



the_randomizer said:


> Yes, he says and does stupid things, but what president hasn't? Obama wasn't exactly a knight in shining armor, either. Nor was Bush, or Clinton before him. I find this whole investigation is at least partly done out of spite solely for the sake of Trump not having liberal political views, and because he's a Republican, that gives them a subterfuge to go after him.


This has nothing to do with stupidity, and everything to do with illegality.  The stupidity only plays into that insofar as Trump is willing to make public statements pertaining to the investigation.  "Russia, if you're listening I hope you can find Hillary's emails" during the campaign and "I faced pressure over this Russia thing, now that's off" after firing Comey are just a couple examples of digging the hole deeper for himself.  Secret meetings with Putin aren't helping Trump change perceptions either.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That's fine, but it means your previous statement that there's "plenty of illegal activity which can be attributed to Clinton" is demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> There are far more registered Democrats than Republicans, so all Democrats have to do to win is show up.  They've seen what happens when they don't now, and any candidate that the Democrats choose has to be a better campaigner than Hillary, so I have a hard time believing that Trump has much of a chance in 2020.  The biggest hurdles are still gerrymandering and Russian interference, but cheating only goes so far.
> ...




Neither candidate was fit to be POTUS, as far as I'm concerned, it was one assclown over another assclown.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Jul 15, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Neither candidate was fit to be POTUS, as far as I'm concerned, it was one assclown over another assclown.



It was an instance of choosing the lesser of two evils, and sadly we did not.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Neither candidate was fit to be POTUS, as far as I'm concerned, it was one assclown over another assclown.


And I don't have any issue viewing it that way, but Trump supporters have a big problem with sunk cost fallacy in that regard.  During the election he was just one shitty candidate against another shitty candidate, and people held their noses while voting for him.  Somehow he goes from being a bad option to being "god emperor" in a year and a half?  Gimme a break.  His presidency is just as bad as everyone knew it would be.  Maybe Hillary's would've been equally as bad, but since Trump is president, we'll never know now.  So Democrats are the ones who get to say I told you so.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Except you're painting it (no pun intended see) as though the choice would be binary, when it absolutely shouldn't be. Like... Sure, that's the way it is now, but the two-party politics game that the American political system has become has kind of proven itself to be a lose-lose scenario, time and time again. For as long as there are only two parties that produce one candidate with a limited set of ideals, there will realistically be a significant portion of the population who, even if they may vote for one of the candidates, will not be completely satisfied with their decision
> 
> Look... We can argue the merits of either changing or holding onto certain individual parts of our voting system all day and get nowhere, but if we're going to reach an ideal scenario a LOT of things would need to change, and they can't happen in a vacuum


There *is* a solution to be found, a solution conservatives have been clamoring since the dawn of time - reduce the size, scope and power of the Federal Government, rein it back to matters of international, or at least interstate importance exclusively and let states govern themselves, as it was originally intended. The President was supposed to be relatively powerless and the Federal Government existed almost exclusively for the purposes of national defence, its only legitimate function - go back to that model. At that point you can have the Electoral College, until then however states will fiercely fight for equal representation.



Xzi said:


> That's fine, but it means your previous statement that there's "plenty of illegal activity which can be attributed to Clinton" is demonstrably false.


There's no logical connection between those two statements. Me not giving a damn if justice is done or not has nothing to do with whether Clinton broke the law or not. She demonstrably *did*, Comey simply read an intent clause into the law, a clause he invented that cannot be found anywhere in the statute. If the law was executed as it was written, she would be found guilty, there is no question about it. Being a senile old crone who doesn't understand technology, or pretending to be one, is not an excuse you can find in the statute either. She's guilty as fuck, demonstrably, and you're not going to convince me otherwise because I can read.


> There are far more registered Democrats than Republicans, so all Democrats have to do to win is show up.  They've seen what happens when they don't now, and any candidate that the Democrats choose has to be a better campaigner than Hillary, so I have a hard time believing that Trump has much of a chance in 2020.  The biggest hurdles are still gerrymandering and Russian interference, but cheating only goes so far.


Show up and vote for who? Maxine Waters who's publicly calling for civil unrest and assault on Republicans? Bernie Sanders from Loonbagia whose economic plan would destroy the U.S. and who probably won't be with us anymore come 2020 because he's 900 years old? Elizabeth Warren, a compulsive liar and clam chowder expert? You have no avatar. Hold on to your butts, it's going to be a long election, and the Dems are doing their earnest to alienate as many people as possible with their "Abolish ICE" song and dance, their call for guaranteed employment which is stupid and other nonsense straight from the communist cookbook and other PC-friendly activities. It seems that they're on a mission to convince everyone that they're batshit crazy and unelectable, so I can't wait what other tricks they have in their bag ready for the next 2 years.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> There's no logical connection between those two statements. Me not giving a damn if justice is done or not has nothing to do with whether Clinton broke the law or not.


If you don't give a damn and you have no evidence, heck nobody has any evidence, then there's no point in making the claim in the first place.



Foxi4 said:


> If the law was executed as it was written, she would be found guilty, there is no question about it.


As would Colin Powell, but mysteriously Republicans didn't give a damn about private e-mail servers when it was other Republicans using them.  If either of them had charges recommended against them though, it would've been a fine and a slap on the wrist at worst.  This fantasy that Hillary would ever be put in jail over e-mails is just pathetic.  Trump's White House doxxed people who were critical of them via e-mail, and he isn't even going to be charged over that, which should be a serious crime.



Foxi4 said:


> Show up and vote for who? Maxine Waters who's publicly calling for civil unrest and assault on Republicans?


"Fuck your feelings," remember?  Clearly Republicans can't handle getting back any of what they dish out if they're scared of an old lady.  Also, you won't be able to find me a clip of her actually calling for violence, but I can find plenty of Trump if you want.  Enough with the hypocrisy.



Foxi4 said:


> Bernie Sanders from Loonbagia whose economic plan would destroy the U.S. and who probably won't be with us anymore come 2020 because he's 900 years old?


He's only four years older and in a lot better mental health than dementia Donnie, but he likely won't run again.  Maybe as VP on someone else's ticket.



Foxi4 said:


> Elizabeth Warren, a compulsive liar and clam chowder expert?


Most of the party likes Elizabeth Warren, and Trump has no way to effectively dismiss her.  Repeating "Pocahontas" isn't going to win him any new votes, but it can lose him some.  Only problem I have with running her is that Republicans are especially good at demonizing and making us question women.



Foxi4 said:


> You have no avatar.


Any of the candidates you listed are better than Trump.  Hillary was literally the only person with the potential to lose to him, as they were both shit candidates at the end of the day, but Trump couldn't even come away with the popular vote in that contest.  The difference in the electoral college was all of ~80,000 votes.  So do I think Waters or Bernie or Warren can turn out another 80k Dems?  Easy.  That said, there are more people I have a preference for on this list:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tes-for-2020-ranked-2/?utm_term=.4ac928b79247

In no particular order my favorites are probably Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Eric Holder.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If you don't give a damn and you have no evidence, heck nobody has any evidence, then there's no point in making the claim in the first place.
> 
> As would Colin Powell, but mysteriously Republicans didn't give a damn about private e-mail servers when it was other Republicans using them.  If either of them had charges recommended against them though, it would've been a fine and a slap on the wrist at worst.  This fantasy that Hillary would ever be put in jail over e-mails is just pathetic.  Trump's White House doxxed people who were critical of them via e-mail, and he isn't even going to be charged over that, which should be a serious crime.
> 
> ...


Telling people that they should harass and assault (read up what the legal definition is, I don't think you know what it means) GOP members in their everyday life is not a matter of "fuck your feelings", my feelings aren't hurt. It violates the non-aggression principle, something leftists are familiar with. To recap, a Christian baker has to cater a gay wedding despite his religious prescriptions, but we cannot serve Republicans at a gas station and we have to scare them away with pitchforks because we don't like them. The candidates I listed are clowns and you would be a fool to think any of them have a chance at getting elected, but good luck. Delusion is normal when you live in la-la land.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Telling people that they should harass and assault (read up what the legal definition is, I don't think you know what it means) GOP members in their everyday life is not a matter of "fuck your feelings", my feelings aren't hurt. It violates the non-aggression principle, something leftists are familiar with.


I watched the video and she said boo them and tell them they're not welcome.  Sounds like a serious case of the snowflake for anyone who considers that "assault."  Lawmakers are simply too used to ignoring their constituents and not having to face any consequences for it, so now they pretend they fear for their lives any time someone calls them a piece of shit.  Unfortunately for them, the first amendment still stands, and private businesses still have the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I watched the video and she said boo them and tell them they're not welcome.  Sounds like a serious case of the snowflake for anyone who considers that "assault."  Lawmakers are simply too used to ignoring their constituents and not having to face any consequences for it, so now they pretend they fear for their lives any time someone calls them a piece of shit.


If you are sitting in a restaurant an an angry mob starts disrupting your meal and continues to follow you around, that constitutes harassment - they don't own the restaurant, they don't get to decide who is or is not welcome and they're not free to disrupt your life. If there are threats of violence involved, that's assault, brother - even shaking a fist at someone threateningly qualifies. If actual violence takes place, that's battery. You would be outraged if an angry mob followed Obama around shouting slurs at him and making it impossible for him to have a normal life. The problem here is that we're talking about public figures which are not as strongly protected as private citizens.


----------



## DeoNaught (Jul 15, 2018)

What's the worse that can happen to Trump? like if they find evidence undeniable, and they obviously have to do something about it, Jail time, Stepping done from office?
Just curious


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> The problem here is that we're talking about public figures which are not as strongly protected as private citizens.


Precisely.  They're both public figures and they're meant to be held accountable by the public they represent.  When they aren't doing their jobs and they aren't responding to their constituents concerns, then they're inevitably going to be confronted by those constituents out in the real world, as that's the last avenue of communication available to people, and the only one that can't be ignored so easily.



DeoNaught said:


> What's the worse that can happen to Trump? like if they find evidence undeniable, and they obviously have to do something about it, Jail time, Stepping done from office?
> Just curious


He'd first be impeached by the Congress/Senate, and then if he's found guilty during impeachment there's the possibility of removal from office depending on the charges.  Of course, to even get impeachment rolling, Dems have to win big for mid-terms.  Republicans will never move on that no matter how much Trump attacks our allies and praises our adversaries.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Precisely.  They're both public figures and they're meant to be held accountable by the public they represent.  When they aren't doing their jobs and they aren't responding to their constituents concerns, then they're inevitably going to be confronted by those constituents out in the real world, as that's the last avenue of communication available to people, and the only one that can't be ignored so easily.


You're right, whenever we don't like a politician, we should just hang them.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> You're right, whenever we don't like a politician, we should just hang them.


Clearly not what I said.  You don't need to harbor a persecution complex on someone else's behalf.  This is simply a matter of Republicans not reading their job descriptions.  They get elected and expect they can spend all their time in office enriching themselves, then feign surprise when anybody calls them out on it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Clearly not what I said.  You don't need to harbor a persecution complex on someone else's behalf.  This is simply a matter of Republicans not reading their job descriptions.  They get elected and expect they can spend all their time in office enriching themselves, then feign surprise when anybody calls them out on it.


Nah. A mob is the ultimate expression of the will of the people. We couldn't get our guys in, so we'll harass and assault the opposition until they resign, it worked for the brown shirts, it'll work for us. Why stop there? Let's take it to the logical conclusion and just hang them, what's the hold-up? You've suddenly discovered scruples? Just say it like you mean it, you don't have to sugar-coat it, I won't think your proposed method of solving political issues is any more insane at this point. You're free to go full monty, it's already reached peak silliness.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Nah. A mob is the ultimate expression of the will of the people. We couldn't get our guys in, so we'll harass and assault them until they resign, it worked for the brown shirts, it'll work for us. Why stop there? Let's take it to the logical conclusion and just hang them, what's the hold-up? You've suddenly discovered scruples? Just say it like you mean it, you don't have to sugar-coat it, I won't think your proposed method of solving political issues is any more insane at this point, you're free to go full monty, it's already reached peak silliness.


You still haven't provided any evidence of Maxine Waters calling for violence, let alone given an instance where chanting in a restaurant led to violence.  Yet you're suggesting that just because there's any _possibility_ for violence, we should no longer have representative Democracy and government officials shouldn't have to answer to anyone.  This definitely has reached peak silliness.

Meanwhile:


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You still haven't provided any evidence of Maxine Waters calling for violence, let alone given an instance where chanting in a restaurant led to violence.  Yet you're suggesting that just because there's any _possibility_ for violence, we should no longer have representative Democracy and government officials shouldn't have to answer to anyone.  This definitely has reached peak silliness.
> 
> Meanwhile:


I never said that I approved of everything Trump's ever said, that would be silly. This conversation is leading nowhere, we'll talk again in 2 years.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> I never said that I approved of everything Trump's ever said, that would be silly. This conversation is leading nowhere, we'll talk again in 2 years.


You don't have to approve of it, but you should at least acknowledge who the loudest voice calling for violence is instead of intentionally misinterpreting the other side to try and fit a bullshit narrative.  If Trump keeps asking for violence he'll eventually get it, and once again he'll have nobody to blame but himself, even as his supporters inevitably blame anybody and everybody else.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You don't have to approve of it, but you should at least acknowledge who the loudest voice calling for violence is instead of intentionally misinterpreting the other side to try and fit a bullshit narrative.  If Trump keeps asking for violence he'll eventually get it, and once again he'll have nobody to blame but himself, even as his supporters inevitably blame anybody and everybody else.


Everything I ever say has a purpose. The reason why I brought up Maxine's low-key call for violence is that I was testing whether there was a point in having a conversation with you. If you denounced it, we could continue having the conversation because we're both level-headed - I'm perfectly happy to denounce shit conservatives say that's out of line. Since you not only didn't denounce it, but in fact approved of it, there can be no conversation - your values are out of whack and we'll never find common ground. I don't particularly care about Loonbag Waters, I care about what's in your head because I'm talking with you, not Maxine. I don't care who's the biggest inciter because it's not a contest.

As for Trump's statements, I don't mind forcefully removing protesters crashing private venues where private events are being held - they weren't invited and they're being disruptive, people came there to listen to the speaker. It's a classic heckler's veto - we don't like what you're saying, so we're drowning you out. This is nothing like the restaurant or the gas station examples where Waters suggested that private citizens harass public officials in their day to day life - the politicians in question don't own the locations nor are they holding private events there, they're having dinner and buying gas. Everyone has a right to be there as long as the owners welcome them in, this interaction isn't restricted like a rally is. The difference isn't even subtle, but you don't see it, so we can't see eye to eye.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> As for Trump's statements, I don't mind forcefully removing protesters crashing private venues where private events are being held - they weren't invited and they're bring disruptive, people came there to listen to the speaker. This is nothing like the restaurant or the gas station examples where Waters suggested that private citizens harass public officials in their day to day life - the politicians in question don't own the locations nor are they holding private events there, they're having dinner. Everyone has a right to be there as long as the owners welcome them in, this interaction isn't restricted like a rally is. The difference isn't even subtle, but you don't see it, so we can't see eye to eye.


So in other words, you're cool with being a hypocrite.  Advocating and executing violence on a private citizen is just fine, but following a public citizen (REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR DISTRICT) for 15 minutes while listing reasons why they're a shitty person is tantamount to assault.  Okay.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> So in other words, you're cool with being a hypocrite.  Advocating and executing violence on a private citizen is just fine, but following a public citizen (REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR DISTRICT) for 15 minutes while listing reasons why they're a shitty person is tantamount to assault.  Okay.


Invading a private space is trespass. Harassing someone in public is harassment. How is this difficult? The point is that you're not supposed to attack people in either setting and if you do, expect the person you're attacking to defend themselves.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jul 15, 2018)

MikaDubbz said:


> It was an instance of choosing the lesser of two evils, and sadly we did not.


only that it wasn't.
it was an instance of americans thinking a president should be flashy and interesting and special and not a fucking boring, intelligent but boring deskjockey.

also, for the other guy, elected officials have no right to do anything in private and no right to shield themselves from critic of any sort really.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Invading a private space is trespass. Harassing someone in public is harassment. How is this difficult? The point is that you're not supposed to attack people in either setting and if you do, expect the person you're attacking to defend themselves.


Precisely.  It's only because these representatives have no way of defending themselves _verbally_ on many of their policy positions that they feel _physically_ attacked.  It's the same reason many Republicans are "retiring" (becoming lobbyists) too: it's hard to square the old Republican party with Trumpism.  Morally, ethically, and politically.


----------



## SScorpio (Jul 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Precisely.  It's only because these representatives have no way of defending themselves _verbally_ on many of their policy positions that they feel _physically_ attacked.  It's the same reason many Republicans are "retiring" (becoming lobbyists) too: it's hard to square the old Republican party with Trumpism.  Morally, ethically, and politically.



The Republican party was also already fractured by the tea party movement. The Democrats on the other hand seem to not have a unifying message other than Trump is bad. So crazy outliers don't appear to be operating outside of the party's goals which isn't great for the Democrat's image.

But we have four more months of craziness to go. We'll see where the dust settles after the elections in November.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 15, 2018)

SScorpio said:


> The Republican party was also already fractured by the tea party movement. The Democrats on the other hand seem to not have a unifying message other than Trump is bad. So crazy outliers don't appear to be operating outside of the party's goals which isn't great for the Democrat's image.


Disagree.  Dems are letting the progressives have more say, which is much of what influenced 2016's outcome after Bernie lost.  They just need to energize their own base, and if Bernie doesn't run hopefully whoever he endorses from the start takes it.


----------



## Glyptofane (Jul 15, 2018)

I'm no Dem, but cheating Bernie out of the nomination was a huge misstep. Rumors that Hillary Clinton may be running again in 2020 are hopefully just that, as it would likely kill the party once and for all.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 16, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> I'm no Dem, but cheating Bernie out of the nomination was a huge misstep. Rumors that Hillary Clinton may be running again in 2020 are hopefully just that, as it would likely kill the party once and for all.


I hadn't even heard that rumor.  It wouldn't matter if she did, either, she'd get crushed in the primary.  Which is exactly why she won't run.  Three to four options this time would definitely be preferable to the two we had last time.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 16, 2018)

For now, I'm watching Andrew Yang.


Foxi4 said:


> their call for guaranteed employment which is stupid and other nonsense straight from the communist cookbook


I don't agree with job guaranteed, but since a lot of people like to throw the word communism at any actual change to the system, please explain to me how "job guaranteed" is communism base on its definition.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 16, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> I'm no Dem, but cheating Bernie out of the nomination was a huge misstep. Rumors that Hillary Clinton may be running again in 2020 are hopefully just that, as it would likely kill the party once and for all.



Good, I hope she doesn't run again.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 16, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Show up and vote for who? Maxine Waters who's publicly calling for civil unrest and assault on Republicans? Bernie Sanders from Loonbagia whose economic plan would destroy the U.S. and who probably won't be with us anymore come 2020 because he's 900 years old? Elizabeth Warren, a compulsive liar and clam chowder expert? You have no avatar. Hold on to your butts, it's going to be a long election, and the Dems are doing their earnest to alienate as many people as possible with their "Abolish ICE" song and dance, their call for guaranteed employment which is stupid and other nonsense straight from the communist cookbook and other PC-friendly activities. It seems that they're on a mission to convince everyone that they're batshit crazy and unelectable, so I can't wait what other tricks they have in their bag ready for the next 2 years.


I really don't like Communist policies, there's already bad experiences with that in many countries that implemented it, and thousands died because your getting rid of your most successful productive people that keeps society and the economy going. And I think many people voted for Trump just to get back at the left and PC culture, and their equality of outcome and diversity (which to them is another way of saying equality of outcome, rather then equal opportunity).

But both the Left and Right are wrong.
The Left believes that everyone is born equal and have equal capabilities, which means that any differences in income is due to oppression. So they are working hard to get rid all of societal environmental barriers. But they are wrong because everyone is born with different abilities and talents. Even if everything in the environment was equal it will still create inequality because people with certain inherit talents will be better at what they do compared to others that don't have that talent, and it will create unequal income.

The Right is wrong because they say the reason people aren't as successful is because they are lazy and if they get off their asses and work hard they can be just as successful. But the are wrong because everyone is born with different talents and abilities. Even if they work hard they will never be as good as someone with a natural born talent. So its not a matter of working hard. And they will never earn good wages because they don't have the inborn mental capabilities to work at jobs that pay more. And in a shifting economy of hard manual labor to a knowledge based one, its going to be hard for them to navigate in the world and move up the economic ladder.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Jul 16, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I really don't like Communist policies, there's already bad experiences with that in many countries that implemented it, and thousands died because your getting rid of your most successful productive people that keeps society and the economy going. And I think many people voted for Trump just to get back at the left and PC culture, and their equality of outcome and diversity (which to them is another way of saying equality of outcome, rather then equal opportunity).
> 
> But both the Left and Right are wrong.
> The Left believes that everyone is born equal and have equal capabilities, which means that any differences in income is due to oppression. So they are working hard to get rid all of societal environmental barriers. But they are wrong because everyone is born with different abilities and talents. Even if everything in the environment was equal it will still create inequality because people with certain inherit talents will be better at what they do compared to others that don't have that talent, and it will create unequal income.
> ...


as with most things the true reality usually lands somewhere in the middle, having parties that absolutely refuse to admit there is any truth in their opponents opinion is how you end up with stupid policies that don't reflect reality


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 16, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> For now, I'm watching Andrew Yang.
> 
> I don't agree with job guaranteed, but since a lot of people like to throw the word communism at any actual change to the system, please explain to me how "job guaranteed" is communism base on its definition.


It's government jobs paid for with taxes, therefore it's redistributionism. You're taking money away from those who pay taxes, take a bunch of people who don't have jobs and you tell them to dig holes and then fill them in to create a veneer of work. These kinds of policies are straight from the U.S.S.R playbook, I should know, Poland was under Russian control for decades, we're familiar with the scam. If there was any need for those jobs, the market would generate them, which tells me that there isn't. Now, if you tie that with the proposal of a new $15 minimum wage, an amount appropriate for a skilled worker, not an unskilled, unemployable non-worker, you're throwing the economy completely out of whack because you're devaluing labour. There's no reason why a ditch digger should make as much as a software engineer. This model is unsustainable and not realistic.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 16, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I really don't like Communist policies, there's already bad experiences with that in many countries that implemented it, and thousands died because your getting rid of your most successful productive people that keeps society and the economy going. And I think many people voted for Trump just to get back at the left and PC culture, and their equality of outcome and diversity (which to them is another way of saying equality of outcome, rather then equal opportunity).
> 
> But both the Left and Right are wrong.
> The Left believes that everyone is born equal and have equal capabilities, which means that any differences in income is due to oppression. So they are working hard to get rid all of societal environmental barriers. But they are wrong because everyone is born with different abilities and talents. Even if everything in the environment was equal it will still create inequality because people with certain inherit talents will be better at what they do compared to others that don't have that talent, and it will create unequal income.
> ...


I agree with most of what you have to say, except that I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what most people on the left stand for... which is understandable, because many people toss around the word "equality" when what they really mean is "equity". While there are a lot of... Shall we say, "blind" liberals that are incredibly short-sighted and behave basically how you say, most of us understand that people ARE different, and it is BECAUSE of that that we need to treat them differently. A good example of this would be a neurotypical vs an autistic person: if you don't adjust your engagement to treat the autist differently than you would a neurotypical (i.e. allow for them to stim, get away to "cool down" for a bit, communicate nonverbally, flap their hands to blow off steam, etc), they will most likely get (justifiably) upset. An even better example would be access to a building for someone with a wheelchair vs. someone who's abled. Equality would mean both would have to either climb stairs, because the majority of people are capable of using them, while equity recognizes the wheelchair person's disability and would provide a ramp or elevation either in place of or in addition to said stairs


Foxi4 said:


> It's government jobs paid for with taxes, therefore it's redistributionism.


You must REALLY hate where all the money for government officials comes from, then, huh?


> You're taking money away from those who pay taxes, take a bunch of people who don't have jobs and you tell them to dig holes and then fill them in to create a veneer of work.


That would be a really unproductive use of time and labor, considering that we have crumbling infrastructure that NEEDS to be repaired, the construction and reparation of which is already included in most local taxes


> Now, if you tie that with the proposal of a new $15 minimum wage, an amount appropriate for a skilled worker, not an unskilled, unemployable non-worker, you're throwing the economy completely out of whack because you're devaluing labour. There's no reason why a ditch digger should make as much as a software engineer. This model is unsustainable and not realistic.


In my experience, there's no such thing as unskilled labor, only labor in which the skillset is unappreciated. Just because a job may require little to no mental presence, for instance, doesn't mean it isn't physically demanding, and likewise in converse. I'd like to see your ditch digger try to code a website while your software engineer takes a stab at digging ditches at the same rate as they did, for example. Both will probably suck at it. (Plus, in what reality is a software engineer making only slightly more than $15/hr? If that's you, you need to demand a raise because your time is being undervalued)
Plus, I'm a bit peeved that you're tossing in the whole "if we pay the lowest wage-earners more, then they'll be making just as much as people with slightly higher wages, and that's unacceptable!" mantra, because that is EXACTLY what people with power always say to make sure that no one ever is payed more for their time, and you're just another person who's swallowed that line and is feeding it back out. You act as though placing more value on one person's job somehow takes value away from someone else's, as though value is a scarecly limited resource, but it's not; if the lowest earners are paid enough to actually feed themselves while paying rent, a few things will happen: jobs will open up, allowing for more people to enter the workforce (there are a LOT of people working two and three jobs just to get by, in my eyes that's unacceptable), wages will go up incrementally all the way up as laborers in higher positions demand wage increases and finally get that bargaining leverage, and the local economy will improve as more of the people who were just barely getting by in the lower-middle class can finally afford some non-essential niceties.

Now, I'm also no fool, I've seen how the push for $15/hr has negatively affected Seattle (although there are a lot of things that make the numbers a little questionable, such as including chain industries that have locations outside of Seattle in the study, as well as the fact that to fight paying increased benefits employers slashed hours and hired more part-time workers), but I've also seen how positively efforts are going in New York with the slow roll-out of an increase from $9 to both $12.50 and $15, depending on the area. All in all, I recognize that it absolutely has to depend on what the local cost-of-living is, and I will agree that fiscal conservatives have a lot of valid points on the matter that should be considered an allowed to collaborate with in terms of how to budget. But everyone needs to be on the same page in understanding that if someone puts in 40 hours a week, they shouldn't be struggling to get by, no matter what job they're doing


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I agree with most of what you have to say, except that I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what most people on the left stand for... which is understandable, because many people toss around the word "equality" when what they really mean is "equity". While there are a lot of... Shall we say, "blind" liberals that are incredibly short-sighted and behave basically how you say, most of us understand that people ARE different, and it is BECAUSE of that that we need to treat them differently. A good example of this would be a neurotypical vs an autistic person: if you don't adjust your engagement to treat the autist differently than you would a neurotypical (i.e. allow for them to stim, get away to "cool down" for a bit, communicate nonverbally, flap their hands to blow off steam, etc), they will most likely get (justifiably) upset. An even better example would be access to a building for someone with a wheelchair vs. someone who's abled. Equality would mean both would have to either climb stairs, because the majority of people are capable of using them, while equity recognizes the wheelchair person's disability and would provide a ramp or elevation either in place of or in addition to said stairs
> 
> You must REALLY hate where all the money for government officials comes from, then, huh?
> 
> ...


By introducing a bunch of labourers who work for the money sourced by taxing other labourers you are effectively depressing wages because it necessitates an increase in taxation and introduces a whole bunch of new employees who will displace others as the cost of their employment is zero, if not negative altogether. Contracts that were previously fulfilled by private industry will now be fulfilled internally, which leads to lay-offs, which leads to more unemployed people, which leads to higher taxes. It's a surefire way to destroy the economy. If you don't like what happened in Seattle, you haven't seen anything yet. A wage should reflect the demand for a particular job to be done, if there is no demand and you compound that with elevating wages, the value of the currency depreciates because you're creating labour nobody asked for. It's a stupid idea, if it wasn't, communist states like Cuba or Venezuela would be superpowers.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 16, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> If there was any need for those jobs, the market would generate them, which tells me that there isn't.


That's not the way things work unfortunately.  Our infrastructure rates at Ds and Fs across pretty much all of America, but there are no market forces pushing for a massive nationwide renewal project.  The "free market" only cares up to a certain point about anything, because it's all about making money for the people at the top, not providing basic needs and upkeep.  You've got to have a government that actually cares about its own people for that, unlike our current one.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 16, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That's not the way things work unfortunately.  Our infrastructure rates at Ds and Fs across pretty much all of America, but there are no market forces pushing for a massive nationwide renewal project.  The "free market" only cares up to a certain point about anything, because it's all about making money for the people at the top, not providing basic needs and upkeep.  You've got to have a government that actually cares about its own people for that, unlike our current one.


Total nonsense. The more you intervene in the free market the less efficient the economy is. The market is driven by consumers, not "the guys at the top", if there's no demand then that's that.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 16, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I agree with most of what you have to say, except that I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what most people on the left stand for... which is understandable, because many people toss around the word "equality" when what they really mean is "equity". While there are a lot of... Shall we say, "blind" liberals that are incredibly short-sighted and behave basically how you say, most of us understand that people ARE different, and it is BECAUSE of that that we need to treat them differently. A good example of this would be a neurotypical vs an autistic person: if you don't adjust your engagement to treat the autist differently than you would a neurotypical (i.e. allow for them to stim, get away to "cool down" for a bit, communicate nonverbally, flap their hands to blow off steam, etc), they will most likely get (justifiably) upset. An even better example would be access to a building for someone with a wheelchair vs. someone who's abled. Equality would mean both would have to either climb stairs, because the majority of people are capable of using them, while equity recognizes the wheelchair person's disability and would provide a ramp or elevation either in place of or in addition to said stairs
> 
> You must REALLY hate where all the money for government officials comes from, then, huh?
> 
> ...


Ya, of course there is different extremes to the left. And I do know that not all of them believe in equality of outcome. I was mostly referring to extreme ends.

But a scary statistic is in the United States is that it is illegal to have anyone in the Army that has less than an IQ of 83. Because they say there is nothing they can do for that person to teach them to follow instructions properly, and transform them think quick on their feet when they are alone to solve problems on the battlefield. These people can't be trained to be useful and are a detriment to the Army.

People with less then 85 IQ is around 16% of the population, 51 million people. These people are not smart enough to go to or finish graduate school, and they are not going to find a stable job that pays a livable wage. And people that has worked with low 80 IQ people say that its very hard to train them and for them to hold a job. And the fact that we are moving from doing jobs physically ourselves (these jobs disappearing), to having machines do them for us, and newer jobs requiring to interact with complex machines and increasingly complex tasks, means these people finding a good job and moving out of the poverty line is going to be far beyond their ability.

So its not just a Wheel Chair person that needs help. IQ is a good predictor of long term success and wages. And IQ can be measured more accurately than anything else in social sciences. And you can be sure scientists test every type of variable they can think of, education quality, environment quality, twin studies, people from lower class adopted to rich upper class, head start programs, random ticket studies, and they couldn't increase IQ, it mostly remains unchanged. Also certain races have higher IQ then others, evolution did not stop once we became Homo Sapiens. 

This is a problem we're going to have to figure out on how to incorporate these people in a changing society. Wealth inequality and helping people move out of the poverty line is much tougher than we know, and destroying societal oppression barriers, or telling them to work harder to succeed won't solve the problem.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 16, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Ya, of course there is different extremes to the left. And I do know that not all of them believe in equality of outcome. I was mostly referring to extreme ends.
> 
> But a scary statistic is in the United States is that it is illegal to have anyone in the Army that has less than an IQ of 83. Because they say there is nothing they can do for that person to teach them to follow instructions properly, and transform them think quick on their feet when they are alone to solve problems on the battlefield. These people can't be trained to be useful and are a detriment to the Army.
> 
> ...


Negative Income Tax. That, and we need to reintroduce jobs for low-skilled workers who can't really do any complex tasks, not even at an assembly line. I listened to a story of one of those low IQ people working with his therapist to find employment and it was heartbreaking. He was sorting mail, but it was just too much for him.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 17, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Total nonsense. The more you intervene in the free market the less efficient the economy is. The market is driven by consumers, not "the guys at the top", if there's no demand then that's that.


My point was that the free market isn't some sort of benevolent god like you're making it out to be.  It serves its purpose, but that purpose is limited in scope.  You can't tell me with a straight face that there's no demand placed on our infrastructure on a daily basis.  The demand is there, you're still not going to see the free market do dick about it.  The free market doesn't provide social security or disability assistance, either.  The free market isn't concerned with anyone's well being, it's as simple as that.  That's why I can't take anybody seriously who believes "free market" is a solution to any of our country's modern problems.  If it was, they wouldn't be problems in the first place.

Oh, and as a side note: Trump's tariffs are fairly damaging to the market, so I guess he doesn't believe in letting it do its own thing.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 17, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Negative Income Tax.


Could you explain that concept? To me that sounds like welfare, but somehow I doubt that's what you're talking about


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> My point was that the free market isn't some sort of benevolent god like you're making it out to be.  It serves its purpose, but that purpose is limited in scope.  You can't tell me with a straight face that there's no demand placed on our infrastructure on a daily basis.  The demand is there, you're still not going to see the free market do dick about it.  The free market doesn't provide social security or disability assistance, either.  The free market isn't concerned with anyone's well being, it's as simple as that.  That's why I can't take anybody seriously who believes "free market" is a solution to any of our country's modern problems.  If it was, they wouldn't be problems in the first place.
> 
> Oh, and as a side note: Trump's tariffs are fairly damaging to the market, so I guess he doesn't believe in letting it do its own thing.


Who's in charge of the roads, Xzi? The infrastructure you're constantly complaining about is not in the hands of private industry, it's in the hands of the state. If it's in bad shape, that's the fault of the state, not private industry. Speaking of private industry...

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...es-road-repair-potholes-paving-infrastructure

The free market provides all of the things you mentioned via construction companies, private insurance companies and private clinics. The core concern of the free market is the customer because dead customers don't have a tendency to spend money.

PS: I'm against tariffs unless they're used in a trade war for moral or economic reasons (forcing a country to reduce another tariff or tax, for instance). Ideally countries shouldn't be involved in private trade at all.


TotalInsanity4 said:


> Could you explain that concept? To me that sounds like welfare, but somehow I doubt that's what you're talking about


It is and it isn't. A negative income tax explained in one sentence is a minimum amount of money that a person must have after tax. It's not an ideal solution, but it addresses the call for universal income and eliminates welfare. I would prefer if it supplemented income after tax rather than just give people money for nothing, but I can't have everything I want, right? The point is reduction of waste and useless departments, it streamlines the welfare system to one form - your tax return. If you didn't earn enough after tax, you get supplemented. Watch some Milton Friedman, he explains the idea well.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 17, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> It is and it isn't. A negative income tax explained in one sentence is a minimum amount of money that a person must have after tax. It's not an ideal solution, but it addresses the call for universal income and eliminates welfare. I would prefer if it supplemented income after tax rather than just give people money for nothing, but I can't have everything I want, right? The point is reduction of waste and useless departments, it streamlines the welfare system to one form - your tax return. If you didn't earn enough after tax, you get supplemented. Watch some Milton Friedman, he explains the idea well.


So... Wait, seriously? You're in favor of what's effectively a supplemental UBI?


----------



## Xzi (Jul 17, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Who's in charge of the roads, Xzi? The infrastructure you're constantly complaining about is not in the hands of private industry, it's in the hands of the state.


Private construction companies are the ones who have to fix/maintain our infrastructure, but first they have to be given an incentive (contract) by the state/federal government.  Just one of several examples where the free market is insufficient and would rather skate by on the bare minimum.

Kinda getting back on topic though: what a joke Trump's summit with Putin was.  Even some right-wing media is bashing him for that pathetic display of submissiveness.  As they should.  He looked weak and he blamed America for everything.  A few random articles on the matter:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/07/17/trump-is-colluding-with-russia-right-in-front-of-our-eyes/

https://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2018/07/southeast_ohio_republican_part.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/opinion/trump-putin-summit-russia-collusion.html

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-that-was-treason-donald-trump-we-all-saw-it/



TotalInsanity4 said:


> So... Wait, seriously? You're in favor of what's effectively a supplemental UBI?


At some point in the near future a UBI will be all but required.  Automation is going to take over some of the biggest employment industries in the US.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So... Wait, seriously? You're in favor of what's effectively a supplemental UBI?


It's not the same thing at all, it's more like a bitter pill you have to swallow because ultimately some people just can't work - they're not lazy, they just can't keep up for whatever reason.


Xzi said:


> Private construction companies are the ones who have to fix/maintain our infrastructure, but first they have to be given an incentive (contract) by the state/federal government.  Just one of several examples where the free market is insufficient and would rather skate by on the bare minimum.
> 
> Kinda getting back on topic though: what a joke Trump's summit with Putin was.  Even some right-wing media is bashing him for that pathetic display of submissiveness.  As they should.  He looked weak and he blamed America for everything.  A few random articles on the matter:
> 
> ...


This is a problem exclusive to public roads, private toll roads are doing perfectly fine.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 17, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> It's government jobs paid for with taxes, therefore it's redistributionism. You're taking money away from those who pay taxes, take a bunch of people who don't have jobs and you tell them to dig holes and then fill them in to create a veneer of work. These kinds of policies are straight from the U.S.S.R playbook, I should know, Poland was under Russian control for decades, we're familiar with the scam. If there was any need for those jobs, the market would generate them, which tells me that there isn't. Now, if you tie that with the proposal of a new $15 minimum wage, an amount appropriate for a skilled worker, not an unskilled, unemployable non-worker, you're throwing the economy completely out of whack because you're devaluing labour. There's no reason why a ditch digger should make as much as a software engineer. This model is unsustainable and not realistic.


Taxes are going be collected one way or another. The goal should be used the taxes as efficiently as possible.

Pointless jobs, is one of the reasons why I think job guaranteed is a bad idea. How many meaningful jobs can the government give while competing with private companies and the growing use of automation?

Still doesn't sound like communism, anymore than negative income tax does. Just one is way more inefficient than the other.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> In my experience, there's no such thing as unskilled labor, only labor in which the skillset is unappreciated. Just because a job may require little to no mental presence, for instance, doesn't mean it isn't physically demanding, and likewise in converse. I'd like to see your ditch digger try to code a website while your software engineer takes a stab at digging ditches at the same rate as they did, for example. Both will probably suck at it. (Plus, in what reality is a software engineer making only slightly more than $15/hr? If that's you, you need to demand a raise because your time is being undervalued)
> 
> Plus, I'm a bit peeved that you're tossing in the whole "if we pay the lowest wage-earners more, then they'll be making just as much as people with slightly higher wages, and that's unacceptable!" mantra, because that is EXACTLY what people with power always say to make sure that no one ever is payed more for their time, and you're just another person who's swallowed that line and is feeding it back out. You act as though placing more value on one person's job somehow takes value away from someone else's, as though value is a scarecly limited resource, but it's not; if the lowest earners are paid enough to actually feed themselves while paying rent, a few things will happen: jobs will open up, allowing for more people to enter the workforce (there are a LOT of people working two and three jobs just to get by, in my eyes that's unacceptable), wages will go up incrementally all the way up as laborers in higher positions demand wage increases and finally get that bargaining leverage, and the local economy will improve as more of the people who were just barely getting by in the lower-middle class can finally afford some non-essential niceties.


Couldn't have said this better myself.



Foxi4 said:


> By introducing a bunch of labourers who work for the money sourced by taxing other labourers you are effectively depressing wages because it necessitates an increase in taxation and introduces a whole bunch of new employees who will displace others as the cost of their employment is zero, if not negative altogether. Contracts that were previously fulfilled by private industry will now be fulfilled internally, which leads to lay-offs, which leads to more unemployed people, which leads to higher taxes. It's a surefire way to destroy the economy. If you don't like what happened in Seattle, you haven't seen anything yet. A wage should reflect the demand for a particular job to be done, if there is no demand and you compound that with elevating wages, the value of the currency depreciates because you're creating labour nobody asked for. It's a stupid idea, if it wasn't, communist states like Cuba or Venezuela would be superpowers.


As for taxing, wouldn't it tax everyone not just the laborers? Job guaranteed isn't stopping private companies from employing people. Why would that cause companies to suddenly not employ people, let alone layoffs because of it?



Foxi4 said:


> we need to reintroduce jobs for low-skilled workers


Who's going to provide them? In other words, where's the demand? You surely don't want the governments to do it and I'm sure companies are just going to do more automation as time goes on.



Foxi4 said:


> It is and it isn't. A negative income tax explained in one sentence is a minimum amount of money that a person must have after tax. It's not an ideal solution, but it addresses the call for universal income and eliminates welfare. I would prefer if it supplemented income after tax rather than just give people money for nothing, but I can't have everything I want, right? The point is reduction of waste and useless departments, it streamlines the welfare system to one form - your tax return. If you didn't earn enough after tax, you get supplemented. Watch some Milton Friedman, he explains the idea well.


Seems to be a roundabout and more bureaucratic way to do basic income. Not to mention, unlike NIT, basic income doesn't, at least not directly, take money from you if you decide to work. 

I doubt basic income or NIT will get rid of all welfare. Probably most, but not all.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Taxes are going be collected one way or another. The goal should be used the taxes as efficiently as possible.
> 
> Pointless jobs, is one of the reasons why I think job guaranteed is a bad idea. How many meaningful jobs can the government give while competing with private companies and the growing use of automation?
> 
> ...


More bureaucratic? It eliminates all other forms of welfare or subsidy and relies on one form that you have to file either way - it's the most efficient way of doing a bad thing overall. As for demand, there's plenty of it, we just need to get rid of many regulations and the minimum wage. No shortage of factory jobs in China, what are they doing that we aren't?


----------



## Xzi (Jul 17, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> This is a problem exclusive to public roads, private toll roads are doing perfectly fine.


They're also not built to handle the kind of traffic that public roads see, and they're only available in small stretches across the country.  It's also a ridiculous concept because businesses already make money via transportation on public roadways, and the entire free market would come to a halt if just a few major interstate highways collapsed.  Additionally, we already pay taxes for this purpose, private toll roads are just charging you a second time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> They're also not built to handle the kind of traffic that public roads see, and they're only available in small stretches across the country.  It's also a ridiculous concept because businesses already make money via transportation on public roadways, and the entire free market would come to a halt if just a few major interstate highways collapsed.  Additionally, we already pay taxes for this purpose, private toll roads are just charging you a second time.


I can assure you that roads came before the government, but that's a nuanced conversation that's irrelevant to the subject at hand. "Large corporations" are the ones that pay the most for roads because they have fleets of gigantic trucks to transport their goods which are exceedingly highly taxed, plus they go through fuel like no tomorrow. Roads are financed by intra and interstate commerce, not by you - your tax contribution is inconcievably small in comparison.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 17, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> More bureaucratic? It eliminates all other forms of welfare or subsidy and relies on one form that you have to file either way - it's the most efficient way of doing a bad thing overall. As for demand, there's plenty of it, we just need to get rid of many regulations and the minimum wage. No shortage of factory jobs in China, what are they doing that we aren't?


I mean, how is negative income tax anymore efficient than just giving people a basic income that's not based on anything? 

Sure, basic income or NIT would lessen the need for high minimum wages, such as $15, but I think getting rid of the minimum wage is a bit too much. Those factory jobs are also becoming more automated. Sweatshops and suicide nets?


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I mean, how is negative income tax anymore efficient than just giving people a basic income that's not based on anything?
> 
> Sure, basic income or NIT would lessen the need for high minimum wages, such as $15, but I think getting rid of the minimum wage is a bit too much. Those factory jobs are also becoming more automated. Sweatshops and suicide nets?


Lower wages allow private enterprise to reduce outsourcing and off-shoring as well as increase hiring new employees and the creation of new facilities, this in turn increases demand for workers, and that higher demand stimulates wages. Rising wages artificially deflates the economy. Instead, you can run a healthy economy and supplement the few wages that need to be supplemented. That way you're not hitting the private enterprise and maintain growth.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 17, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> I can assure you that roads came before the government, but that's a nuanced conversation that's irrelevant to the subject at hand.


That's kind of debatable, considering public highways date back to at least ancient Rome


----------



## Xzi (Jul 17, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> "Large corporations" are the ones that pay the most for roads because they have fleets of gigantic trucks to transport their goods which are exceedingly highly taxed, plus they go through fuel like no tomorrow. Roads are financed by intra and interstate commerce, not by you - your tax contribution is inconcievably small in comparison.


Regardless, we're all paying into it and we're not seeing any results from that.  If the free market was so great, it would take care of our infrastructure for us instead of relying on the government to hand out contracts before anything gets done.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Regardless, we're all paying into it and we're not seeing any results from that.  If the free market was so great, it would take care of our infrastructure for us instead of relying on the government to hand out contracts before anything gets done.


And before anyone has the chance to use the Domino's example again, I'm going to butt in and point out that it's far from a perfect solution, considering a) they're not doing it everywhere, it's a PR stunt that will only select a handful of submitted locations, as per the fine print, and b) they're using money that they wouldn't have had had they been paying corporate taxes, which arguably could have been used to repave more roads due to larger contract opportunities than what they're doing effectively for publicity


----------



## Xzi (Jul 17, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> And before anyone has the chance to use the Domino's example again, I'm going to butt in and point out that it's far from a perfect solution, considering a) they're not doing it everywhere, it's a PR stunt that will only select a handful of submitted locations, as per the fine print, and b) they're using money that they wouldn't have had had they been paying corporate taxes, which arguably could have been used to repave more roads due to larger contract opportunities than what they're doing effectively for publicity


Exactly.  Potholes are not nearly as big a concern as collapsing bridges or washed out roadways, either.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Regardless, we're all paying into it and we're not seeing any results from that.  If the free market was so great, it would take care of our infrastructure for us instead of relying on the government to hand out contracts before anything gets done.


Because the free market relies on consensual transactions. Infrastructure is under the jurisdiction of the government, so unless the government hires a contractor to (re)build infrastructure, the contractor can't build anything because there's no contract and no profit. What you're telling me is that you're paying road tax and the roads still suck, which is further evidence that the government sucks at everything.


TotalInsanity4 said:


> And before anyone has the chance to use the Domino's example again, I'm going to butt in and point out that it's far from a perfect solution, considering a) they're not doing it everywhere, it's a PR stunt that will only select a handful of submitted locations, as per the fine print, and b) they're using money that they wouldn't have had had they been paying corporate taxes, which arguably could have been used to repave more roads due to larger contract opportunities than what they're doing effectively for publicity


It's literally a joke example, the real example provided is a toll road. More often than not they're infinitely better than public roads because they're designed to be self-sustainable. Public roads are not, public roads are designed to get you from point A to point B, and as long as they are fit for that purpose, the government is perfectly happy.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's kind of debatable, considering public highways date back to at least ancient Rome


Are you in earnest telling me that people have never traveled before a government told them they could? Because that's turbo-silly.



KingVamp said:


> I mean, how is negative income tax anymore efficient than just giving people a basic income that's not based on anything?
> 
> Sure, basic income or NIT would lessen the need for high minimum wages, such as $15, but I think getting rid of the minimum wage is a bit too much. Those factory jobs are also becoming more automated. Sweatshops and suicide nets?


It's more efficient in every single way possible, from administrative costs to the so-called "perverse incentives" problem the current welfare system has.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 17, 2018)

So I’ve avoided this section of Temp for obvious reasons, but now I just gotta come in and ask if we’re gonna address the elephant in the room. 

That press conference was an utter disaster. It was so bad, even Newt Gingrich came out and said it was bad. Now President Trump is backtracking his comments and I have to say, it still looks bad if not worse. Wtf was that shitshow?!?


----------



## Xzi (Jul 17, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> What you're telling me is that you're paying road tax and the roads still suck, which is further evidence that the government sucks at everything.


Yes, under Republicans it really does.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Yes, under Republicans it really does.


This is a non-partisan issue - the government sucks at everything under any administration and thus, logically, we should minimise the size and scope of it down to the functions that are absolutely necessary for the operation of the country, such as national defense, the police force and so on and so forth. It's the degree to which we need to cut down/expand that's the issue between the two sides.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Yes, under Republicans it really does.



Let's be honest here, neither parties aren't without asshole politicians in power. We need a third party that actually makes a difference.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Let's be honest here, neither parties aren't without asshole politicians in power. We need a third party that actually makes a difference.


If the government was small and had relatively little control over the private lives of citizens, the issue of a federal election would be almost non-existent as people would be more concerned with states' rights. You can feasibly move from a liberal state to a conservative state or vice versa, you can't feasibly move out of the United States and into another country without basically restarting your entire life and incurring massive costs. You have freedom of travel between states, you have no such freedom abroad - you're either accepted or you're not which introduces an externality - the government of the other country.


----------



## the_randomizer (Jul 17, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> If the government was small and had relatively little control over the private lives of citizens, the issue of a federal election would be almost non-existent as people would be more concerned with states' rights. You can feasibly move from a liberal state to a conservative state or vice versa, you can't feasibly move out of the United States and into another country without basically restarting your entire life and incurring massive costs. You have freedom of travel between states, you have no such freedom abroad - you're either accepted or you're not which introduces an externality - the government of the other country.



Unfortunately, no government will ever be prefect; all are FUBAR in some way.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 17, 2018)

the_randomizer said:


> Unfortunately, no government will ever be prefect; all are FUBAR in some way.


Exactly, which is another reason why it should be small. A small f*ck-up can be rectified, a big f*ck-up is unsolvable without further growth. Just look at social security - it's going to be (predictably) insolvent in the foreseeable future.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 18, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Are you in earnest telling me that people have never traveled before a government told them they could? Because that's turbo-silly.


That's not what I meant, and definitely not what I think you were meaning either. I'm talking specifically of paved roads that are maintained over any measurable period of time, rather than just paths that people followed due to migration. You said it's offtopic, I agree, but I what I was trying to do was demonstrate that paved trade routes that are built and maintained using tax money date back quite literally millennia. The problem we're having right now is that our government seems to just... Not care, I guess? about maintaining out infrastructure. Which doesn't (necessarily) indicate a failure of government, it just indicates a failure of elected officials


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 18, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's not what I meant, and definitely not what I think you were meaning either. I'm talking specifically of paved roads that are maintained over any measurable period of time, rather than just paths that people followed due to migration. You said it's offtopic, I agree, but I what I was trying to do was demonstrate that paved trade routes that are built and maintained using tax money date back quite literally millennia. The problem we're having right now is that our government seems to just... Not care, I guess? about maintaining out infrastructure. Which doesn't (necessarily) indicate a failure of government, it just indicates a failure of elected officials


That's because the government doesn't particularly "care" about anything, the government isn't a person. An individual can care about something, a government is just a system, systems don't care. People care, thus people should elect representatives who actually represent their interests. Ideally it shouldn't be something the federal government handles at all, this is a matter for individual state governments, or in the case of interstate roads, a matter of making a deal between two states that's mutually beneficial. Your local representative might care about the road outside your house because he lives on the same block, if you think anyone in DC cares about whether you can get to work on time, you are mistaken. Politics have become terribly impersonal and liability is far too diluted to truly hold anyone accountable for anything. Failure of elected officials can only go so far though, often times things can't change because the regulations and requirements surrounding a project are so huge that it's just not worth the effort. The fence outside my house is a perfect example - I have ample room on my property to park my car, but I can't because there's a crossing about a meter or two further down the road. I can't knock down my own fence that stands on my own property to park my own car because the crossing is "too close" according to some ridiculous safety requirement. Now, at no point during entering or exiting the property do I even come close to the crossing, but we all have to pretend that we're stupid because a book said so. This affects multiple residents, too. The council has decided that it is more prudent to tell everyone to park half-way on the pavement, take up space reserved for pedestrians and create a narrow sphere of slowness on the road instead of letting people park on their yards, and all to no benefit in terms of safety since now the cars are even closer to the pedestrians than they would otherwise. The only way to fix this issue and satisfy the requirement is to move the crossing and its set of lights, and that's just too expensive.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 18, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> This is a non-partisan issue - the government sucks at everything under any administration


It is a partisan issue unfortunately.  Obama had the stimulus package which included infrastructure spending and funded many projects in my home state.  I don't expect Trump really gives a damn enough to push for the same, even though he also promised a large-scale infrastructure plan.



the_randomizer said:


> Let's be honest here, neither parties aren't without asshole politicians in power. We need a third party that actually makes a difference.


We need several more political parties, but I wonder if this country would be smart enough to handle that, given most people aren't even willing to do research on two candidates.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 18, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It is a partisan issue unfortunately.  Obama had the stimulus package which included infrastructure spending and funded many projects in my home state.  I don't expect Trump really gives a damn enough to push for the same, even though he also promised a large-scale infrastructure plan.
> 
> 
> We need several more political parties, but I wonder if this country would be smart enough to handle that, given most people aren't even willing to do research on two candidates.


>Implying that the stimulus package was a good thing, or that it was effective.

Okay. I mean, you're free to have an opinion.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 18, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> >Implying that the stimulus package was a good thing, or that it was effective.
> 
> Okay. I mean, you're free to have an opinion.


When people can see what effect legislation like that has in real-time, it's hard to pull the wool over their eyes and convince them it's a bad thing.  Naturally, a lot of states with Republican governors didn't see the same effects, as those governors turned down federal assistance as a political stunt.  States like Kansas basically never came out of the '08 recession because of it.


----------



## brickmii82 (Jul 18, 2018)

Xzi said:


> When people can see what effect legislation like that has in real-time, it's hard to pull the wool over their eyes and convince them it's a bad thing.  Naturally, a lot of states with Republican governors didn't see the same effects, as those governors turned down federal assistance as a political stunt.  States like Kansas basically never came out of the '08 recession because of it.


Numbers disagree.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/KSNGSP

https://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/kansas/

Looks like Kansas rebounded just fine. As did everyone else regardless. America is strong. Now back to my previous point ... He kinda just threw all of Americas intelligence community under the bus.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 18, 2018)

Xzi said:


> When people can see what effect legislation like that has in real-time, it's hard to pull the wool over their eyes and convince them it's a bad thing.  Naturally, a lot of states with Republican governors didn't see the same effects, as those governors turned down federal assistance as a political stunt.  States like Kansas basically never came out of the '08 recession because of it.


Don't argue with me, argue with Forbes and with most economists, see post above. The stimulus package burned through money with little return.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 18, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> Numbers disagree.
> 
> https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/KSNGSP
> 
> ...


Looking at it on its own it's fine, looking at it compared to the growth and recovery of other states, it was extremely stagnant.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltwa...ut-experiment-crashes-and-burns/#37b646215508



> Since Kansas enacted tax and spending cuts in 2012 and 2013, Brownback and his allies have argued that this fiscal potion would generate an explosion of economic growth. It didn’t. Overall growth and job creation in Kansas underperformed both the national economy and neighboring states. From January, 2014 (after both tax cuts passed) to April, 2017, Kansas gained only 28,000 net new non-farm jobs. By contrast, Nebraska, an economically similar state with a much smaller labor force, saw a net increase of 35,000 jobs.



http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...cuts-brownback-california-20170622-story.html



> The Republican-held Legislature had to override a veto by the governor to pass the emergency tax increase, now crucial to prevent deep budget cuts for schools and other essential public services. Kansas embarked on its trickle-down experiment in 2012. Brownback slashed taxes across the board, calling his plan "a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy." Five years later, the state's economy is on life support, and government expenses are expected to outpace income by $1.1 billion through June 2019.



In other words, they've been broke since '08 and they're still broke to this day because of Brownback's policies.  Even his own party had to turn on him eventually to keep things from getting worse.



Foxi4 said:


> Don't argue with me, argue with Forbes and with most economists, see post above. The stimulus package burned through money with little return.


I don't remember being in a recession any more after Obama's first term, so there must've been some return there.  Now under Trump we're back to the same type of policies that put us in a recession in the first place.  A little worse actually, because at the very least GWB wasn't stupid enough to start a trade war with our allies.



brickmii82 said:


> Now back to my previous point ... He kinda just threw all of Americas intelligence community under the bus.


He threw America as a whole under the bus.  Trump blamed us for bad relations with Russia when they've been one of the worst human rights abusers for decades.  He looked like a weak sniveling bitchboy next to Putin, which is exactly what he is.  Should've called this summit "Capitulation Fest '18."  It's the same deal with any dictator he meets, which is why Trump came away with nothing after meeting with Kim Jong Un.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 18, 2018)

As for toll roads. Yeah, no. Rather not have more toll roads than there already are.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 18, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Negative Income Tax. That, and we need to reintroduce jobs for low-skilled workers who can't really do any complex tasks, not even at an assembly line. I listened to a story of one of those low IQ people working with his therapist to find employment and it was heartbreaking. He was sorting mail, but it was just too much for him.


For some reason I didn't get a notification of your reply to me. Sometimes GBAtemp doesn't work right and I end up missing lots of comments.

Dr. Peterson talks about this in good detail. There are no jobs for people with less than 87 IQ. Even McDonalds is complex enough to require a higher than 87 IQ. And people in the low IQ range have a hard time finding work they are capable of doing, end up becoming depressed, develop physical pain problems because physical pain and depression are linked together, and end up going on Anti Depressants. Low end jobs are disappearing and not many people are talking about creating simple jobs they can do so they can at least contribute to society, rather than be on welfare. But Is there any jobs we can create that they can easily do and is useful to society?

Of course you have groups of people that deny IQ is a thing. But the testing methods for IQ was one of the first developed and is the same methods the entire psychology field uses. And IQ gives more accurate results and anything else. So what does that tell you if someone claims IQ research is bullshit, and everything else uses those same methods and produce less accurate results than IQ, does that mean the entire psychology field is bullshit. Is research in Depression, Homosexuality, Aspergers all bullshit then. So avoid going to a therapist because its bullshit. Should we then throw out all of psychology.

IQ measures fluid intelligence not crystalized intelligence. Fluid intelligence is your ability to abstract and problem solve. Crystallized intelligence is all the knowledge you accumulated through schooling and learning. So IQ tests like the Ravens Progressive Matrices tests your raw processing power and not your knowledge. And can be used regardless of culture and language. So not amount of studying or training will raise your IQ.

This is important to know especially since 16% of the population has less than 85 IQ because its a bell curve. And their lack of doing well and getting into good careers is not their fault or laziness. So we are going to have to create jobs they can do or they'll be stuck on welfare. If we get rid of welfare or reduce it, then they are going to have a hard time and be stuck on anti depressants. If society can't accept that IQ is a thing then people are not going to get to the core problem.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 18, 2018)

SG854 said:


> This is important to know especially since 16% of the population has less than 85 IQ because its a bell curve. And their lack of doing well and getting into good careers is not their fault or laziness. So we are going to have to create jobs they can do or they'll be stuck on welfare. If we get rid of welfare or reduce it, then they are going to have a hard time and be stuck on anti depressants. If we can't accept that IQ is a thing then people are not going to get to the core problem.


We need a universal basic income, it comes down to that.  Most of us are going to be out of work from automation soon, not just those below a certain IQ.  Unfortunately, even as we're being put out of work by robots I'm sure there will be those voices screaming "moochers" at anyone who advocates for a UBI.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 18, 2018)

Xzi said:


> We need a universal basic income, it comes down to that.  Most of us are going to be out of work from automation soon, not just those below a certain IQ.  Unfortunately, even as we're being put out of work by robots I'm sure there will be those voices screaming "moochers" at anyone who advocates for a UBI.


That's until their jobs are takeover by robots as well.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 18, 2018)

Xzi said:


> We need a universal basic income, it comes down to that.  Most of us are going to be out of work from automation soon, not just those below a certain IQ.  Unfortunately, even as we're being put out of work by robots I'm sure there will be those voices screaming "moochers" at anyone who advocates for a UBI.


That only fixes the problem of McDonalds workers. Not people on the low end of the intelligence scale. What about people not capable of doing a good job working at McDonalds. We are going to have to create easy jobs for them. Or else that's more money in to welfare to take care of them.
The Biggest employment for men is drivers. Uber and Taxi driver. Tesla right now is working on self driving cars and its going to put a lot of men out of employment. So unless you have high intellegence you are going to have a hard time in the future.

If you are interested IQ, Dr. Jordan Peterson (he's a clinical psychologist) has a free around 2 Hour Lecture on IQ and personality traits here.
And an interview with Peterson and Dr. Richard Haier (who is a Neuroscientist) here.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 18, 2018)

SG854 said:


> That only fixes the problem of McDonalds workers. Not people on the low end of the intelligence scale. What about people not capable of doing a good job working at McDonalds.


No, you misunderstand.  We need a UBI for all American citizens paid for by a tax on automation.



SG854 said:


> The Biggest employment for men is drivers. Uber and Taxi driver. Tesla right now is working on self driving cars and its going to put a lot of men out of employment. So unless you have high intellegence you are going to have a hard time in the future.


It's not always about intelligence but often about resources required to seek higher education.  Regardless, food service jobs, transportation jobs, warehouse jobs, retail and grocery store jobs, and more are all at risk for automation.  These make up a good 60% - 70% of America's jobs in total, and without the grunts to manage, there'd be no need for more than a skeleton crew at the top of these companies, either.  Of course, without a UBI, there would be nobody buying their products and the economy would collapse, so yeah.


----------



## hoist20032002 (Jul 18, 2018)

I was born into a democrat family and was raised as one, lived as a republican, protested as a liberal (not an ignorant leftist) and now I'm a moderate/independant. Seeing both the left and the right acting like children throwing hissy fits and throwing out double standards every which way possible..It's so annoying when people in this country fight for their political figures but will be against the other side when there's again, double stanards. NO POLITICIAN CARES ANY ANY OF US! So everyone that is pro-tRump, pro-Oblama, pro-shitlary and the ones against them, do you really think that they give a rats ass about any of you? There's #NoHopeForHumanity ... 

Also, what about george bush sr, hillbilly clinton, w bush, obama and others the even worked for the gov or ran for the presidency? people think theyre so innocent? haaaaa! I say when they get rid of trump, the rest should be locked up too. unless a bunch of morons want to do the double standard crap as always


----------



## Xzi (Jul 18, 2018)

hoist20032002 said:


> I was born into a democrat family and was raised as one, lived as a republican, protested as a liberal (not an ignorant leftist) and now I'm a moderate/independant. Seeing both the left and the right acting like children throwing hissy fits and throwing out double standards every which way possible..It's so annoying when people in this country fight for their political figures but will be against the other side when there's again, double stanards. NO POLITICIAN CARES ANY ANY OF US! So everyone that is pro-tRump, pro-Oblama, pro-shitlary and the ones against them, do you really think that they give a rats ass about any of you? There's #NoHopeForHumanity ...
> 
> Also, what about george bush sr, hillbilly clinton, w bush, obama and others the even worked for the gov or ran for the presidency? people think theyre so innocent? haaaaa! I say when they get rid of trump, the rest should be locked up too. unless a bunch of morons want to do the double standard crap as always


This is a whole lot of equivocation, but at the end of the day, no other president you mentioned has been so publicly corrupt as Trump.  You have to go back to Nixon for a valid comparison.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 19, 2018)

The question of low IQ and NIT/UBI is very simple, you as an intelligent person must make a valued judgement whether it is better that your burger is made by someone with an IQ of 85 or less or if it's better to just give them money. It's not going to be a very good burger, that's what it comes down to, really. The issue with that is that work does bring a degree of happiness and fulfillment, so I wouldn't necessarily use IQ as a factor in hiring - it's an immutable characteristic, that's simply illegal. You have to let those people have their dreams and work on building competence - they're still capable of learning, they just need to put an extraordinary level of effort in order to reach any results at all. It's not fair to deny them a career path, but we must expect that, sadly, most will fail, and we need a contingency plan. As far as automation is concerned, I'm not worried. The landscape is constantly evolving and the concerns we hear now about drivers are the same concerns we heard from the same drivers driving horse carriages a over century ago. Humanity adapts and new jobs appear all the time, just the invention of the Internet opened a whole new space for new industries, particularly in retail and entertainment. People will shift to more creative roles, there's always demand for new products.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 19, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> As far as automation is concerned, I'm not worried. The landscape is constantly evolving and the concerns we hear now about drivers are the same concerns we heard from the same drivers driving horse carriages a over century ago. Humanity adapts and new jobs appear all the time, just the invention of the Internet opened a whole new space for new industries, particularly in retail and entertainment. People will shift to more creative roles, there's always demand for new products.


I know I can't predict the future, but I really don't think the Industrial Age is comparable to the "Automation Age". This isn't changing how people work, it is taking people out of work altogether. Not saying every job will be take over anytime soon. Not everyone wants or going to automated and people like human interactions, but a huge amount of low skill, labor and even desk jobs will be gone and I doubt they will be largely replace.

More competition in entertainment and creative roles will be nice for us. Not so much for people trying to get and be successful at those jobs. That is, if they even have the skills for them. All this is in the context of people working for a living.

Of course UBI/NIT makes this all moot. People will be able to do jobs and try things, that don't necessarily needs to provide them with a living.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 19, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I know I can't predict the future, but I really don't think the Industrial Age is comparable to the "Automation Age". This isn't changing how people work, it is taking people out of work altogether. Not saying every job will be take over anytime soon. Not everyone wants or going to automated and people like human interactions, but a huge amount of low skill, labor and even desk jobs will be gone and I doubt they will be largely replace.
> 
> More competition in entertainment and creative roles will be nice for us. Not so much for people trying to get and be successful at those jobs. That is, if they even have the skills for them. All this is in the context of people working for a living.
> 
> Of course UBI/NIT makes this all moot. People will be able to do jobs and try things, that don't necessarily needs to provide them with a living.


It is precisely the same. Prior to the Industrial Age 75% of the world's population was actively engaged in agriculture, the remaining 25% were various craftsmen, with a small fraction being the nobility. Contemporarily it's 2.2% thanks to mechanised farming. Are we suffering from 72% unemployment rates? No, people moved to the city and picked up different trades. This is literally no different, except instead of working in factories, people will pick up different occupations. The Internet space allows people who were formerly unemployable to make a decent living by creating various types of content, and with the slow death of traditional media this will only expand further. Both the entertainment space as well as, surprisingly, the maker space is thriving thanks to Kickstarter and other crowdfunding models. Patreon and YouTube are both a big deal too. I think we'll be just fine, provided people continue to be industrious.


----------



## kumikochan (Jul 19, 2018)

Funny thing is America would never do that.
It's only okay when they do it


----------



## Foxi4 (Jul 19, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> Funny thing is America would never do that.
> It's only okay when they do it


Mr.Macaroni is a joke, I'm not surprised that Obama endorsed him at the time. I remember this video when it was still fresh and I wondered why people weren't upset over it as much as they should've.


----------



## kumikochan (Jul 19, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Mr.Macaroni is a joke, I'm not surprised that Obama endorsed him at the time. I remember this video when it was still fresh and I wondered why people weren't upset over it as much as they should've.


Yeah, i agree. People should have spoken more out about this especially when it was around the time of trumps campaign and he was doing the same thing he was accusing the Russians of


----------



## Xzi (Jul 19, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Both the entertainment space as well as, surprisingly, the maker space is thriving thanks to Kickstarter and other crowdfunding models. Patreon and YouTube are both a big deal too. I think we'll be just fine, provided people continue to be industrious.


I don't know how you expect people to keep funding these things if they don't have jobs.  We can't be a 100% Youtube-based economy, that would be Google providing a UBI instead of the government.  There's no sector ready to explode in growth like that and become large enough to replace the food service industry in terms of employment.  Entertainment is already extremely competitive and saturated, and even in that industry AI will be able to compete to some degree.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 19, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Entertainment is already extremely competitive and saturated, and even in that industry AI will be able to compete to some degree.


I was going to mention that, but I didn't want to feel like I was going too sci-fi or too futuristic with the idea that automation will takeover entertainment too.


----------



## Viri (Jul 19, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> Funny thing is America would never do that.
> It's only okay when they do it



Did we hack the French election?!


----------



## kumikochan (Jul 19, 2018)

Viri said:


> Did we hack the French election?!


It is still meddling regardless of hacking or not. Plus there are the multiple assasinations that happened in southern america during election time that all happened to be enemies of the US. Don't act like there's no blood on your hand
https://www.telesurtv.net/english/a...rventions-in-Latin-America-20160608-0031.html

https://www.google.be/amp/s/www.was...arn-from-cold-war-attempts-to-change-regimes/


----------



## Viri (Jul 19, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> It is still meddling regardless of hacking or not. Plus there are the multiple assasinations that happened in southern america during election time that all happened to be enemies of the US. Don't act like there's no blood on your hand
> https://www.telesurtv.net/english/a...rventions-in-Latin-America-20160608-0031.html
> 
> https://www.google.be/amp/s/www.was...arn-from-cold-war-attempts-to-change-regimes/


Oh, I am well aware of all that stuff. I fucking hate the CIA, they ruined so many lives south of our boarder.


----------



## kumikochan (Jul 19, 2018)

Viri said:


> Oh, I am well aware of all that stuff. I fucking hate the CIA, they ruined so many lives south of our boarder.


The double standards are just always funny. America hacks the world with the NSA and even allies like Europe but when somebody hacks the US it is an all out war. The US intervenes in elections all over the world and with goverments using the CIA but when Russia does it all all war breaks out again.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 20, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> The double standards are just always funny. America hacks the world with the NSA and even allies like Europe but when somebody hacks the US it is an all out war. The US intervenes in elections all over the world and with goverments using the CIA but when Russia does it all all war breaks out again.


An investigation into criminal activity is not equivalent to "all out war."  Nor does the US's past involvement in morally/ethically questionable behavior invalidate the need to defend our own Democracy and elections in the present.


----------



## kumikochan (Jul 20, 2018)

Xzi said:


> An investigation into criminal activity is not equivalent to "all out war."  Nor does the US's past involvement in morally/ethically questionable behavior invalidate the need to defend our own Democracy and elections in the present.


Past ? The video of obama endorsing macron on French national tv wasn't that long ago as was that of the NSA hacking phones and computers of european leaders also not that long ago. It still is a double standard. They're making a bigger deal out of it when somebody else does and morally ofcourse according to the US only they can because if they morally thought differently, then they wouldn't have tried over a 100 times already over a time period of 70 years but only would have done it once or twice so no you can't make that big a deal out of it, if you have done it yourself over a 100 times yourself and are still doing it. If the US would have learned from those mistakes and especially stopped meddling with allies like with the NSA and the French elections then you could say they have morally the high ground wich they absolutely DON'T


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 20, 2018)

To get the thread a bit back on track. Forgot about this speech. Pretty crazy how right she was.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 20, 2018)

Trump invited Putin to the White House this fall just days after his submissive display in Helsinki.  That's not even the craziest news of the day, as 'Trump says he's 'ready' to put tariffs on all $505 billion of Chinese goods imported to the US.'

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/19/tru...t-tariffs-on-all-505-billion-of-chinese-.html

Funny enough, that means Trump flags and hats are already being held up at customs, as of course they're made in China:

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-flags-hats-made-in-china-held-at-customs-trade-war-2018-7


----------



## Joe88 (Jul 20, 2018)

You should have probably read that link, those are all knockoff's being held up, the real hats and flags that are being sold on his website are made in the US.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-hat-china/


----------



## Viri (Jul 20, 2018)

kumikochan said:


> Past ? The video of obama endorsing macron on French national tv wasn't that long ago as was that of the NSA hacking phones and computers of european leaders also not that long ago. It still is a double standard. They're making a bigger deal out of it when somebody else does and morally ofcourse according to the US only they can because if they morally thought differently, then they wouldn't have tried over a 100 times already over a time period of 70 years but only would have done it once or twice so no you can't make that big a deal out of it, if you have done it yourself over a 100 times yourself and are still doing it. If the US would have learned from those mistakes and especially stopped meddling with allies like with the NSA and the French elections then you could say they have morally the high ground wich they absolutely DON'T


It's okay when the US does it. /s




Joe88 said:


> You should have probably read that link, those are all knockoff's being held up, the real hats and flags that are being sold on his website are made in the US.
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-hat-china/


Hah, I had no idea Snopes actually checked it to it. But yea, China makes counterfeit things of EVERYTHING. If they can make money off of it, they WILL copy it. I think that's pretty obvious by now.


----------



## kumikochan (Jul 20, 2018)

Viri said:


> It's okay when the US does it.


Hope ur being sarcastic


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> You should have probably read that link, those are all knockoff's being held up, the real hats and flags that are being sold on his website are made in the US.
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-hat-china/


I was curious so I looked it up on Amazon.  Couldn't find one MAGA hat that wasn't made in China on the first few pages, that was the case for the best seller too.  Even most of the ones made in China have an American flag embroidered on them, so they're really playing Trump's base for rubes.


----------



## Viri (Jul 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I was curious so I looked it up on Amazon.  Couldn't find one MAGA hat that wasn't made in China on the first few pages, that was the case for the best seller too.  Even most of the ones made in China have an American flag embroidered on them, so they're really playing Trump's base for rubes.


I think the only place to buy an official MAGA hat is off his website. Amazon doesn't seem to give a shit when it comes to fake shit. You can find fake SD cards, fake consoles, etc.

Just for the hell of it, here is the second result of "MAGA hat amazon" in Google(first result wasn't even trying). It's funny how fake it looks.

https://www.amazon.com/US-Buy-Donald-Trump-Hats/dp/B01LZU1YWW
fake
https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/products/official-donald-trump-make-america-great-again-cap-red
real




kumikochan said:


> Hope ur being sarcastic


/s = Sarcasm.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2018)

Viri said:


> I think the only place to buy an official MAGA hat is off his website. Amazon doesn't seem to give a shit when it comes to fake shit. You can find fake SD cards, fake consoles, etc.
> 
> Just for the hell of it, here is the second result of "MAGA hat amazon" in Google(first result wasn't even trying). It's funny how fake it looks.
> 
> ...


I never run into fake stuff on Amazon, but I don't use the third-party resellers so I guess that's why.  The funny part about the whole situation though is that Trump's base is used to getting things cheap, so I'm sure a good portion of them just bought the cheapest MAGA hat available, which would mean Chinese-made and no profit for Trump.


----------



## hoist20032002 (Jul 21, 2018)

Sure Xzi, keep being a puppet with believing in ALL propaganda of both sides. You're as bad as alt-right morons that you're soooo against. Leftists are clown shoes when they go "we're tolerant" but are hypocritical when they're challenged, just as the ones on the right. To you saying that I should look back to Nixon...He's scum just like every president we've had, sans: JFK and Reagan. I'm pretty sure that there's HUGE things happening in the world other than idiots in the world worrying about ANY politician of the past, present or future that actual cared with genuine remorse for their actions. So please, stop being a sheep and think for yourself.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 21, 2018)

hoist20032002 said:


> Sure Xzi, keep being a puppet with believing in ALL propaganda of both sides. You're as bad as alt-right morons that you're soooo against. Leftists are clown shoes when they go "we're tolerant" but are hypocritical when they're challenged, just as the ones on the right.


The left doesn't and shouldn't tolerate intolerance.  That's not a hypocritical stance, it's just a line that has to be drawn by at least one of the two political parties.



hoist20032002 said:


> I'm pretty sure that there's HUGE things happening in the world other than idiots in the world worrying about ANY politician of the past, present or future that actual cared with genuine remorse for their actions. So please, stop being a sheep and think for yourself.


I'm not even sure what you're arguing here.  That events occur outside of politics?  You're not going to get any debate against that from me.  That doesn't mean anybody should stick their head in the sand to ignore their current political leader's blatant corruption.


----------



## Hanafuda (Jul 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Funny enough, that means Trump flags and hats are already being held up at customs, as of course they're made in China:
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-flags-hats-made-in-china-held-at-customs-trade-war-2018-7




I'd like to see some more investigative work done on that, but I know it'll never happen. I don't personally own any "MAGA" clothing - believe it or not I'm not a Trump zealot and I'd never walk around wearing clothing in support of any politician. I avoid wearing corporate logos for the most part, too. But, I am a member at a firearms discussion board and (no surprise) some of the members there are die-hard Trumpers. And, they have all said their 'official' MAGA clothing is made in the USA. They say the Chinese made MAGA hats, shirts, flags, etc are knockoffs that get sold at street level during events and by unlicensed online retailers, not the stuff that's sold through the official site. I honestly don't know, but I've been a member at that discussion board for 17 years and 'know' some of these other guys pretty well, so I lean towards believing them when they say their 'official' stuff is made in USA.


----------



## dAVID_ (Jul 21, 2018)

I want a MAGA hat just for the meme.


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 24, 2018)

Well, this is happening.


----------



## GBAer (Jul 24, 2018)

Trump is Netanyahu's bitch... not Putin's... FACT!


----------



## Xzi (Jul 24, 2018)

GBAer said:


> Trump is Netanyahu's bitch... not Putin's... FACT!


It can be both.  Trump sucks off any dictator-type figure.


----------



## GBAer (Jul 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It can be both.  Trump sucks off any dictator-type figure.


Only Netanyahu I'm afraid.


----------



## Viri (Jul 24, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Well, this is happening.



They're going to be out there for a looooong time.


----------



## Song of storms (Jul 24, 2018)

I still don't know why it's so much of a big deal? It's not like they changed the votes, they just did what the most radicals liberals did for months and still do, just the other way around?


----------



## GBAer (Jul 24, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> I still don't know why it's so much of a big deal? It's not like they changed the votes, they just did what the most radicals liberals did for months and still do, just the other way around?


Only people with Trump Derangement Syndrome are making it a big deal, which  a very small minority or the American people.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 24, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> It's not like they changed the votes


We don't know that.  We do know that several states reported their election systems hacked, and several more reported attempts at hacking.  Every single American intelligence agency reports that Russia did have an impact.


----------



## Song of storms (Jul 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> We don't know that.  We do know that several states reported their election systems hacked, and several more reported attempts at hacking.  Every single American intelligence agency reports that Russia did have an impact.


Then why are people protesting so hard outside the white house if they don't know how serious this is? I'm sure that, if there's hard proof that Russia did hack the vote, resulting in a fraudulent election, they will impeach him. Until then, nay.


----------



## Viri (Jul 24, 2018)

I have proof that the US manipulated the French election.


kumikochan said:


> Funny thing is America would never do that.
> It's only okay when they do it



People in France should protest Emmanuel Macron, he's not a legit President, just a US puppet.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 24, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> Then why are people protesting so hard outside the white house if they don't know how serious this is? I'm sure that, if there's hard proof that Russia did hack the vote, resulting in a fraudulent election, they will impeach him. Until then, nay.


Because they hate his fucking guts and everybody saw what happened in Helsinki.  You might be okay with a compromised worm who shrivels in front of dictators for president, but that doesn't mean everybody else has to be so complacent.

Protests and criminal evidence are not tied.  The protestors aren't the ones investigating Trump and his campaign.  Still, to pretend there's no progress on that front when Trump's *personal attorney *is in custody and cooperating with investigators would be asinine.


----------



## GBAer (Jul 24, 2018)

Viri said:


> I have proof that the US manipulated the French election.
> 
> People in France should protest Emmanuel Macron, he's not a legit President, just a US puppet.


Dont be silly, because everyone knows  its OK when America does it.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 24, 2018)

GBAer said:


> Dont be silly, because everyone knows  its OK when America does it.


This doesn't even work as a conspiracy theory.  Macron was elected in May 2017.  Trump was president and the US government was entirely Republican-controlled by that point.  If the US was going to interfere in France's election, it would've been to install a more right-wing president.  Then again, 99% of conspiracy theories fall apart completely after applying just a little logic or Occam's razor.


----------



## GBAer (Jul 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> This doesn't even work as a conspiracy theory.  Macron was elected in May 2017.  Trump was president and the US government was entirely Republican-controlled by that point.  If the US was going to interfere in France's election, it would've been to install a more right-wing president.





Xzi said:


> This doesn't even work as a conspiracy theory.  Macron was elected in May 2017.  Trump was president and the US government was entirely Republican-controlled by that point.  If the US was going to interfere in France's election, it would've been to install a more right-wing president.  Then again, 99% of conspiracy theories fall apart completely after applying just a little logic or Occam's razor.


And the Trump Russian Collusion is going to be just one of those 99%.


----------



## Song of storms (Jul 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Because they hate his fucking guts and everybody saw what happened in Helsinki.  You might be okay with a compromised worm who shrivels in front of dictators for president, but that doesn't mean everybody else has to be so complacent.
> 
> Protests and criminal evidence are not tied.  The protestors aren't the ones investigating Trump and his campaign.  Still, to pretend there's no progress on that front when Trump's *personal attorney *is in custody and cooperating with investigators would be asinine.


I would be less OK with that if liberals hadn't been flooding the internet and social groups with liberal propaganda from the very beginning that Trump ran for president. You know the story of the boy who cried wolf? Yeah, now I just want hard proof for anything Trump related or I won't believe it.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 24, 2018)

GBAer said:


> And the Trump Russian Collusion is going to be just one of those 99%.


It stops being a conspiracy theory, or even a theory at all, after over 35 indictments have been unsealed.  Somehow the vast majority of the individuals caught up in those indictments either worked for the Trump campaign directly or have ties to it.  What a shocker.  



DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> I would be less OK with that if liberals hadn't been flooding the internet and social groups with liberal propaganda from the very beginning that Trump ran for president. You know the story of the boy who cried wolf? Yeah, now I just want hard proof for anything Trump related or I won't believe it.


Liberals predicted what a shitty president he'd be, and he turned out to be a shitty president, so you tune them out?  Makes sense, assuming you already had your mind made up from the beginning.


----------



## GBAer (Jul 24, 2018)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Just imagine a Russian politician doing the same thing in Mexico, we'd all be freezing our balls off in a nuclear winter by now,  well those of us alive would be anyway.


----------



## Viri (Jul 24, 2018)

GBAer said:


> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> Just imagine a Russian politician doing the same thing in Mexico, we'd all be freezing our balls off in a nuclear winter by now,  well those of us alive would be anyway.



It's okay when the US does it.


----------



## Deleted User (Jul 24, 2018)

GBAer said:


> Can you  give any hard facts that Trump knowingly colluded with any of these 35 people?, until you can,  then its just another conspiracy theory.


Well... (oh boy jumping into politics)
Applying logic and relations Trump has, especially with Russia, makes it a pretty strong case. (all though, not 100% solid)
First, this collusion, the group, these 35 people had spent thousands of dollars getting Trump into the position he is in right now. And getting 35 people together to do one thing, is a bit of a challenge if handled by a single person.
And let me ask this.
what reason would these 35 people have to pour thousands of dollars into a single person? No "normal" circumstance would allow that. You could argue they are a fan of Trump, but why the hell would they go so far out of their way, putting themselves into serious legal danger just for 1 or 2 people for a country they aren't even in... Unless it some how managed to benefit them. People don't work to not get paid. People, no matter what, desire things in return. Keep this in mind.

Now let me ask another question. Where did there source of income come from? (may have missed the source of it in the main document. Reading and remembering 37 pages isn't exactly fun, and searching for it is a bit challenging to say the least)

I'm not saying Trump funded them. As that wouldn't work, unless Trump could get someone within Russia to help funding (indirect funding), but there isn't any evidence to support that so it remain speculation (speculation that isn't impossible, and more likely than random speculation.) But before you respond with someone within the states funded them, it couldn't be possible for it for the initial start. And buying ads for politics is and can be rather pricey. Which means the starting income has to come from somewhere other than the us citizens. (and even then that was for social media)
And keep this also in mind.

But the facts are that a group within Russia aided Trump. Trump has good relations with Putin, someone who has more than a little power in that country. And Trump's other relations/people he had worked with, had also had ties to Russia.
Now back to the speculation pieces, parts that have some evidence, but not enough to be solid. But have higher odds than just being random out of the blue evidence. It isn't impossible, or unlikely at this point Trump may have had asked Putin in some form, or maybe even indirectly. To help him. Putin could of likely, help in the creation of some organization, which would have these 35 people aid in Trumps campaign. But people don't often do favors without some payback, especially if it isn't a family member. So what did or could Trump have done, to get this group and/ or Putin's aid in this?
That I can't answer.
But clearly, in order to get the initial big source of money for those ads, had to be someone with a crap ton of money, and people who have a crap ton of money, are usually people within some sort of power.


----------



## kumikochan (Jul 24, 2018)

Xzi said:


> This doesn't even work as a conspiracy theory.  Macron was elected in May 2017.  Trump was president and the US government was entirely Republican-controlled by that point.  If the US was going to interfere in France's election, it would've been to install a more right-wing president.  Then again, 99% of conspiracy theories fall apart completely after applying just a little logic or Occam's razor.


I gave you evidence the US has done it over a 100 times with the CIA and have hacked European leaders their allies with the NSA so yeah that is how it works


----------



## Xzi (Jul 24, 2018)

The man with all the evidence is Mueller.  In Manafort's case alone, when it came time to reveal the list of evidence, it was around 500 items deep.  I wouldn't expect anything less for any individual this investigation brings charges against.

https://www.scribd.com/document/384216900/Mueller-list-of-indictments-against-Manafort#from_embed

"Where's the evidence" is never a genuine question.  Anybody who has any knowledge of the law whatsoever knows that you don't reveal evidence to the public before trial.  Doubly so when it comes to high-profile, federal-level investigations.  We're only used to so much info leaking to the public now because of how disorganized Trump's white house is.  Mueller's team is far more competent.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 26, 2018)

Republicans today introduced articles of impeachment against deputy AG Rod Rosenstein (essentially Mueller's boss) on the House floor.  Largely a political stunt, the vote for impeachment is unlikely to pass given that Republicans are divided on the issue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...8ee304-9060-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/20...icles-impeachment-against-rosenstein.amp.html

There are rapid response protests planned across the country for this situation, but only if Mueller or Rosenstein is actually *removed *from office or the investigation.

https://act.moveon.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response/search/


----------



## Don Jon (Jul 27, 2018)

hmm
i wonder where this takes off

cohen-claims-trump-approved-2016-trump-tower-meeting-with-russians:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/c...tower-meeting-with-russians-report-2018-07-26


something we all know but trump keeps denying


----------



## Xzi (Jul 27, 2018)

Don Jon said:


> hmm
> i wonder where this takes off
> 
> cohen-claims-trump-approved-2016-trump-tower-meeting-with-russians:
> ...


Yup.  Lordy there are tapes, and lots of 'em.  Reportedly about *100* recordings of Trump from Cohen, many of them Trump was unaware of.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/26/6325...seized-in-cohen-probe-washington-post-reports

Oh, and Republicans called off impeaching Rosenstein (reportedly at the behest of Trump) in less than a day:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...n-impeachment-articles-freedom-caucus/566132/

This is gonna be good as it unfolds.


----------



## CMDreamer (Jul 27, 2018)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Good, this is hopefully something everyone will support. We need to send the message to the world that our elections are our business and our business alone, not Russia's.



Right, just what every country wants from foreign governments.

But will this lead to something really meaningful to all USA citizens?


----------



## KingVamp (Jul 27, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Republicans today introduced articles of impeachment against deputy AG Rod Rosenstein (essentially Mueller's boss) on the House floor.  Largely a political stunt, the vote for impeachment is unlikely to pass given that Republicans are divided on the issue.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...8ee304-9060-11e8-bcd5-9d911c784c38_story.html
> 
> ...


I can't believe that they even entertain this.  It is like they are trying to make themselves look bad.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 2, 2018)

Mueller is now also going after corrupt Democrats, specifically Tony Podesta, John's brother:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pawz5z/robert-mueller-is-going-after-shady-democrats-now-too

I applaud this move, as we likely need to shed the corporate wing of the party moving forward.  Not that I expect Trump or any of his supporters to stop calling this a witch hunt, but this does show that the investigation really is about the law and not partisanship, whether they want to admit it or not.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 2, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Mueller is now also going after corrupt Democrats, specifically Tony Podesta, John's brother:
> 
> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pawz5z/robert-mueller-is-going-after-shady-democrats-now-too
> 
> I applaud this move, as we likely need to shed the corporate wing of the party moving forward.  Not that I expect Trump or any of his supporters to stop calling this a witch hunt, but this does show that the investigation really is about the law and not partisanship, whether they want to admit it or not.


Don't care who he goes after, as long as he gets all the corruption out. Still, while I know I'm bias, I'm sure the Democratic is much less corrupted than the Republicans. I'm glad check and balances are working somewhat.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 6, 2018)

Maybe the people wearing the shirts, were wearing them as a joke, but...
https://splinternews.com/these-trump-fans-might-want-to-reevaluate-their-wardrob-1828119884

Also
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45079377


----------



## Xzi (Aug 6, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Maybe the people wearing the shirts, were wearing them as a joke, but...
> https://splinternews.com/these-trump-fans-might-want-to-reevaluate-their-wardrob-1828119884
> 
> Also
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45079377


An admission of guilt, and even that won't cause the Republicans to flinch.  A solid half of Congress is just as deep in Russian blood money as Trump is.  If Democracy survives this shit we're gonna need a lot of new rules to govern the behavior of federal politicians and presidents.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 7, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Maybe the people wearing the shirts, were wearing them as a joke, but...
> https://splinternews.com/these-trump-fans-might-want-to-reevaluate-their-wardrob-1828119884
> 
> Also
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45079377


Those t-shirts are hilarious. I gotta admit: there ARE conservatives with a sense of humor. 

A bit sad that the replies are like that. The are two guys erm... I'm not sure _what_ they were thinking (it's like saying the Titanic isn't sinking but taking a more scenic route to new York), but it's clearly not to be taken seriously. Kind of unfortunate that is used as of those things represent all Republicans without a sense of irony.

On the other hand, that"also" is anything but a joke. He knew about the meeting. With Russian agents. About getting dirt on his opponent. And he lied about it.
Yeah, i know... At this point, saying that is saying like the sun rises in the East. But this lie should- in a normal democracy- be a proof of fraud that should get him fired ( didn't Nixon lost his job over his lie rather than his Watergate involvement? I'm not sure on that )


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 7, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> ( didn't Nixon lost his job over his lie rather than his Watergate involvement? I'm not sure on that )


Nixon actually didn't TECHNICALLY lose his job over anything, but he knew that if he stayed in office there would be a motion for his impeachment and he WOULD be impeached, so he resigned before the Senate even held the trial I believe


----------



## JellyPerson (Aug 7, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Nixon actually didn't TECHNICALLY lose his job over anything, but he knew that if he stayed in office there would be a motion for his impeachment and he WOULD be impeached, so he resigned before the Senate even held the trial I believe


he resigned and it cost the government less than it would have for an impeachment motion


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 7, 2018)

JellyPerson said:


> he resigned and it cost the government less than it would have for an impeachment motion


There's a certain someone that I wish would learn from that


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 7, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Those t-shirts are hilarious. I gotta admit: there ARE conservatives with a sense of humor.


Not to be that guy, but how do you know it is a joke?


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 7, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Not to be that guy, but how do you know it is a joke?


Because the alternative is too ridiculous to be true. In political stance, conservatives are right, Democrats centre-is and communism left (or far left... I'm not that familiar with how Russia is ruled exactly, nowadays). So the shirts basically say "i'd rather disagree completely and renounce my ideals all the way than compromising a little". Or also: "i don't have a clue about politics but I DISAGREE WITH DEMOCRATS NONETHELESS!!!"

As such, i just assume it's humor. It's pretty much on par with that "vote Cthulhu: why settle for the lesser evil?" shirt. No one actually WANTS to vote for an elder God of madness, but it's so over the top that it loses being a threat but shows the situation as is (in this case, it basically says to Republicans "guys... Seriously: just HOW far are we going to push this'blame Democrats' thing?" )


----------



## Viri (Aug 7, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> "vote Cthulhu: why settle for the lesser evil?"


I'd vote for him.

Also, your post made me think of this.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 8, 2018)

Viri said:


> I'd vote for him.
> 
> Also, your post made me think of this.



Yeah...that's also a thing, unfortunate enough. I mentioned that I read "stupid white men" somewhere. It was stated to be released early september 2001, so it had "a bit of bad timing". One of the things that Moore went on about was how much Bill Clinton pushed all sorts of things through that were actually on the agenda of Republicans (he admitted, though, that in the last weeks of Clinton's presidency, he acted on things he had 7.5 years to do). One quote I remember is how he described "Clinton as the best republican president the democrats ever had". In that light, I can't really fault people complaining that Hillary Clinton would be "more of the same"...but it makes this T-shirts even more dumb, because democrats under the Clintons basically follow the liberal right agenda to begin with.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 9, 2018)

Russia is getting hit with even more sanctions... when they finally get enforced.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-...soning-russian-double-agent/story?id=57115212

Also
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/6/17655470/iran-tehran-sanctions-trump-usa-nuclear-deal



Taleweaver said:


> Because the alternative is too ridiculous to be true. In political stance, conservatives are right, Democrats centre-is and communism left (or far left... I'm not that familiar with how Russia is ruled exactly, nowadays). So the shirts basically say "i'd rather disagree completely and renounce my ideals all the way than compromising a little". Or also: "i don't have a clue about politics but I DISAGREE WITH DEMOCRATS NONETHELESS!!!"
> 
> As such, i just assume it's humor. It's pretty much on par with that "vote Cthulhu: why settle for the lesser evil?" shirt. No one actually WANTS to vote for an elder God of madness, but it's so over the top that it loses being a threat but shows the situation as is (in this case, it basically says to Republicans "guys... Seriously: just HOW far are we going to push this'blame Democrats' thing?" )


You might be right, but considering the whole basis of this thread and some of the Trump supporters I seen, I think the alternative is also possible. As ridiculous as it might be.


Edit: Welp

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...s-saying-rosenstein-impeachment-would-n899031


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 9, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> You might be right, but considering the whole basis of this thread and some of the Trump supporters I seen, I think the alternative is also possible. As ridiculous as it might be.


I won't deny it's a possibility. But even so: this isn't (or shouldn't be) about two clowns who manage to be extreme left and right at the same time somehow...but on republicans/Trump supporters/conservatives as a whole. Are there any political groups mass supporting this shirt? Any politicians openly siding with Russia? Is Trump tweeting about these guys? The answer to that is, to my knowledge, a no. So this whole "THIS IS WHAT REPUBLICANS LOOK LIKE" is just below the belt. I mean...I'm politically left myself, but there are so many like me that there might be the odd retard who says something ridiculous. Likewise, I wouldn't like it if right-centered people use that person to proclaim that THAT is what politically left looks like.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 9, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Any politicians siding with Russia?


I was with you, until this part. This whole thread is about people working with Russia, so yes.  Unless that's not what you mean.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 9, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I was with you, until this part. This whole thread is about people working with Russia, so yes.  Unless that's not what you mean.


That's not what i meant, indeed. I meant siding as in 'openly supporting'. For a politician, there is often quite a difference between 'working for' and (openly) supporting. Granted: if the allegations are true (and after that visit of trump in Russia, is pretty safe to assume so) then it would be pretty much 'coming out of the closet'. Nonetheless: i haven't read anything of that sort.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 13, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> That's not what i meant, indeed. I meant siding as in 'openly supporting'. For a politician, there is often quite a difference between 'working for' and (openly) supporting. Granted: if the allegations are true (and after that visit of trump in Russia, is pretty safe to assume so) then it would be pretty much 'coming out of the closet'. Nonetheless: i haven't read anything of that sort.


They're not quite to the point of being fully open about it, they're just really blatant about it considering it's supposed to be a secret.  Taking cues from Trump.  For example, the eight Republican congressmen who were in Moscow kissing the ring during the 4th of July:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ae30be-812e-11e8-b658-4f4d2a1aeef1_story.html


----------



## Xzi (Aug 21, 2018)

Michael Cohen, Trump's longtime personal attorney and "fixer," has reportedly struck a plea deal with federal prosecutors.

https://www.apnews.com/74aaf72511d6...en-in-talks-to-strike-plea-deal-in-fraud-case

The deal itself will be unsealed soon.  Everybody knew Cohen would be wearing his flip flops going into these negotiations, but this is gonna get juicy.  

Oh, Manafort was also found guilty of eight charges today, and he's got another seven charges lined up against him for a second trial upcoming.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/us/politics/paul-manafort-trial-verdict.html


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 21, 2018)

Still waiting for collusion with Russia. That's what it's about, right? Manafort's stuff was all well before he was involved with Trump. Cohen's stuff wrt: Trump, at least to the extent that Trump might be tangentially related, seems limited to the 'hush' payments to McDougal and Daniels. I don't understand what makes that a crime -- the sexual activity Trump _may_ have had with these ladies was between adults & consensual, i.e. legal, so an agreed payment of money in exchange not to publicly divulge this legal activity, for purposes of personal reputation preservation, should likewise be just a legal contract (which both women have breached). I'm missing something. Oh yeah, Trump wasn't supposed to win. It was her turn.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 21, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Still waiting for collusion with Russia. That's what it's about, right?


No, actually it's about any criminal activity that the investigation might stumble upon.  Mueller has extremely wide-reaching authorization.  None the less, both Cohen and Manafort had connections to Russia and Ukraine, and it's not hard to guess where a lot of the porn star hush money might've originated from.


----------



## Captain_N (Aug 21, 2018)

the question is was this done with or without trump's knowledge. If he told them to do it then he needs to be kicked out. If he knew nothing about it then he has defence.


You got to remeber one thing. all this was happening during the Obama administration. He was warned about possible election meddling and told his people to stand down.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 21, 2018)

Captain_N said:


> the question is was this done with or without trump's knowledge. If he told them to do it then he needs to be kicked out. If he knew nothing about it then he has defence


Michael Cohen confessed under oath that he was directed to make the payments by a "candidate for federal office."  Trump is now an unindicted co-conspirator to criminal activity.  The "unindicted" part may not last very long, though.  Eh, who am I kidding, those spineless worms in congress aren't going to do a thing about it.  Not unless the mid-terms have a big impact.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 21, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Still waiting for collusion with Russia.


Have you heard about the Trump Tower meeting? What about the dissemination of hacked emails?

Edit: The Manafort stuff also begins to paint a picture regarding his ties to Deripaska and the Russians.



Hanafuda said:


> Cohen's stuff wrt: Trump, at least to the extent that Trump might be tangentially related, seems limited to the 'hush' payments to McDougal and Daniels. I don't understand what makes that a crime -- the sexual activity Trump _may_ have had with these ladies was between adults & consensual, i.e. legal, so an agreed payment of money in exchange not to publicly divulge this legal activity, for purposes of personal reputation preservation, should likewise be just a legal contract (which both women have breached).


You're ignoring the campaign finance violations.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 21, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Michael Cohen confessed under oath that he was directed to make the payments by a "candidate for federal office."  Trump is now an unindicted co-conspirator to criminal activity.



What criminal activity? As I explained above, a contract in which party A pays party B to keep their mouth shut about something isn't illegal, unless the information being suppressed itself is illegal or evidence of a crime. Consensual sex is legal. A 'candidate for federal office' can't enter into legal contracts? That right is guaranteed by the Constitution.



Captain_N said:


> If he told them to do it then he needs to be kicked out.



What's the crime?



Lacius said:


> You're ignoring the campaign finance violations.



I don't see a crime. It's a tenuous stretch to say 'hush' payments to Daniels and McDougal were campaign finance violations. Cohen was reimbursed for it out of his retainer compensation from Trump, and Trump had many other reasons to contract with Daniels and McDougal for their silence than just the election. He has a family, children, business associates .. all reasons to protect from the type of character smears that come up during an election campaign. As I explained above, the contracts for those women to keep their mouths shut were legal. A bit unseemly, typical 'rich guy' stuff, but legal.

But, if Cohen agrees to say it was a crime because that's a condition of the plea agreement, and the judge accepts the plea, then he's convicted and he goes to jail.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 21, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> But, if Cohen agrees to say it was a crime because that's a condition of the plea agreement, and the judge accepts the plea, then he's convicted and he goes to jail.


Plea deals don't create laws/crimes.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 21, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> What criminal activity? As I explained above, a contract in which party A pays party B to keep their mouth shut about something isn't illegal, unless the information being suppressed itself is illegal or evidence of a crime.


If you do it during a political campaign, it's a campaign finance violation.  A federal crime.  There would be no reason for Trump to pay off porn stars if he wasn't also running for president at the time.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 22, 2018)

The few people here that somehow still support and defend Trump despite all this, may not even have a choice to vote for him again, if this keeps up.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 22, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If you do it during a political campaign, it's a campaign finance violation.  A federal crime. ...



Ok I don't agree with this 'in-kind contribution' thing, i.e. that if you pay for something to help out someone who happens to be running for office then that's the same (constructively) as a campaign contribution. But my opinion doesn't matter as to whether it's a violation, so let's say it is. A campaign finance reporting violation. If that's what's going on here, then Trump should be allowed to settle it with paying a fine, the same as Obama did. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2013...8-campaign-fine-conciliation-agreement-085785


----------



## Xzi (Aug 22, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> Ok I don't agree with this 'in-kind contribution' thing, i.e. that if you pay for something to help out someone who happens to be running for office then that's the same (constructively) as a campaign contribution. But my opinion doesn't matter as to whether it's a violation, so let's say it is. A campaign finance reporting violation. If that's what's going on here, then Trump should be allowed to settle it with paying a fine, the same as Obama did.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/story/2013...8-campaign-fine-conciliation-agreement-085785


I don't believe it's the same kind of campaign finance violation.  Obama's reporting violation was due to missing notices for multiple campaign contributions (around 1,300), seemingly disorganization at the lower levels.  Trump's is due to unreported hush money payments in two separate cases, payments directly ordered by the man himself.  Apparently Trump knew this was illegal as well, which is why he had Cohen pay through shell corporations each time.  Cohen is now a felon simply for the act of carrying out Trump's orders.  This is also appears to be just the tip of the iceberg.  Cohen's lawyer said on TV earlier tonight that he possesses information on Trump's knowledge of Russian hacking efforts he'd be willing to disclose to the special counsel.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 22, 2018)

I had a feeling this thread would be active again. @Xzi certainly saves me the trouble of finding English sources. 



> Cohen, his voice shaky as he answered questions from a federal judge, said one payment <for silence of the women> was “in coordination and at the direction of a candidate for federal office,” and the other was made “under direction of the same candidate.”
> ...
> Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, noted in a statement that “there is no allegation of any wrongdoing against the president in the government’s charges against Mr. Cohen.”


Giuliani is sounding more and more like comical Ali. There might be more at stake than in the brexit, but it's these kind of things that make it hilarious...

Giuliani: the president has done nothing wrong!
Press: erm...Cohen has just admitted paying women's silence on the order of Donald Trump
Giuliani: That's not what he said! That could have been ANY presidential candidate!



Xzi said:


> If you do it during a political campaign, it's a campaign finance violation.  A federal crime.  There would be no reason for Trump to pay off porn stars if he wasn't also running for president at the time.


I (strongly) agree with the first two sentences, but not the latter one. Let's be honest here: the guy is married and had a reputation to uphold. Those are reasons to pay off silence, even if you aren't running for president.


And in all fairness: @Hanafuda certainly has a point. It can be a breakthrough in the case (or two breakthroughs...Manaford's conviction might lead to new info as well), but at this point I don't see ties to Russian's involvement. It's enough to start two impeachments (with Daniels as Lewinski 1 and McDougal as Lewinski 2  ), but if there's any real ties to Russia, I certainly can't find them in the text.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 22, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Let's be honest here: the guy is married and had a reputation to uphold. Those are reasons to pay off silence, even if you aren't running for president.


He's been married three times, I don't think marriage is exactly a sacred institution to Trump.  His reputation was tarnished from the moment he became a public figure, and US banks stopped lending to him years ago.  I'm also pretty sure Melania knew about his affairs as they were happening, but at the end of the day she's there for the money like anybody close to Trump.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 22, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> And in all fairness: @Hanafuda certainly has a point. It can be a breakthrough in the case (or two breakthroughs...Manaford's conviction might lead to new info as well), but at this point I don't see ties to Russian's involvement. It's enough to start two impeachments (with Daniels as Lewinski 1 and McDougal as Lewinski 2  ), but if there's any real ties to Russia, I certainly can't find them in the text.


It all goes back to the meeting with the Russian Gov't official over '''''adoption''''', and whether or not Trump knew it was actually about siphoning money into his campaign in return for (implied) political favors. Now, Trump's legal team has denied this, but he's literally tweeted that he was aware of the true nature of the meeting (I don't remember the exact context, but it seems like he somehow thought he was defending himself rather than giving something _really_ important up)

So it's a catch 22. Mueller has subpoena'ed all his tweets, which means that either he admits to being guilty of collusion with a foreign agent with intent to fix a campaign, or he denies it and perjurers himself in front of the jury of a criminal investigation. Either way, it's enough to have him impeached on the spot, I have the feeling Mueller's team is just collecting enough evidence to _make sure _there's nothing Trump's legal team can do to wiggle him out at this point


----------



## Xzi (Aug 22, 2018)

More breaking news today: 'New York state has subpoenaed Michael Cohen in Trump Foundation probe.'

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/22/new...art-of-trump-foundation-probe-ap-reports.html

This means they're potentially going after Trump's family as a criminal enterprise.



			
				CNBC said:
			
		

> New York's Attorney General Barbara Underwood had filed suit against Trump and members of his family in June, alleging a pattern of "persistently illegal conduct" at the nonprofit foundation.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 24, 2018)

Allen Weisselberg granted immunity.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/allen-...ors-in-michael-cohen-investigation-1535121992


----------



## Xzi (Aug 25, 2018)

'Michael Cohen Guilty Plea Reveals Link to Qatari Royal Family' - Wall Street Journal

https://www.wsj.com/articles/michae...eveals-link-to-qatari-royal-family-1535127732

A Roger Stone aide has been granted immunity by the feds:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...r-resisting-robert-mueller-pkg-murray-vpx.cnn

Which likely means charges forthcoming against Trump's bestie.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 25, 2018)

Xzi said:


> 'Michael Cohen Guilty Plea Reveals Link to *Qatari Royal Family*' - Wall Street Journal


Um... who?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 25, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Um... who?


The royal family of Qatar


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 25, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The royal family of Qatar


I was hoping for a bit more information than just that. lol Anyway, that's fine. I looked it up myself.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 26, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I was hoping for a bit more information than just that. lol Anyway, that's fine. I looked it up myself.


Sorry, it's in the subtitle of the article though lol.  The Qatari royal in question is Abdul Aziz.


----------



## Glyptofane (Aug 26, 2018)

You guys realize nothing is going to happen, right? I'm pretty upset with Trump trying to distract the nation by cutting off all Palestinian aid all of a sudden. Brilliant.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 26, 2018)

Glyptofane said:


> You guys realize nothing is going to happen, right? I'm pretty upset with Trump trying to distract the nation by cutting off all Palestinian aid all of a sudden. Brilliant.


Nothing is going to distract from this, it's going to keep developing.  Democrats are trying to avoid the word "impeach" until after they win the midterms because they believe it'll rile up Trump's base, and although I don't love the idea of continuing to wait, it's probably for the best as it will cause more and more people to flip before the inevitable reckoning.


----------



## Glyptofane (Aug 26, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Nothing is going to distract from this, it's going to keep developing.  Democrats are trying to avoid the word "impeach" until after they win the midterms because they believe it'll rile up Trump's base, and although I don't love the idea of continuing to wait, it's probably for the best as it will cause more and more people to flip before the inevitable reckoning.


Like, I was Trump's base, but after attacking Syria and the continued subservience to Israel, I just can't support it anymore, you know? I'm done.


----------



## Glyptofane (Aug 26, 2018)

Believe it or not, the only reason I signed up for Republican was to support Ron Paul which obviously went nowhere. I used to be a communist like you guys, but got sucked into the neon nazi movement.


----------



## Noctosphere (Aug 26, 2018)

I really hope he lose election of mid-mandate
I hope Trump will get dumped from his Presidency
Canada hasn't done anything to receive such treatment
However, Trump is greatly open minded to become friend with russian and north korean...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 26, 2018)

Noctosphere said:


> However, Trump is greatly open minded to become friend with russian and north korean...


That's a funny way of saying "arrogant and pleasantly awestruck by countries under dictatorship"


----------



## Xzi (Aug 26, 2018)

Just for funzies until we get into whatever craziness next week brings, here's Trump coloring the US flag wrong:







Looks more like he was going for the Russian flag, but he didn't even put the colors in the right order for that, either.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 26, 2018)

I feel this is him not caring about what he colors in, but not him forgetting.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Aug 26, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Just for funzies until we get into whatever craziness next week brings, here's Trump coloring the US flag wrong:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Points for creativity?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 27, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I feel this is him not caring about what he colors in, but not him forgetting.


I'm not sure why you would give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, but it's almost worse if the president of the United States simply doesn't care what the United States flag look like.  Kinda makes the whole stance against protesting during the anthem hypocritical disingenuous bullshit, but I guess we already knew that it was.


----------



## Noctosphere (Aug 27, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Just for funzies until we get into whatever craziness next week brings, here's Trump coloring the US flag wrong:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mmmh, just realised something
Montreal, quebec, canada
None of these flag is red, blue and white
However, russian flag is, and guess whats the other name of the CH?


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 27, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I'm not sure why you would give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, but it's almost worse if the president of the United States simply doesn't care what the United States flag look like.  Kinda makes the whole stance against protesting during the anthem hypocritical disingenuous bullshit, but I guess we already knew that it was.


I mean, if he was actually a good President, I don't care if he colored this flag green. Just because he wants too. It is just a drawing.

As for him forgetting despite having to see the flag at least once before he started drawing, is pretty depressing.


----------



## Joe88 (Aug 27, 2018)

Are we really posting tabloid tier garbage now?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 27, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Are we really posting tabloid tier garbage now?


You mean the picture?  It's something that factually happened, I don't know what to tell you.  Not a good look for the president, but that could sum up Trump's entire presidency by this point.  Maybe Giuliani plans to spin Trump as mentally incompetent/incapable of understanding laws if/when he ever faces impeachment or a court.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 28, 2018)

Eh, I really doubt this story, it seems very unlikely that thirteen Russians would've been able to do anything as big as the articles says they did.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> That's a funny way of saying "arrogant and pleasantly awestruck by countries under dictatorship"



Lol

But in all seriousness it probably isn't best to piss off the angry dictator countries, I can see why trump is adopting this stance.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 28, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Eh, I really doubt this story, it seems very unlikely that thirteen Russians would've been able to do anything as big as the articles says they did.


You're a few hundred articles behind if you're just now reading the first one, and that stuff is all but confirmed, as well as corroborated by all the US intelligence agencies.  The charges have moved much closer to Trump himself at this point, there's not a whole lot you can do against individuals outside of the country who have committed crimes against us.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 31, 2018)

Trump's disapproval rating is 60% and other News in link.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/31/mos...-mueller-probe-and-ag-jeff-sessions-poll.html

This is a picture for the history books.


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...eer-blocks-camera_us_5b88c4a8e4b0511db3d69291


----------



## Xzi (Aug 31, 2018)

I'm a little late on this, but Papadopoulos has accepted a plea deal after a period of uncertainty:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wee...es-accept-plea-deal-mueller/story?id=57483474

New York's AG says the Trump Foundation bankrolled his campaign and is pursuing a lawsuit:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...bankrolled-political-campaign-pursues-lawsuit

Mueller is tying secret Ukrainian money to Trump's inauguration:

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...secret-ukrainian-money-to-trump-inauguration/

And lastly, as KingVamp mentioned, Trump is down to the lowest approval rating of his presidency, 36%.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...oval-rating-sinks-to-lowest-of-his-presidency

News is moving quick.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 5, 2018)

​
If you can't sit through the whole thing, at least skip to around the 1 min mark.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Trump's disapproval rating is 60%





Xzi said:


> And lastly, as KingVamp mentioned, Trump is down to the lowest approval rating of his presidency, 36%.


In fairness, that's only if we select the polls that show his approval rating as being low while ignoring the higher ones. His aggregated approval rating is probably closer to 40.1%. While not the lowest it has been, it's still quite low and apparently falling.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 5, 2018)

Lacius said:


> In fairness, that's only if we select the polls that show his approval rating as being low while ignoring the higher ones. His aggregated approval rating is probably closer to 40.1%. While not the lowest it has been, it's still quite low and apparently falling.


Well, these are the most recent polls, coming from A rated pollsters.  Of course an aggregate is always going to look better, but it's also going to include lower-rated pollsters.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Well, these are the most recent polls, coming from A rated pollsters.  Of course an aggregate is always going to look better, but it's also going to include lower-rated pollsters.


It's important to look at more than one poll. The aggregate is going to give more weight to better-rated pollsters.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 5, 2018)

Lacius said:


> It's important to look at more than one poll. The aggregate is going to give more weight to better-rated pollsters.


Yeah I suppose.  I don't think there's anything Trump could do to lose his 33% base, they're master mental gymnasts.  If he dies while choking on a Big Mac it'll somehow be Hillary's fault.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Yeah I suppose.  I don't think there's anything Trump could do to lose his 33% base, they're master mental gymnasts.  If he dies while choking on a Big Mac it'll somehow be Hillary's fault.


I'm not saying I disagree, but this sounds an awful lot like Romney's 47% comments.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 5, 2018)

the last 33% are idiotic biggots and or racist/neo nazi's once November comes around unless the 33% threaten the others lives to vote republicians or russia tries again (no doubt they will ), Trump will have a hell of a time with impeachment matters then running the country, I would want to see the security improvements between then and now (if any occurred) if we haven't learned our lesson from 2016 this is not the ideal country to live in anymore


----------



## Xzi (Sep 5, 2018)

Lacius said:


> I'm not saying I disagree, but this sounds an awful lot like Romney's 47% comments.


The difference being that a good chunk of that 47% would have definitely abandoned Obama if he was tied to a federal crime.  Let alone election tampering.  Trump's 33% isn't going anywhere despite proof of both.  They support criminal activity as long as it's their side in charge.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 5, 2018)

might as well look into Canadian immigration laws just to be safe I'm moving to eastern canada if possiable probably winsor cause I'll be a skip from the US boarder and my relatives (most of them) are dotted round detroit


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2018)

Important Op-Ed in the New York Times today from a senior Trump administration official:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Basically it states that even people inside Trump's administration are aware of how incompetent and dangerous his presidency has been, and that the idea of invoking the 25th amendment has been considered.



			
				Anonymous said:
			
		

> But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.  That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
> 
> The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.  Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
> 
> In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Important Op-Ed in the New York Times today from a senior Trump administration official:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html
> 
> Basically it states that even people inside Trump's administration are aware of how incompetent and dangerous his presidency has been, and that the idea of invoking the 25th amendment has been considered.


Problem is, it is hard to tell how genuine they are.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Problem is, it is hard to tell how genuine they are.


True, and a lot of people are blasting the author for what can be seen as posturing for a better position if/when Trump is removed.  Some people are even theorizing that the author might be Mike Pence himself.  I don't think we'll have to wait much to find out, there's no way they're going to be able to stay anonymous for long.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 6, 2018)

So... "Crazytown", anyone?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So... "Crazytown", anyone?


Yup, easy to forget that this is hot on the heels of Bob Woodward's new book, which describes Trump as unhinged and ill-informed (with a lot of sources).



			
				Vanity Fair said:
			
		

> The West Wing came to a virtual standstill yesterday after The Washington Post published the first excerpts of Bob Woodward’s upcoming book, Fear. The book by the veteran White House chronicler portrays Donald Trump as an unhinged and ill-informed commander in chief surrounded by aides who doubt his intelligence and question his fitness for office. “It’s pandemonium. He literally isn’t talking to anyone. He’s canceled meetings and is on the phone calling up his friends,” one source said. Current and former staffers, meanwhile, pointed fingers in all directions as they sought to deflect blame for the damaging leaks. “I’d rather be an unapologetic defender of Donald Trump than Judas,” one West Wing official told me.
> 
> Woodward’s book triggered Trump’s wrath on several levels. Two sources told me Trump is furious at the portions of the book that describe administration officials questioning his intelligence and emotional stability. Woodward reports that Chief of Staff John Kelly called Trump “an idiot” and the West Wing “Crazytown”; Defense Secretary Jim Mattis compared Trump to a “fifth- or sixth-grader”; and Trump’s former personal lawyer called Trump a “fucking liar” who would end up in “an orange jumpsuit” if he testified to special counsel Robert Mueller.



https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/09/bob-woodwards-reality-bomb-is-blowing-up-the-west-wing


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> True, and a lot of people are blasting the author for what can be seen as posturing for a better position if/when Trump is removed.


Damn right ! I already put it on my CV: "_I_ was the mole in the Trump administration that prevented things like mass Mexican AIDS infection, outlawing democrats and world war 3". I can already envision future job sollicitations:

HR: ...and I see that apparently, you are "the anonymous hero that upholds the American Dream against the whole of Donald Trump".
Me: yup. It's a dirty job...but someone has to do it.
HR: and you did this all while working as a PC support guy in Belgium?
Me: yeah...it's a part-time gig.
HR: and...how is it relevant for this position as a janitor in a cotton factory?
Me: you've got to look at the big picture. If Donnie - we call him Donnie behind his back - throws a nuke at Belgium for laughing at his toupet, there won't be much left to janitorize, right?
HR: you're hired! 

Ahem...but on a more serious note: shouldn't this thread be renamed to "the daily Trump soap opera" ? Because in all honesty: this isn't tied to these 13 Russians conspiring to have a moron in the white house.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 6, 2018)




----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


>


If I recall correctly, that statistic is due to the fact that we have the lowest number of people who qualify for unemployment benefits in that amount of time, not that we necessarily have the lowest number of people that would benefit from having unemployment benefits

Edit: also "Deep State" lol


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 6, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Edit: also "Deep State" lol




If the anonymous op-ed in the NYT yesterday showed anything, it's that there really is an entrenched sabotage operation being conducted within the Federal bureaucracy.

Either that, or the anonymous author is full of shit and lies.

Which is it?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> If the anonymous op-ed in the NYT yesterday showed anything, it's that there really is an entrenched sabotage operation being conducted within the Federal bureaucracy.
> 
> Either that, or the anonymous author is full of shit and lies.
> 
> Which is it?


Haven't read it yet, so I can't exactly have an opinion on it. I do know, though, that that's a term that has been thrown around a bunch in the last year to refer to Obama-era administration officials intentionally trying to do dirty secret liberal things in Trump's administration


----------



## Xzi (Sep 6, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> If the anonymous op-ed in the NYT yesterday showed anything, it's that there really is an entrenched sabotage operation being conducted within the Federal bureaucracy.
> 
> Either that, or the anonymous author is full of shit and lies.
> 
> Which is it?


You realize that would mean it's a sabotage operation hired on entirely by Trump, right?  I'm sure these people pledged their loyalty to him, that seems to be the only requirement to work in the white house, but actually seeing the reality of how stupid Trump is forces them into handler/babysitter mode.  If Trump truly had free reign, we would've already ceased all trade with China and the economy would've crashed hard.  That's the reason Trump has needed to have these types of handlers around him his entire life, to save him from his own bad ideas and decisions.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 7, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> If the anonymous op-ed in the NYT yesterday showed anything, it's that there really is an entrenched sabotage operation being conducted within the Federal bureaucracy.
> 
> Either that, or the anonymous author is full of shit and lies.
> 
> Which is it?


Ok, now having read it, have YOU read it? Because it's, like, the opposite of what you just said


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 7, 2018)

​
I see a lot of people in those comments throwing around the 4.2% gdp growth rate. How reliable is this number? It seems the deficit is raising and there are already talks about welfare cuts. Who is benefiting from this growth?


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 7, 2018)

Hanafuda said:


> If the anonymous op-ed in the NYT yesterday showed anything, it's that there really is an entrenched sabotage operation being conducted within the Federal bureaucracy.
> 
> Either that, or the anonymous author is full of shit and lies.
> 
> Which is it?


If you ask me: neither.

Look...this might sound really harsh on fans of Donald Trump, but really: he is absolutely inadequate for the duty. And the thing that his voters have problems getting through their thick skull is that this is not because he is hindered by his political enemies (EVERYONE is hindered by political enemies, no matter what side you're on...it's a straight-up given in politics, even though Trump acts like he's the first president ever who had people with conflicting opinions) but because he had no political experience whatsoever when starting the job. And as much as he thinks otherwise: he doesn't have a talent for it. At all.


Let's take an example from Woodward's book: after the chemical attack in Syria, Trump's reaction to Mattis was "Let's kill <Syrian President Bashar al-Assad>" (source).
I'm not a strategist or even militia, but acting directly on emotion like that is a recipe for disaster. Like it or not, Syria has strong allies. Flat out killing someone in another country instantly loses all diplomatic ties you might need and even turns allies in fearful doubt.

So Mattis's refusal isn't so much an "entrenched sabotage operation" as it is serving America over the acts of the president of America. And that should be, because that is really what separates a president from a dictator.

And to get back to that "deep state" source...is it really news? If you look at Trump's tweets and compare it to America's actions, there is (luckily) quite some disparity. I mean...I made a joke earlier about him throwing nukes at people laughing at his hair, but I honestly think that the chance of that really happening is something that scares the rest of the white house to death. And what other option do they have? Quit the job and be replaced by someone with less of a conscience? Openly disagree and be equally replaced with someone with less of a conscience? Or just stay on board and secretly hope that someone finally dares to call in an impeachment procedure?


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 7, 2018)

​
I know his is shorter, but I wanted to show the contrast here.
​
If you want to go straight to Obama's speech, skip the first 5mins.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 8, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> ​
> I know his is shorter, but I wanted to show the contrast here.
> ​
> If you want to go straight to Obama's speech, skip the first 5mins.



I had already almost forgotten what it felt like to have a president who speaks in complete sentences.  Even GWB was a master orator in comparison to Trump, though.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 8, 2018)

This puts a huge smile on my face. lol

​


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 8, 2018)

Nazis are bad. Now try saying “Radical Islam...” https://t.co/2jS4b8OgwJ— Robert J. O'Neill (@mchooyah) September 7, 2018


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 8, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> https://twitter.com/mchooyah/status/1038129278871846918


You know the funny thing is that I think you'd have a hard time finding someone who wouldn't condemn "radical Islamic" extremist terrorism. It's when people start saying that all Muslims have at least the potential to be terrorists that I think you'll (rightfully) meet some heavy opposition


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> https://twitter.com/mchooyah/status/1038129278871846918


_Nazi_ is a term we should all be able to agree is bad. _Radical Islam_ is a buzz term meant to equivocate _terrorism_ and _Islam_, and it's used by people who already conflate the two. It's reasonable to not want to be seen as doing the same.

Right-wing terrorism by white men is also a far bigger problem in this country than _Islamic terrorism_. Perhaps we should start using the terms _radical white, radical Christian, _or_ radical conservative_.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 9, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You're a few hundred articles behind if you're just now reading the first one, and that stuff is all but confirmed, as well as corroborated by all the US intelligence agencies.  The charges have moved much closer to Trump himself at this point, there's not a whole lot you can do against individuals outside of the country who have committed crimes against us.



Sorry for taking so long to reply, I was on vacation 

Anyway, you misunderstood my statement, I was saying that I don't think they could have influenced the election to the point that it would have changed the outcome. Not that it never happened. Hillary lost because she was Hillary, plain and simple. A Russian hacker did not jump out of the computer screen to force me to vote for Trump. I voted for Trump because the alternative would've been so much worse.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Sorry for taking so long to reply, I was on vacation
> 
> Anyway, you misunderstood my statement, I was saying that I don't think they could have influenced the election to the point that it would have changed the outcome. Not that it never happened. Hillary lost because she was Hillary, plain and simple. A Russian hacker did not jump out of the computer screen to force me to vote for Trump. I voted for Trump because the alternative would've been so much worse.


Nobody is arguing that the Russian meddling occurred in a vacuum. There were a lot of other factors, not the least of which being Secretary Clinton's general unpopularity. However, the Russians clearly influenced the election, and considering Trump's *narrow* Electoral College victory, it's more likely than not that the Russians tipped the election enough in Trump's favor that he won.

This is all ignoring very real concerns that the Russians coordinated with the Trump campaign when it came to the dissemination of hacked emails and other election-meddling techniques.


----------



## NZ_reg (Sep 9, 2018)

Personally, I don't believe that Russia is powerful enough to make any noticeable interference into foreign elections. But that would be extremely satisfying to give America their own medicine.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2018)

NZ_reg said:


> Personally, I don't believe that Russia is powerful enough to make any noticeable interference into foreign elections. But that would be extremely satisfying to give America their own medicine.


They have more than enough power to interfere in foreign elections. We know what they did and roughly how many voters they affected.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 9, 2018)

I don't know how true this is and I can't find another source talking about it, but...

http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/...r-trolls-tweets-trails-and-trump-before-2015/


----------



## dAVID_ (Sep 9, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I don't know how true this is and I can't find another source talking about it, but...
> 
> http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/...r-trolls-tweets-trails-and-trump-before-2015/


News that's only talked about on one site usually means one of these:


The article is fake news.
The article is very new.
The article doesn't have enough evidence to support it.
I think it's 1 and 3 most of the time.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 9, 2018)

Lacius said:


> Nobody is arguing that the Russian meddling occurred in a vacuum. There were a lot of other factors, not the least of which being Secretary Clinton's general unpopularity. However, the Russians clearly influenced the election, and considering Trump's *narrow* Electoral College victory, it's more likely than not that the Russians tipped the election enough in Trump's favor that he won.
> 
> This is all ignoring very real concerns that the Russians coordinated with the Trump campaign when it came to the dissemination of hacked emails and other election-meddling techniques.


So curious, but why would you say Hillary would have been "so much worse"? What would you say influenced your opinion most towards that viewpoint?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 9, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Anyway, you misunderstood my statement, I was saying that I don't think they could have influenced the election to the point that it would have changed the outcome. Not that it never happened. Hillary lost because she was Hillary, plain and simple. A Russian hacker did not jump out of the computer screen to force me to vote for Trump. I voted for Trump because the alternative would've been so much worse.


It wasn't as simple as just hacking the election (though several individual states did report their election systems were hacked).  They used a combination of tactics including a massive social media manipulation campaign, hacking the DNC, and they helped Trump against not only Hillary but his challengers in the primary as well.  It's also worth keeping in mind that the final difference in votes needed to win the electoral college was only ~80,000 across two states.  Ignoring Russia for a moment, 5% of Trump voters say they would've changed their vote if Trump's porn star affair had been made public during the campaign, but that alone would've been enough to flip the election to Hillary.  It's foolhardy to believe that Russia couldn't also have manipulated at least 5% of the vote in the direction they wanted.  Especially because every US intelligence agency is on the record stating that's exactly what they did.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So curious, but why would you say Hillary would have been "so much worse"? What would you say influenced your opinion most towards that viewpoint?


You quoted the wrong person.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 9, 2018)

Lacius said:


> You quoted the wrong person.


Whoops, you're right

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TerribleTy27 said:


> Sorry for taking so long to reply, I was on vacation
> 
> Anyway, you misunderstood my statement, I was saying that I don't think they could have influenced the election to the point that it would have changed the outcome. Not that it never happened. Hillary lost because she was Hillary, plain and simple. A Russian hacker did not jump out of the computer screen to force me to vote for Trump. I voted for Trump because the alternative would've been so much worse.





TotalInsanity4 said:


> So curious, but why would you say Hillary would have been "so much worse"? What would you say influenced your opinion most towards that viewpoint?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 9, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> So curious, but why would you say Hillary would have been "so much worse"? What would you say influenced your opinion most towards that viewpoint?



Hillary being a pathological liar for one. Another was that I hated her policies. And my own conservative bias.

I'm not saying Trump is amazing, or even good. But when he lies, there's reasoning behind it.

Hillary lies 'just because'. 

At the very least Trump is _somewhat_ competent in politics and business, and he's generally not going to lie for no good reason.

Hillary is just... bad.

I'm not the kind of conservative who'll bash the democrat party against the wall, and I'll even readily admit there are lots of smart people on their side who can think up some genuinely good policies. If a democrat was running for president with policies I agree with, I'd readily throw my vote at that guy.

Even if she had great policies that were guaranteed to work, I still wouldn't trust her. She has repeatedly shown an inability to tell the truth, even when facts are staring her in the face and it would be more beneficial to tell the truth.



Xzi said:


> It wasn't as simple as just hacking the election (though several individual states did report their election systems were hacked).  They used a combination of tactics including a massive social media manipulation campaign, hacking the DNC, and they helped Trump against not only Hillary but his challengers in the primary as well.  It's also worth keeping in mind that the final difference in votes needed to win the electoral college was only ~80,000 across two states.  Ignoring Russia for a moment, 5% of Trump voters say they would've changed their vote if Trump's porn star affair had been made public during the campaign, but that alone would've been enough to flip the election to Hillary.  It's foolhardy to believe that Russia couldn't also have manipulated at least 5% of the vote in the direction they wanted.  Especially because every US intelligence agency is on the record stating that's exactly what they did.



The electoral college is independent of the popular vote. How the results are reported and how EC members talk with each other is a closely guarded federal secret. Not even the Russian government can pierce a closed system like this, no matter how much they want to.

All of the tactics you're talking about were designed to increase Trumps popular vote, which doesn't make much sense seeing as how trump *LOST *the popular vote.


----------



## Glyptofane (Sep 9, 2018)

The Slimes article is fake, I'm assuming anyway. If it is real, well, pretty shallow really.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> This puts a huge smile on my face. lol
> 
> ​



I found him very funny also.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 9, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Hillary being a pathological liar for one. Another was that I hated her policies. And my own conservative bias.
> 
> I'm not saying Trump is amazing, or even good. But when he lies, there's reasoning behind it.
> 
> Hillary lies 'just because'.


Could you elaborate on this? Because I'd like to remind you that one of the very first things Trump said as President was that turnout to his inauguration was the best in history



> Even if she had great policies that were guaranteed to work, I still wouldn't trust her. She has repeatedly shown an inability to tell the truth, even when facts are staring her in the face and it would be more beneficial to tell the truth.


Again, could you elaborate and/or give me an example? And then, what influenced you to believe that? (Not just "how she is", but specifically what news, when/where it came from on what sites/mediums, etc)


----------



## Xzi (Sep 9, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> The electoral college is independent of the popular vote. How the results are reported and how EC members talk with each other is a closely guarded federal secret. Not even the Russian government can pierce a closed system like this, no matter how much they want to.
> 
> All of the tactics you're talking about were designed to increase Trumps popular vote, which doesn't make much sense seeing as how trump *LOST *the popular vote.


You misunderstand.  80,000 votes in two states is what the difference was in winning the electoral college.  I'm well aware Trump lost the popular vote, a Republican hasn't won the popular vote and the presidency since Reagan.  Between everything I already mentioned and your standard GOP voter suppression tactics, I suppose that shouldn't surprise anybody.

I'm not sure why you believe they would have to mess with the EC at all.  You manipulate the votes at the state level and that manipulates the EC.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 11, 2018)

Not like it invalidates everything that is happening around Trump, but there is claim going around that a DHS official lied and Russia didn't hacked the election. I can't tell if this is real or not.


----------



## Song of storms (Sep 11, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Not like it invalidates everything that is happening around Trump, but there is claim going around that a DHS official lied and Russia didn't hacked the election. I can't tell if this is real or not.


How many cases of false allegations have been popping out right after Trump was elected? These people aren't making it any easier. He's going to stay president for 8 years.

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/20...an-Hacking-Lie-Expand-Bureaucratic-Authority/


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Sep 11, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> How many cases of false allegations have been popping out right after Trump was elected? These people aren't making it any easier. He's going to stay president for 8 years.
> 
> https://sputniknews.com/analysis/20...an-Hacking-Lie-Expand-Bureaucratic-Authority/



We can't assume all allegations are false. People are being fired left and right, others indicted. It's indicative of something fishy going on.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 11, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Not like it invalidates everything that is happening around Trump, but there is claim going around that a DHS official lied and Russia didn't hacked the election. I can't tell if this is real or not.


If it's a claim from the Trump administration you can be pretty confident that it isn't true.  Not to mention that DHS was just one of the intelligence agencies among all of them which confirmed.



Song of storms said:


> How many cases of false allegations have been popping out right after Trump was elected? These people aren't making it any easier. He's going to stay president for 8 years.
> 
> https://sputniknews.com/analysis/20...an-Hacking-Lie-Expand-Bureaucratic-Authority/


Yes, surely "Sputnik News" is reliable when it comes to covering Russian activity on the international stage.


----------



## Song of storms (Sep 11, 2018)

Sophie-bear said:


> We can't assume all allegations are false. People are being fired left and right, others indicted. It's indicative of something fishy going on.


I'm not assuming that they're false but I'm not assuming they're the truth either because the left has been fabricating lies for years now, between the swastikas sprayed on buildings by liberals and stuff


----------



## Song of storms (Sep 11, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If it's a claim from the Trump administration you can be pretty confident that it isn't true.  Not to mention that DHS was just one of the intelligence agencies among all of them which confirmed.
> 
> 
> Yes, surely "Sputnik News" is reliable when it comes to covering Russian activity on the international stage.


When your mass media is controlled by one side of the political spectrum, there aren't many other alternatives.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 11, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> When your mass media is controlled by one side of the political spectrum, there aren't many other alternatives.


That's a ridiculous claim, there are plenty of non-biased sources to choose from.  Non-biased doesn't mean they're going to ignore negative stories about Trump though, it's just that some people want to live a selective reality where Trump never makes a bad decision.  I believe the proper term is "snowflakes" who need a "safe space."


----------



## TokyoDoll (Sep 11, 2018)

GBAer said:


> And what has trump done exactly for him to be impeached?



He's a pedophile, is the of the reason he should be impeached.


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Sep 11, 2018)

Song of storms said:


> When your mass media is controlled by one side of the political spectrum, there aren't many other alternatives.


Mass media exists on both sides, lmao. Most news outlets, though, are partisan, and that sucks... but that's how it is. It's up to us to figure out what's true and what's not, unfortunately.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 11, 2018)

Sophie-bear said:


> Mass media exists on both sides, lmao. Most news outlets, though, are partisan, and that sucks... but that's how it is. It's up to us to figure out what's true and what's not, unfortunately.


And generally speaking, one can infer that "Sputnik News" is going to have a conflicted interest regarding Russian election fixing of a foreign nation


----------



## Xzi (Sep 11, 2018)

Sophie-bear said:


> Mass media exists on both sides, lmao. Most news outlets, though, are partisan, and that sucks... but that's how it is. It's up to us to figure out what's true and what's not, unfortunately.


Yup.  Even on Fox News they have to check in with reality occasionally, though.  Which is why Shep Smith and/or Chris Wallace have reported on just about everything that's been covered in this thread.  I'm guessing most of their typical viewership doesn't watch those correspondents when they're on.

I'm pretty sure we're past the point of questioning whether crimes were committed when we've got Trump's campaign manager *and* his personal lawyer facing jail time.  A lot more people close to Trump have been flipping on him recently to avoid the same fate.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 11, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If it's a claim from the Trump administration you can be pretty confident that it isn't true.  Not to mention that DHS was just one of the intelligence agencies among all of them which confirmed.
> 
> 
> Yes, surely "Sputnik News" is reliable when it comes to covering Russian activity on the international stage.


Well, I don't even know how I found this claim in the first place, but when I was browsing google, I came across it from The Jimmy Dore Show.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 11, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Well, I don't even know how I found this claim in the first place, but when I was browsing google, I came across it from The Jimmy Dore Show.


I guess you'd know the reporting accuracy of that show better than I, but with just a cursory glance at a Google search I'd say the guy definitely has an agenda to push.  Podcasts/Youtube probably aren't the best source of factual news regardless.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 11, 2018)

Xzi said:


> I guess you'd know the reporting accuracy of that show better than I, but with just a cursory glance at a Google search I'd say the guy definitely has an agenda to push.


I don't. In fact, I haven't even watch that specific video yet. I was distracted by the title alone, trying to find where this claim is coming from. That's why I was having a hard time to see if this claim was true.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 11, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> I don't. In fact, I haven't even watch that specific video yet. I was distracted by the title alone, trying to find where this claim is coming from. That's why I was having a hard time to see if this claim was true.


If you can't find any article to back up the claim then it definitely isn't true.  US intelligence agencies released their official joint statement on Russia's influence over a year ago, nobody's going to contradict that now unless it's a Trump stooge trying to sow doubt.  Mueller's investigation would continue on at its steady pace anyway, and at this point it's become about a lot more than _just_ the hacking.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 11, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Could you elaborate on this? Because I'd like to remind you that one of the very first things Trump said as President was that turnout to his inauguration was the best in history



That's called hyperbole, like, "Man, this football stadium has the entire nation in here!" Or "Man, everyone's targeting me in this online game, it's the worst."

Very different then outright lying.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Again, could you elaborate and/or give me an example? And then, what influenced you to believe that? (Not just "how she is", but specifically what news, when/where it came from on what sites/mediums, etc)




4chan

I usually get news from places like Reason and Fox News, but for really serious accusations like this I check her actual statements via YouTube. And for treasonous national-level that warrants a FREAKING INVESTIGATION, I check .gov sites for reports. 

*COUGH* 
*https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/Hillary R. Clinton Part 02 of 25/view* 
*COUGH*


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 11, 2018)

Xzi said:


> You misunderstand.  80,000 votes in two states is what the difference was in winning the electoral college.  I'm well aware Trump lost the popular vote, a Republican hasn't won the popular vote and the presidency since Reagan.  Between everything I already mentioned and your standard GOP voter suppression tactics, I suppose that shouldn't surprise anybody.
> 
> I'm not sure why you believe they would have to mess with the EC at all.  You manipulate the votes at the state level and that manipulates the EC.



That's not including FPTP and the enormous amount of gerrymandering on both sides. But nonetheless I'm not going to argue the point, as accounting for the influence of the above variables on the election would be a full research paper on its own.

How exactly were they manipulating the vote? Social Media Campaigns are nothing new, and hacking the DMC didn't really set the Democrats back. Maybe I misunderstood the article, idk. In my opinion it was just influencing the vote. Manipulating would be hacking the vote count.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 11, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> That's called hyperbole, like, "Man, this football stadium has the entire nation in here!" Or "Man, everyone's targeting me in this online game, it's the worst."
> 
> Very different then outright lying.


"Photographs of the inaugural proceedings were intentionally framed in a way, in one particular Tweet, to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall. That was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period. Both in person and around the globe."
That is a direct quote from Sean Spicer, who at the time was supposed to be a direct connection between the press and our President


> I usually get news from places like Reason and Fox News, but for really serious accusations like this I check her actual statements via YouTube. And for treasonous national-level that warrants a FREAKING INVESTIGATION, I check .gov sites for reports.
> 
> *COUGH*
> *https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/Hillary R. Clinton Part 02 of 25/view*
> *COUGH*


Could you explain what I'm supposed to be reading here? I get that it's about _tHe EmAiLs_, but as I recall she went through eight separate court proceedings and was found innocent. Plus nothing I saw was necessarily incriminating


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 11, 2018)

I guess editing photos to make the inauguration look bigger is also a "hyperbole".


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 11, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> "Photographs of the inaugural proceedings were intentionally framed in a way, in one particular Tweet, to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall. That was the largest audience to witness an inauguration, period. Both in person and around the globe."
> That is a direct quote from Sean Spicer, who at the time was supposed to be a direct connection between the press and our President



I still just see that as PR hyperbole. Ntm but there was no malicious intent or outcome.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Could you explain what I'm supposed to be reading here? I get that it's about _tHe EmAiLs_, but as I recall she went through eight separate court proceedings and was found innocent. Plus nothing I saw was necessarily incriminating



Yeah, I have no idea how she got away with this stuff. At best this was negligence, at worst this was _treason. _

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> I guess editing photos to make the inauguration look bigger is also a "hyperbole".



Again, no malicious intent, it's just normal PR.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 11, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Yeah, I have no idea how she got away with this stuff. At best this was negligence, at worst this was _treason._


How exactly is using a personal email treason? What justification could there possibly be there? Literally the only way I could see that claim justified is if she was using said email to leak or sell federally classified information, which I have heard no evidence of

And besides, if using a personal email and non-goverment-issued phone is treason, what do you have to say of all the members of Trump's campaign staff that are being locked up for objectively worse crimes?


> Again, no malicious intent, it's just normal PR.


It's not normal PR because the presidency doesn't NEED "normal" PR; the White House press secretary exists to communicate important information from the President to the American citizens, not to stoke the President's ego and promote his brand


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 11, 2018)

I guess constantly lying and misleading people is perfectly fine, as long as their constant lies are hyperbolic and "normal" PR.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 12, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> How exactly is using a personal email treason? What justification could there possibly be there? Literally the only way I could see that claim justified is if she was using said email to leak or sell federally classified information, which I have heard no evidence of
> 
> And besides, if using a personal email and non-goverment-issued phone is treason, what do you have to say of all the members of Trump's campaign staff that are being locked up for objectively worse crimes?



It wasn't using a personal email that was treason. She put classified documents on a private email server. In follow up reports, the FBI mentioned that they had checked the metadata and that there was evidence of hackers. Once she had been found out she was told to give up all her emails to an inspector. All seems well and fine... Then the FBI found out she had over 17,000 emails she had 'forgot' to turn over. When the FBI told everyone, several hundred of those emails mysteriously disappeared...

Yeah, if she knew that she had those emails, and she knew the law regarding SAI, (WHICH SHE SAID SHE DID IN THE INTERVIEW), then it's treason.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> It's not normal PR because the presidency doesn't NEED "normal" PR; the White House press secretary exists to communicate important information from the President to the American citizens, not to stoke the President's ego and promote his brand



Eh, most press secretaries have been fancy PR, they're just a lot more subtle about it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> I guess constantly lying and misleading people is perfectly fine, as long as their constant lies are hyperbolic and "normal" PR.



Examples please.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 12, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Examples please.


Here you go. Link


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 12, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Here you go. Link



Please find another source. This is clearly extremely biased, and it shows. They keep bending his statements around or taking it out of context, only 10%~ of what I saw actually had any merit. Even then it was very minor stuff that trump was just ignorant about because, again, it was very minor.

Only the bit about the dossier was completely true, from what I had saw.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 12, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Please find another source. This is clearly extremely biased, and it shows. They keep bending his statements around or taking it out of context, only 10%~ of what I saw actually had any merit. Even then it was very minor stuff that trump was just ignorant about because, again, it was very minor.
> 
> Only the bit about the dossier was completely true, from what I had saw.


Even if only 10%~ of what you think has merit, is still a lot, and him simply being "ignorant" about all these things is still not a good thing. 


Another Source.

I could keep bringing out sources, but I have a feeling that you will just keep glossing over things and making excuses. Hyperbole, "normal" PR and ignorant. What's your next excuse?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 12, 2018)

KingVamp said:


> Even if only 10%~ of what you think has merit, is still a lot, and him simply being "ignorant" about all these things is still not a good thing.
> 
> 
> Another Source.
> ...



Sorry, but I'm not going to argue with you. You clearly aren't going to budge on this, as evidenced by taking what I say out of context and cherry picking your sources.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 12, 2018)

From today. 
https://www.inquisitr.com/5067324/donald-trump-911-tweet-russia-investigation/



TerribleTy27 said:


> Sorry, but I'm not going to argue with you. You clearly aren't going to budge on this, as evidenced by taking what I say out of context and cherry picking your sources.


That would be fine, because I already knew this was going nowhere, but I tried anyway. How exactly did I take what you said out of context?

Another Source. If you think I'm "cherry picking", you can simply Google Trump's lies yourself. 

Not that I wanted to vote for either of them, but I find it funny that her emails is the only thing people can fallback on, yet they make all these excuses for what Trump is doing.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 12, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Sorry, but I'm not going to argue with you. You clearly aren't going to budge on this, as evidenced by taking what I say out of context and cherry picking your sources.


I'm... what... You can't "cherry-pick" sources that GIVE THE QUOTES that he said, even if the sources are biased and reporting subjectively, the quotes are OBJECTIVE truth!


----------



## GBAer (Sep 13, 2018)

TokyoDoll said:


> He's a pedophile, is the of the reason he should be impeached.


You have serious issues.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm... what... You can't "cherry-pick" sources that GIVE THE QUOTES that he said, even if the sources are biased and reporting subjectively, the quotes are OBJECTIVE truth!




The quotes are objective, but the reporters biases shone right through when they 'debunked' Trumps quotes. Repeatedly, the reporter:

A: Took it out of context.

B: Debunked a strawman.

C: Just plain misunderstood what trump meant.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> The quotes are objective, but the reporters biases shone right through when they 'debunked' Trumps quotes. Repeatedly, the reporter:
> 
> A: Took it out of context.


Example?


> B: Debunked a strawman.


Either you don't understand what "strawman" means, or you don't understand what investigative reporters are supposed to do. They're SUPPOSED to point out strawman arguments like that and pick them apart


> C: Just plain misunderstood what trump meant.


Again, example?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Either you don't understand what "strawman" means, or you don't understand what investigative reporters are supposed to do. They're SUPPOSED to point out strawman arguments like that and pick them apart



I meant strawman as in the reporter didn't actually debunk Trumps actual quote, he debunked an absurd, extreme version of trumps quote.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I meant strawman as in the reporter didn't actually debunk Trumps actual quote, he debunked an absurd, extreme version of trumps quote.


Um... What? If it's quoted in the article, it's an actual quote. That's media ethics 101, and a paper WILL fire you for attributing a quote to someone that didn't actually say that. I'd know, I'm in the class where they teach you that right now


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Um... What? If it's quoted in the article, it's an actual quote. That's media ethics 101, and a paper WILL fire you for attributing a quote to someone that didn't actually say that. I'd know, I'm in the class where they teach you that right now



You're misunderstanding. What the reporter did was put the accurate, 100% said by trump quote. And then when he had to debunk it, the reporter oversimplified trumps arguments.

For example, one of the 'lies' trump said was that "We need to lower taxes." 

The reporter then went on this huge two paragraph rant about how trickle-down economics doesn't work.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> You're misunderstanding. What the reporter did was put the accurate, 100% said by trump quote. And then when he had to debunk it, the reporter oversimplified trumps arguments.
> 
> For example, one of the 'lies' trump said was that "We need to lower taxes."
> 
> The reporter then went on this huge two paragraph rant about how trickle-down economics doesn't work.


Ok, then how do you justify lowering taxes on the wealthy to the middle and lower classes, if not that under ideal conditions a portion of that money will come back to them?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ok, then how do you justify lowering taxes on the wealthy to the middle and lower classes, if not that under ideal conditions a portion of that money will come back to them?



Because it's also removing a major gateway for low and mid class people. One of my friends makes 10K a year. He has the intelligence to run his own business, but he never did cause it's too expensive. With the lower taxes, he realized this is his chance. He now runs a small convenience store in Indianapolis.

Not to mention, but what's the alternative? If we overtax the rich, they're just gonna move their house out of the country. At least this way we get tons of extra money for everyone.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Because it's also removing a major gateway for low and mid class people. One of my friends makes 10K a year. He has the intelligence to run his own business, but he never did cause it's too expensive. With the lower taxes, he realized this is his chance. He now runs a small convenience store in Indianapolis.
> 
> Not to mention, but what's the alternative? If we overtax the rich, they're just gonna move their house out of the country. At least this way we get tons of extra money for everyone.


You do realize that between the years of 1933 to 1987, the top federal income tax tier never dipped below 50%, right? And that the majority of the time it was above 80%? And yet that was largely considered to be the golden age of American infrastructure, with booming industry? Not to mention that in that time, the difference between the upper and lower class was virtually the lowest it's ever been in recent history?

I mean, this is now SO far off topic, but if you're going to bring stuff up just because you think you can use it to justify the lies of a oligarchical politician you think is leading you to revolution, please at least try to use history as a stepping-off point for your arguments


----------



## AkikoKumagara (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> At least this way we get tons of extra money for everyone.



We've already tried the trickle down theory.



Spoiler



It doesn't work.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

Sophie-bear said:


> We've already tried the trickle down theory.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And yeah, it's funny how he responded to a question of "how can this be interpreted in any way other than an attempt to re-implement trickle-down theory" with an example of trickle-down theory


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You do realize that between the years of 1933 to 1987, the top federal income tax tier never dipped below 50%, right? And that the majority of the time it was above 80%? And yet that was largely considered to be the golden age of American infrastructure, with booming industry? Not to mention that in that time, the difference between the upper and lower class was virtually the lowest it's ever been in recent history?
> 
> I mean, this is now SO far off topic, but if you're going to bring stuff up just because you think you can use it to justify the lies of a oligarchical politician you think is leading you to revolution, please at least try to use history as a stepping-off point for your arguments



First of all, what's wrong with oligarchy? God knows this country would fall apart in days if we shifted to a true democracy.

Second of all, keep it civil. If you don't want to argue with me, then say so. 

Snidely insulting conservatives and trump supporters like this gets us nowhere. All it does is contribute to the ever-widening gap between the parties. So don't do it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> God knows this country would fall apart in days if we shifted to a true democracy.


Bish wha?



> Second of all, keep it civil. If you don't want to argue with me, then say so.


It's not that I don't want to argue with you, it's that I'd rather you stick to the topic of the thread while doing so. I know that I got pulled to the side too, but this thread is about evidence of ties to Russia with President Trump, not whether or not we should support him based on policy. There are points where those topics intersect, but economic policy (unless, of course, it's lifting sanctions on Russia) is not one of those


> Snidely insulting conservatives and trump supporters like this gets us nowhere. All it does is contribute to the ever-widening gap between the parties. So don't do it.


I think you'll find I'm a snide person whenever I get worked up, no matter who's on the receiving end, but I wasn't even looking to insult you (let alone the entire conservative party) in that case; I was legitimately telling you to actually do some historical research before just blindly following whoever's currently heading your party

Now, on the subject of "insulting conservatives and trump supports," I could easily launch into a tangent on how the "trump Party" and the "Conservative Party" are now two completely distinct entities, but I won't. Because again, off topic.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Bish wha?



The vast majority of voters on both sides are only voting because "REPUBLICANS/DEMOCRATS ARE PURE EVIL!!!!", not because they actually thought out their own personal beliefs. I guarantee you, if you dropped the usual democrat and a usual republican into the middle of nowhere, they would both be trying to kill each other in under a week




TotalInsanity4 said:


> It's not that I don't want to argue with you, it's that I'd rather you stick to the topic of the thread while doing so. I know that I got pulled to the side too, but this thread is about evidence of ties to Russia with President Trump, not whether or not we should support him based on policy. There are points where those topics intersect, but economic policy (unless, of course, it's lifting sanctions on Russia) is not one of those



If you want to move this discussion elsewhere, I'd be willing to open it on another thread



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I think you'll find I'm a snide person whenever I get worked up, no matter who's on the receiving end, but I wasn't even looking to insult you (let alone the entire conservative party) in that case; I was legitimately telling you to actually do some historical research before just blindly following whoever's currently heading your party



Whatever the case, you came off as very condescending. I hate it when I'm in a debate and it becomes a game of 'WHO CAN MAKE MORE AD HOMINEMS!!!?!?



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Now, on the subject of "insulting conservatives and trump supports," I could easily launch into a tangent on how the "trump Party" and the "Conservative Party" are now two completely distinct entities, but I won't. Because again, off topic.



Can't argue with you there. If 50% of conservatives are rabid, 99% of trumpians(?) should be locked up at the nearest mental hospital.

The overall point I was trying to make was that while trump isn't any George Washington, he's definitely not satan incarnate. At the very least he's (debatedly) competent, and he's (probably) not going to crash the country into the ground. Better then I can say for _some _presidents.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> If you want to move this discussion elsewhere, I'd be willing to open it on another thread


Yeah sure, I'd be down. Just know it will go downhill fast depending on what it's titled

And also, because I'm lazy, wouldja mind pasting the other points of your post in the thread you'd create?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yeah sure, I'd be down. Just know it will go downhill fast depending on what it's titled
> 
> And also, because I'm lazy, wouldja mind pasting the other points of your post in the thread you'd create?



Which post?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Which post?


The one that the segment I quoted came from. Just so the conversation can continue

Unless there's more you wanted to add as a starting point


----------



## granville (Sep 13, 2018)

Trickle down economics is legitimately one of the dumbest economic policies that has ever existed. At least for all of the average middle or low income Americans who fell for it and thought it would help them. For those in on the hustle of course, trickle down economics accomplished exactly what it's designers intended. Try to make the idea of giving big business and corporations effectively unlimited power seem attractive to middle and lower income brackets. And trick them into handing over their tax money to these entities. The premise is that one day, workers would be rewarded on their investment and invited into the rich people's club too. When in reality they are sucked dry and left to rot.

And make no mistake, that WAS always the plan. The people who came up with trickle down economics knew exactly what they were doing. From the very beginning it was never intended or designed be a sustainable long term economic policy, even though that WAS the lie they told to try to sell it to the general public. It was a short term scam by the wealthy and their political representatives to further increase their spoils. It invites the fox into the hen house with a small notice politely asking the fox not to eat the chickens (and zero consequences for doing it). Trickle down economics sounded stupid even on paper, and unsurprisingly turned out to be just as foolish and dangerous when we tried it out for real.

It is utterly absurd to expect businesses and their executives (at least the overwhelming majority) to treat and pay their workforces fairly without strict rules and regulations in place to ensure they do. Lawlessness and anarchy doesn't work for ANY other aspect of society, and the business world is provably no different when allowed to exist unchecked. They desperately WANT to be let off the leash so they can go wild. Allowing this inevitable leads to oligarcy-kleptocracy (which is essentially what America is today, and fucking no that isn't a good thing), and economic ruin for all but the elite few who are lucky to be in on the scam.

The fact that anyone ever fell for this "economic policy" is hilarious, the fact that anyone today still would (even after all of its demonstrated failures) is just fucking sad...


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 13, 2018)

I almost feel like their should be a law for banning trickle down economics.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

granville said:


> It is utterly absurd to expect businesses and their executives (at least the overwhelming majority) to treat and pay their workforces fairly without strict rules and regulations in place to ensure they do. Lawlessness and anarchy doesn't work for ANY other aspect of society, and the business world is provably no different when allowed to exist unchecked. They desperately WANT to be let off the leash so they can go wild. Allowing this inevitable leads to oligarcy-kleptocracy (which is essentially what America is today, and fucking no that isn't a good thing), and economic ruin for all but the elite few who are lucky to be in on the scam.



First of all, if you over regulate, then they'll just grab their workforce from a developing country. Now we've gone from workers being paid unfairly, to not being paid at all. Yay.

Second of all, they wouldn't have had such low wages if they had competition. The reason big companies like Amazon, Microsoft, etc. can get away with the stuff they do is because the workers don't have any easy alternative. If the tax cuts stay low, I guarantee you there will be plenty of alternatives with far better benefits. Amazon will have to step up its game if it want to avoid their workers getting taken.




granville said:


> The fact that anyone ever fell for this "economic policy" is hilarious, the fact that anyone today still would (even after all of its demonstrated failures) is just fucking sad...



Reagan disagrees with you.


----------



## granville (Sep 13, 2018)

Ronald Reagan (and his administration) was a massive corporate shill, so it's not a surprise that his policies caused big business to grow. But his rule was largely undone by the economic collapse of 1987. Deregulation occurring at the time certainly had somewhat of a hand in this. This economic downturn continued during the rest of his presidency, and another one hit in the middle of HW Bush's admin as well.

Deregulation often provides the appearance of short term gains in certain markets. For example, the Glass-Steagall act was gutted in 1999, which created a pretty immediate and massive boost to the housing market for the next 6 years. Too massive, Glass-Steagall was a piece of regulation that was passed following the market crash of 1929 to prevent such a collapse occurring again. In the early-mid 2000s (in addition to several other recessions both before and after 9/11), the housing market grew out of control and popped, triggering the Great Recession. Made all the worse by increasing deregulation and tax cuts for the rich under the Bush Jr admin. The housing market was in anarchy, bankers had literally been playing roulette with the mortgage industry. And we saw the consequences.

The Obama administration implemented some new rules and regulations to try to reform the industry, including the Dodd-Frank Act and cracking down on subprime lending (though the gamblers in the banking industry should have been prosecuted, and the big banks should not have been allowed to merge and become even larger). The Trump admin has been routinely dismantling many of these regulations out of spite (including Dodd Frank). We're now in another bubble (housing prices are quickly beginning to creep up again). The dangerous "subprime mortgage" is even making a comeback, renamed to "non-prime".

Governments can stop companies from moving overseas if they want. Provided its politicians aren't bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists. I'm not going to throw blame around for this one, most Democrats and Republicans in the presidential admin as well as congress are servants of corporate money. But that needs to change. There's largely no interest in the Republican party, but there is a rapidly growing faction of liberals who are demanding reform from the Democrats.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 13, 2018)

granville said:


> Ronald Reagan (and his administration) was a massive corporate shill, so it's not a surprise that his policies caused big business to grow. But his rule was largely undone by the economic collapse of 1987. Deregulation occurring at the time certainly had somewhat of a hand in this. This economic downturn continued during the rest of his presidency, and another one hit in the middle of HW Bush's admin as well.
> 
> Deregulation often provides the appearance of short term gains in certain markets. For example, the Glass-Steagall act was gutted in 1999, which created a pretty immediate and massive boost to the housing market for the next 6 years. Too massive, Glass-Steagall was a piece of regulation that was passed following the market crash of 1929 to prevent such a collapse occurring again. In the early-mid 2000s (in addition to several other recessions both before and after 9/11), the housing market grew out of control and popped, triggering the Great Recession. Made all the worse by increasing deregulation and tax cuts for the rich under the Bush Jr admin. The housing market was in anarchy, bankers had literally been playing roulette with the mortgage industry. And we saw the consequences.
> 
> ...


We have a recession at least once per decade. You can't put the blame on one specific policy or method. There are a ton of external factors outside the country, and outside our control.

Also, side note here, but the reason the banks went out of control wasn't due to conservative or progressive policy. It was crony capitalism. The banks had a ton of control over the government at that point, so they knew they could do whatever they want and just get government handouts.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2018)

Another flips after a little Mueller Time™, it's Paul Manafort with a cooperative plea deal:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ten...ort-special-counsel-sources/story?id=57809113

That being the case, more potential charges are incoming, hopefully it doesn't take Mueller's team that long to cross-reference Manafort's testimony with Cohen and other sources.  Who knows if they'll want to release any statement before mid-terms.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2018)

Ok, so the update is that we aren't sure whether he's cooperating or not, but Manafort has agreed to plead guilty to his charges:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/14/ex-...deal-with-special-counsel-robert-mueller.html

This also results in Manafort forfeiting $46 million, meaning the Mueller investigation has now paid for itself and then some.

Edit: just as I was posting this it was confirmed that the plea deal includes cooperation:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/manafort-cooperating-special-counsel


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 15, 2018)

So, basically Mueller is more beneficial to us than the tax cuts.


----------



## brickmii82 (Sep 15, 2018)

granville said:


> Ronald Reagan (and his administration) was a massive corporate shill, so it's not a surprise that his policies caused big business to grow. But his rule was largely undone by the economic collapse of 1987. Deregulation occurring at the time certainly had somewhat of a hand in this. This economic downturn continued during the rest of his presidency, and another one hit in the middle of HW Bush's admin as well.
> 
> Deregulation often provides the appearance of short term gains in certain markets. For example, the Glass-Steagall act was gutted in 1999, which created a pretty immediate and massive boost to the housing market for the next 6 years. Too massive, Glass-Steagall was a piece of regulation that was passed following the market crash of 1929 to prevent such a collapse occurring again. In the early-mid 2000s (in addition to several other recessions both before and after 9/11), the housing market grew out of control and popped, triggering the Great Recession. Made all the worse by increasing deregulation and tax cuts for the rich under the Bush Jr admin. The housing market was in anarchy, bankers had literally been playing roulette with the mortgage industry. And we saw the consequences.
> 
> ...


Not only are the meager regulations Dodd-Frank instituted being rolled back, commercial and investment banks can still operate as a singular entity, rating agencies still have hardly any oversight, and synthetic CDO's which destroyed trillions due to packaged junk MBA's were re-labeled Bespoke Tranche Opportunities and slapped right back into the market. How is this shit not outlawed now? Glass-Steagal should've been re-instituted imo. But I do find it ironic that it was gutted under Clinton. The rollbacks actually started under Nixon though.


----------



## granville (Sep 15, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> Not only are the meager regulations Dodd-Frank instituted being rolled back, commercial and investment banks can still operate as a singular entity, rating agencies still have hardly any oversight, and synthetic CDO's which destroyed trillions due to packaged junk MBA's were re-labeled Bespoke Tranche Opportunities and slapped right back into the market. How is this shit not outlawed now? Glass-Steagal should've been re-instituted imo. But I do find it ironic that it was gutted under Clinton. The rollbacks actually started under Nixon though.


The entire CDO debacle was horrifying. Much of the public is still ignorant on how they worked due to the intentionally convoluted word salad behind it. But it's similar in concept to stock derivatives. A literal gambling racket (built on an already collapsing foundation) set up by a bunch of rich narcissistic jackoffs.

One expects this sort of behavior to be allowed and encouraged from Republicans (who had a majority in Congress when Glass Steagall was gutted). But the Clinton and Obama administrations have been weak on punishing this behavior too. In some ways they have enabled and encouraged it. Bill Clinton in 2015 defended Glass Steagall being repealed and claimed it had nothing to do with the housing crash (complete bullshit). The bank bailouts continued even when Obama took office. No one was jailed. And only moderate new regulations were put into place, which are now effectively gone thanks to the Trump admin. Sub prime mortgages are now coming back (now called "nonprime"), and we're seeing a repeat of history.

As you said, this deregulation has been going on for decades. Going back at least as far as Nixon. But each administration following, D or R, has escalated it to varying degrees. There unfortunately aren't really many true liberal options in American politics. Many Democrats still lean at least somewhat right economically speaking. There's an attempt to reform the party with pressure from Bernie Sanders and other progressive candidates, but it remains to be seen if they will have any substantive success.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 29, 2018)

granville said:


> Ronald Reagan (and his administration) was a massive corporate shill, so it's not a surprise that his policies caused big business to grow. But his rule was largely undone by the economic collapse of 1987. Deregulation occurring at the time certainly had somewhat of a hand in this. This economic downturn continued during the rest of his presidency, and another one hit in the middle of HW Bush's admin as well.
> 
> Deregulation often provides the appearance of short term gains in certain markets. For example, the Glass-Steagall act was gutted in 1999, which created a pretty immediate and massive boost to the housing market for the next 6 years. Too massive, Glass-Steagall was a piece of regulation that was passed following the market crash of 1929 to prevent such a collapse occurring again. In the early-mid 2000s (in addition to several other recessions both before and after 9/11), the housing market grew out of control and popped, triggering the Great Recession. Made all the worse by increasing deregulation and tax cuts for the rich under the Bush Jr admin. The housing market was in anarchy, bankers had literally been playing roulette with the mortgage industry. And we saw the consequences.
> 
> ...


Trickle Down Economics theory does not exist in the economic world, its a made up straw man. Tax cuts the many times its been tried has always increased tax revenue. They collected more money in taxes. Ronald Reagan overspend. It doesn't matter how much more money you bring in, if you spend it all and then some then you'll have a problem.

The Housing Boom and Bust was government pushed at the core. Many people were to blame for it happening. The Borrowers, lenders, government and financial markets. They were all players. But mostly can be tracked to government at the start that pushed for more housing to people that couldn't afford it.

Regulation is what causes prices to rise. An example is housing prices that rose in San Francisco, due to land restrictions placed to save the "environment" they ended up creating artificial scarcity. When you have a growing population and unable to build new houses from restrictions it causes prices to rise. You end up paying more for the land then the actual house. That same house in Houston or Dallas would be a lot cheaper since they have no land restriction placed by tree huggers. High Housing prices is not the fault of greedy private markets but the fault of government regulation coming in the picture. This was a contributing factor to the housing boom and bust.

There was no Great Depression until Government started to intervene in the economy. After the stock market crashed in 1929 unemployment shot to 9% for one month. Then unemployment dropped to 6.3% in June 1930. The economy was already recovering on its own. Then the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill came in the picture that was pushed by politicians. More then a thousand economists begged for government not to push for this bill. But they ignored and did it anyway to try to fix things. Then in 6 months unemployment hit the double digits and topped 20% and stayed there for 35 months. It all wasn't just the Smoot-Hawley tariffs either, FDR came in to also try to fix things, he passed the national recovery act, agriculture adjustment act, the Wagner act and still unemployment didn't drop. Roosevelt's New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression.

For 150 years since the creation of this country the government did nothing and economy recovery on its own every time. It wasn't until government started to meddle into things that made the economy worse off and we had the worse economic crisis in America.


----------



## brickmii82 (Sep 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Trickle Down Economics theory does not exist in the economic world, its a made up straw man. Tax cuts the many times its been tried has always increased tax revenue. They collected more money in taxes. Ronald Reagan overspend. It doesn't matter how much more money you bring in, if you spend it all and then some then you'll have a problem.
> 
> The Housing Boom and Bust was government pushed at the core. Many people were to blame for it happening. The Borrowers, lenders, government and financial markets. They were all players. But mostly can be tracked to government at the start that pushed for more housing to people that couldn't afford it.
> 
> ...


While we’re in Candyland I’ll take some chocolate.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Trickle Down Economics theory does not exist in the economic world, its a made up straw man. Tax cuts the many times its been tried has always increased tax revenue. They collected more money in taxes. Ronald Reagan overspend. It doesn't matter how much more money you bring in, if you spend it all and then some then you'll have a problem.
> 
> The Housing Boom and Bust was government pushed at the core. Many people were to blame for it happening. The Borrowers, lenders, government and financial markets. They were all players. But mostly can be tracked to government at the start that pushed for more housing to people that couldn't afford it.
> 
> ...


There are some rather extraordinary claims there. Can you please cite sources? As someone who was a history major in college i can tell you that the great depression went in NO WAY the way you are claiming it went.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 29, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> There are some rather extraordinary claims there. Can you please cite sources? As someone who was a history major in college i can tell you that the great depression went in NO WAY the way you are claiming it went.





brickmii82 said:


> While we’re in Candyland I’ll take some chocolate.


It comes from the book "Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell"

Thomas Sowell is an Economist that was trained under Milton Friedman. Friedman is a well know Nobel Prize winning Economist.
The difference is a History Major and an Economist.


----------



## brickmii82 (Sep 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> It comes from the book "Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell"
> 
> Thomas Sowell is an Economist that was trained under Milton Friedman. Friedman is a well know Nobel Prize winning Economist.
> The difference is a History Major and an Economist.


Regulation is necessary because of greed. Regulation=\=Laws. Laws stem from mankind's inherent tendency to disregard morality for gain or other reasons. The repeal of regulations enabled the credit rating agencies to slap AAA labels on junk mortgage backed CDO's and investment firms to sell them without fear of repercussion. They knew they were too big to fail. So we bailed them out. To claim government is responsible is idiotic. On top of that, there were almost no regulations or govt interventions during the depression era. It was simply the stock market crashing that caused it. Its basic economic theory. Bubbles are followed by busts. The 20's had the nations wealth double in a decade. Then the bust came. Govt had nothing to do with it. Hence the reason for what you hate, regulation on financial industries, stems from the fact that people will throw away your retirement if it makes them rich. Add to that, that there are no consequences and no one will hold you liable ... at all ... and you have the perfect recipe for theft. Basically you have some ideal that believes that all people are good and well-intentioned or something. Go into business selling cocaine against the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico and see how well your "pure capitalism" works out for you. All's fair right? The industry will work itself out right? Put your money where your mouth is. I can assure you they'll put your mouth where your money is. And your feet, and your arms, and your ...


----------



## SG854 (Sep 29, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> Regulation is necessary because of greed. Regulation=\=Laws. Laws stem from mankind's inherent tendency to disregard morality for gain or other reasons. The repeal of regulations enabled the credit rating agencies to slap AAA labels on junk mortgage backed CDO's and investment firms to sell them without fear of repercussion. They knew they were too big to fail. So we bailed them out. To claim government is responsible is idiotic. On top of that, there were almost no regulations or govt interventions during the depression era. It was simply the stock market crashing that caused it. Its basic economic theory. Bubbles are followed by busts. The 20's had the nations wealth double in a decade. Then the bust came. Govt had nothing to do with it. Hence the reason for what you hate, regulation on financial industries, stems from the fact that people will throw away your retirement if it makes them rich. Add to that, that there are no consequences and no one will hold you liable ... at all ... and you have the perfect recipe for theft. Basically you have some ideal that believes that all people are good and well-intentioned or something. Go into business selling cocaine against the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico and see how well your "pure capitalism" works out for you. All's fair right? The industry will work itself out right? Put your money where your mouth is. I can assure you they'll put your mouth where your money is. And your feet, and your arms, and your ...


Government is a central planning Monopoly which I thought Monopolies is what people are against.
The Roaring 20's was not the cause of he Great Depression government intervention was

Smoot Hawley Tariff Bill, which over 1,000 economist asked Hoover to Veto this tariff bill that would made the economy worse off after it was recovering on its own without Government intervention. It was predictable this would happen by economists.


----------



## brickmii82 (Sep 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Government is a central planning Monopoly which I thought Monopolies is what people are against.
> The Roaring 20's was not the cause of he Great Depression government intervention was
> 
> Smoot Hawley Tariff Bill, which over 1,000 economist asked Hoover to Veto this tariff bill that would made the economy worse off after it was recovering on its own without Government intervention. It was predictable this would happen by economists.



It was passed in 1930. The depression started in 1929. Try again. Bubbles are followed by busts. And again, put your money where your mouth is. There's no better example of a purely capitalistic business environment than the drug trade. Just consider outlawing murder another regulation, since laws=/=regulations.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 29, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> It was passed in 1930. The depression started in 1929. Try again. Bubbles are followed by busts. And again, put your money where your mouth is. There's no better example of a purely capitalistic business environment than the drug trade. Just consider outlawing murder another regulation, since laws=/=regulations.


Dude, I stated in my previous post that unemployment went to 9% for month after the stock market crashed then declined to 6.3% in June 1930. It was recovering on its own till government policies came in the picture.


----------



## brickmii82 (Sep 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Dude, I stated in my previous post that unemployment went to 9% for month after the stock market crashed then declined to 6.3% in June 1930. It was recovering on its own till government policies came in the picture.


Great! And you know what came a bit after that? A whole shitload of labor disputes. Because people got payed crap for a wage, worked in unsafe environments, and were nothing more than a disposable tool to the employer.

Edit: Look, don't get me wrong. I'm a State Sovereignty kind of person. But there are some things that need to be regulated in a civilized society.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 29, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> Great! And you know what came a bit after that? A whole shitload of labor disputes. Because people got payed crap for a wage, worked in unsafe environments, and were nothing more than a disposable tool to the employer.
> 
> Edit: Look, don't get me wrong. I'm a State Sovereignty kind of person. But there are some things that need to be regulated in a civilized society.


You can't expect businesses to pay higher wages when they were also affected during the Great Depression. If you have pre depression prices you won't be able to sell anything, if you have pre depression wages unemployment would be higher.

School regulation unions make it impossible to fire bad teachers and now they have The Lemon Dance. And our education system sucks.
Licensing regulations to work make union workers have monopoly on the job control, its like a tariff bill for employment.
Regulations on land and to make affordable housing makes houses more expensive.
Regulations on gas to keep prices low creates a shortage and long lines for gas are a result of that.
Price Regulations on Medicine is what causes R&D medicine makers to flee from European countries to the U.S. because they have no money to fund the hundreds of million dollars needed to create new medicine.

Regulations don't work. The government should have limited control, and this is not to say government should be completely out, we need someone to be able to hold law when we sue when a business steps out of line, but when they do they loose customers and money, they can't survive if they constantly screw over people.


----------



## brickmii82 (Sep 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> You can't expect businesses to pay higher wages when they were also affected during the Great Depression. If you have pre depression prices you won't be able to sell anything, if you have pre depression wages unemployment would be higher.
> 
> School regulation unions make it impossible to fire bad teachers and now they have The Lemon Dance. And our education system sucks.
> Licensing regulations to work make union workers have monopoly on the job control, its like a tariff bill for employment.
> ...


Replace "regulations" with "taxes" and I can buy most of it. But again, Some industries need regulations. Otherwise its financial Darwinism. And again, Drug Trades are an example of unfettered business environments. The investment world is rigged for the big whale to eat well. Also, Glass Steagall proved that they do work. There was never a serious crash until it was repealed and irresponsibility and abuse came into play. Face it, lots of people suck and they'll rob your Grandma to buy a Porsche if they can get away with it.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 29, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> Replace "regulations" with "taxes" and I can buy most of it. But again, Some industries need regulations. Otherwise its financial Darwinism. And again, Drug Trades are an example of unfettered business environments. The investment world is rigged for the big whale to eat well. Also, Glass Steagall proved that they do work. There was never a serious crash until it was repealed and irresponsibility and abuse came into play. Face it, lots of people suck and they'll rob your Grandma to buy a Porsche if they can get away with it.


Today we are paying agriculture subsidies to millionaire and billionaires because of programs created during the Great Depression to try to help small farmers having a hard time.

While people talk about corporate greed no one talks about greed from everyday people. When prices are set artificially low then would be in a free market it causes people to use more of that service and to buy more of that item. There will always be scarcity, we don't have unlimited of anything, prices that fluctuate based on supply and demand is a reflection of that. When you have scarcity and artificially lower prices because of government intervention, more people use and buy more of that product leaving less for everyone else. This is why lines were so long in Canada for Medical service, people get medical attention for minor problems that wouldn't have leaving less time for others that do have much more major problems. It became such a problem they were forced to add some privatization to the medical industry.

Or places with strongest rent control creates a housing shortage and higher rates of homelessness even though there is enough housing space for the population, because single living people that would've gotten a smaller house for cheaper price gets a bigger one with lower prices under rent control. Or people that would've gotten a room mate and split the bill under non rent control, end up getting there own apartment without a room mate. Same goes for food prices and and gas prices being set artificially low which creates a shortage. Prices that fluctuate under supply and demand is not because of greed, it keeps certain people from using or over using a service when we have a scarcity and thats the point, its keeps greed from businesses and greed from everyday people under check. Regulations messes with this.

Drug Traders exist because of Government Regulations on Drugs. If government didn't ban the use of certain drugs then we wouldn't have a drug cartel problem.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 29, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> There are some rather extraordinary claims there. Can you please cite sources? As someone who was a history major in college i can tell you that the great depression went in NO WAY the way you are claiming it went.


Theres month by month unemployment statistics during the Great Depression compiled by economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway you can look up.

Stock Market Crashes 1929 unemployment goes up to 9%.
Then unemployment gradually drops till reaches 6.3% in June 1930.
Smoot Hawley Tariff announced in which over 1,000 economists warned against, and unemployment was still 6.3% when this proposition was announced.
Then in November 1930, 5 months after Smoot Hawley Tariffs bill was passed, unemployment shot up to 11.6%.

Unemployment didn't reach the double digits in the 1 year after the Stock Market Crashed. It wasn't until the Tariffs came in that it reached double digits.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> It comes from the book "Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell"
> 
> Thomas Sowell is an Economist that was trained under Milton Friedman. Friedman is a well know Nobel Prize winning Economist.
> The difference is a History Major and an Economist.


More like the dustbowl incident put a lot of farmers out of business and aggravated the situation from the Great Depression. Look it up. 21% of farmers went on government assistance. I also know plenty of Economists that said that the great recession of 2008 was not going to happen. Remember Appeal to authority is a fallacy.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 30, 2018)

SG854 said:


> It comes from the book "Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell"
> 
> Thomas Sowell is an Economist that was trained under Milton Friedman. Friedman is a well know Nobel Prize winning Economist.
> The difference is a History Major and an Economist.


Ah... So one of the  Chicago Boys. I admit I haven't read it, but I have read  the shock doctrine , where Naomi klein dissects and flat out destroys the used tactics. It's true that it helped economy in the way it was traditionally measured, but had the "side effect" of mass unemployment (meaning : strong rise in inequality) and crippling the state. Usually in favor for American companies who take over privatized nuts companies (gas, water, oil), who then jack up the prices. She also points out that the programs always lead to strong opposition from the local population, to the point where the programs can never be implemented unless the population is distracted by a(suggested prefabricated) disaster.

... And then the financial crisis happened. As I see it, the government pays the referee in a match between the different companies (large multinationals, mostly). Aforementioned tactics left governments blind, gagged, tied up and removed from the playing field because that school of thinking believed it would make the market more free. And in a way  that's true : free doesn't mean fair, and not  did that unfair playing happened. Banks were free to push people into buying houses they couldn't afford, because they were able to leverage not only people savings but also their current homes. They sold risky investments - gambling, really - to people without telling them the real risk would be upon them when they would be unable to pay up. Unfortunately, that meant that the housing market was obligated to keep on growing. That didn't happen  and the banks found themselves in a position of such enormous loss that it would drag the entire economy down because they believed in what was essentially a lie. 

I can't really say sewell is wrong. But I will say that his line of thinking has had way more attempts than can be considered ethical, and it never panned out right. Well .. For those not owning large multinationals, that is.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 30, 2018)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> More like the dustbowl incident put a lot of farmers out of business and aggravated the situation from the Great Depression. Look it up. 21% of farmers went on government assistance. I also know plenty of Economists that said that the great recession of 2008 was not going to happen. Remember Appeal to authority is a fallacy.


The 2008 Recession was not predicted because there was no data for it. Mortgages was usually a fixed interest rate and a 20% price of home down payment. We have plenty of data on this on different economic situations spanning decades. The no down payments variable interest rates and other creative methods to make housing affordable was something that was new. So it couldn't have been predicted by anyone since we have no data on it.

Apply to Authority is not a fallacy if I provide evidence and debate points myself. I'm only stating it in response to your claim that you are a history major (which is contradictory on your side to criticize me of apply to authority fallacy) and to add credibility, but it is by no means my entire argument. Stating credibility are only fallacies if its used as the only argument and not as a supplement to the argument.

I don't know what point you were trying to make with the dust bowl and while it made the depression worse it was not a direct cause of it. If farmers had better farming methods then the droughts causing the dust bowl wouldn't have been as bad.

There were restrictions placed by the government to prevent the banks from having multiple branches and if it wasn't for these restrictions the failure rate would have been a lot lower. Canada went through the same 30's depression we did but not 1 bank failed, they didn't have the same law restrictions we had. If you have a bank located solely in a wheat growing community it is exposed to all the fluctuations in the wheat market since lenders and depositors are people dependent on the price of wheat. If your unable to branch out to other areas like steel producing and furniture making areas and something happens to the wheat industry then your bank will fail since you have no diversified risks, which leads to less risk overall. Government is to blame for the bank failures in the U.S. 90% of bank failures was in small communities and almost all were in states with laws against branch banking. Even with large amount of Banks failing in the U.S. banks that did have diversified risks, with no laws restricting branch banking had a much lower failure rate.

The was a similar stock market crash in 1987 comparable to the Great Depression crash and Ronald Regan did nothing despite all the criticisms he got urging him to do something, and instead of a depression we got 2 decades growth and low inflation. There is similar results of doing nothing and letting the economy recover on its own in 1820's England. More government spending didn't solve Japans "lost decade" of the 1990's.

If FDR's New Deal was never implemented then the economy would have returned to its normal level of employment and output by 1936. The New Deal instead prolonged the depression.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> Ah... So one of the  Chicago Boys. I admit I haven't read it, but I have read  the shock doctrine , where Naomi klein dissects and flat out destroys the used tactics. It's true that it helped economy in the way it was traditionally measured, but had the "side effect" of mass unemployment (meaning : strong rise in inequality) and crippling the state. Usually in favor for American companies who take over privatized nuts companies (gas, water, oil), who then jack up the prices. She also points out that the programs always lead to strong opposition from the local population, to the point where the programs can never be implemented unless the population is distracted by a(suggested prefabricated) disaster.
> 
> ... And then the financial crisis happened. As I see it, the government pays the referee in a match between the different companies (large multinationals, mostly). Aforementioned tactics left governments blind, gagged, tied up and removed from the playing field because that school of thinking believed it would make the market more free. And in a way  that's true : free doesn't mean fair, and not  did that unfair playing happened. Banks were free to push people into buying houses they couldn't afford, because they were able to leverage not only people savings but also their current homes. They sold risky investments - gambling, really - to people without telling them the real risk would be upon them when they would be unable to pay up. Unfortunately, that meant that the housing market was obligated to keep on growing. That didn't happen  and the banks found themselves in a position of such enormous loss that it would drag the entire economy down because they believed in what was essentially a lie.
> 
> I can't really say sewell is wrong. But I will say that his line of thinking has had way more attempts than can be considered ethical, and it never panned out right. Well .. For those not owning large multinationals, that is.


Thomas Sowell is actually Black he's not Chilean. And he's actually 88 years old right now. I'll read the shock doctrine and see what I think about it.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 30, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Thomas Sowell is actually Black he's not Chilean. And he's actually 88 years old right now.


...thanks for that random piece of irrelevant info? 

Wait...I get it: you haven't followed the hyperlink. "Chicago boys" isn't a reference to either his origin or age but to the school of thought (popularized by Milton Friedman) he ascribes to.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 30, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> ...thanks for that random piece of irrelevant info?
> 
> Wait...I get it: you haven't followed the hyperlink. "Chicago boys" isn't a reference to either his origin or age but to the school of thought (popularized by Milton Friedman) he ascribes to.


I didn't know what you meant by, "Ah... So one of the Chicago Boys" comment. I did take a quick glance but didn't read much.

So chilean society became the richest in Latin America. And there was a rise in economic income inequality, which people complained. I don't know much about the Chilean Economy but I wonder if the criticisms are the same criticisms U.S. make about the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, which is not true.

For example there is a complaint that the middle class is disappearing which is true, but people are assuming they are getting poorer which is not true. Here is a graph, the middle class and poor are getting richer. Middle is disappearing into the upper class, and poor disappearing into the middle class. There is a growing wealth gap between the top 20% and bottom 20% because more people are in the top 20% today then they were 40 years ago. Quintiles are not equal slices of the population. To reach top 20% you need an income of more than $100,000 a year. https://thefederalistpapers.org/eco...is-shrinking-and-heres-why-thats-a-good-thing

Also 73% of Americans were in the top 20% ($100,000 or more) at some time in there lives, and about half will experience poverty which they classify the bottom 20%. People aren't stuck in these brackets and people move in and out of them. Which shows great income mobility. https://www.aei.org/publication/evi...were-in-the-top-20-for-at-least-a-year/print/

Hardly people stay poor or rich for most of their lives, they move up and down depending on education and experience. More likely when your young your at the bottom 20%, and when your older your at the top 20%. Here is a comparison of Americans compared to the world. 56% were in the high income group (more then $50 a day), and 32% were in the upper middle income group ($20-$50). The majority of Americans are well off materially, so much so that obesity and overweight is more common among the poor then the rich. Poor Americans today would be consider well off compared to all Americans in the past, majority of poor have smart phones. Only kings had these luxury in the past minus the phones. And poor is however statisticians want it to mean, poor in the U.S. is what they call middle class in Mexico. U.S. is in the top list with less regulations and more economic freedom and is among the richest countries. Countries with lots of regulations are among the poorest. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/09/how-americans-compare-with-the-global-middle-class/

There is a history of countries against middle man minorities like the Chinese in Southeast Asia, Indians and Pakistans in East Africa, Lebanese in West Africa, and Jews in Europe, where people thought they were oppressing them and rigged the economy against them because they didn't understanding the important role they played as middle men. And when they chased them out their economies collapsed. Jews had the holocaust in Germany. I wonder if the growing rich poor complain in Chile is the same feminist complaint that women are getting payed 76 cents to the dollar a man makes which is not true.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 1, 2018)

SG854 said:


> The 2008 Recession was not predicted because there was no data for it. Mortgages was usually a fixed interest rate and a 20% price of home down payment. We have plenty of data on this on different economic situations spanning decades. The no down payments variable interest rates and other creative methods to make housing affordable was something that was new. So it couldn't have been predicted by anyone since we have no data on it.
> 
> Apply to Authority is not a fallacy if I provide evidence and debate points myself. I'm only stating it in response to your claim that you are a history major (which is contradictory on your side to criticize me of apply to authority fallacy) and to add credibility, but it is by no means my entire argument. Stating credibility are only fallacies if its used as the only argument and not as a supplement to the argument.
> 
> ...


ARM mortgages with no down payment due to relaxation of FHA regulations had nothing to do with 2008 ...

FYI, It was predicted by people who saw folks getting houses with a sub 500 credit score and no job. .

You have a retarded agenda that ignores common sense (and facts) to push an ideology that's been shown inept at managing a society. Frankly, I think you read a few books, it galvanized you and turned you into a psuedo-Will Hunting. I have no idea why you chose this site to profess your love for all things conservative.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> 2008 ...
> 
> FYI, It was predicted by people who saw folks getting houses with a sub 500 credit score and no job. .


 Wait, I thought that was the result of the government forcing banks to give people loans? NtM, but no sane bank would've allowed that kind of behavior under normal circumstances, but due to government handouts... This is all crony capitalism man.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 1, 2018)

Yes, banks have always shown to be fine examples of business ethics...

Stop trying to find cop outs for greediness. At the end of the day, again, laws=/=regulations. They wouldn’t be there if people could just play nice. The govt never forced them to do anything but play fair. Then we gave them a break because they did for awhile, and lo and behold. They fucked us. 

My point is, don't create straw men arguments in lieu of the real issue, mankind is fucking shady. If you don’t believe it, I repeat, start a cocaine business in Mexico in “competition” with the Sinaloa Cartel. Let’s see how that unregulated capitalism works out.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 3, 2018)

SG854 said:


> I didn't know what you meant by, "Ah... So one of the Chicago Boys" comment. I did take a quick glance but didn't read much.
> 
> So chilean society became the richest in Latin America. And there was a rise in economic income inequality, which people complained. I don't know much about the Chilean Economy but I wonder if the criticisms are the same criticisms U.S. make about the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer, which is not true.
> 
> ...


I only find time now to properly read it (sorry).
While it's certainly widely different than the literature that I've been reading thus far (Klein, Stiglitz, Varoufakis), I have to admit that it's a story that seems pretty backed up by facts and arguments. So either Sowell or Klein is wrong (the other two don't go into that much specifics to really contradict the above), or the reality is harder to grasp than either indicates. 

In any case: I'll put Sowell on my "to read" list. After all...my sources might be wrong or missing things as well.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 3, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Wait, I thought that was the result of the government forcing banks to give people loans? NtM, but no sane bank would've allowed that kind of behavior under normal circumstances, but due to government handouts... This is all crony capitalism man.


*sigh*

This is why the government should've sued the boards of directors of large banks. It would've hurted society, but in the long run you get this shit: people believing roughly the opposite of reality. 

@TerribleTy27 : truth is that up to 2008, the government was lacking. All intelligence concerning money went to work in the bank industry, leaving the government at best naive but arguably an accessory to what happened. You see, up to about the eighties, saving banks and insurance were strictly separated. Stocks, bonds and all that stuff was something for adventurers and people that really knew what they were doing. And what did they know? Among others that houses were a safe investment, and that these houses were worth a lot of money. Slowly but steady, the laws that separated the large population (that just had a house and a mortgage on it) from the investors blurred. Bankers were paid more by selling investments than giving proper economic advice, so they did exactly that. The 2008 crisis went much deeper than that, but I think most governments assumed this was about as bad as it was going to get. Lemme explain...

To start with, I've got to tackle that "no sane bank would've allowed that kind of behavior" you mention (referring to the loans to people that had little to no chance to pay it off). A bystander's opinion would be that it is a bad loan because everybody seemingly loses. But from a bank's perspective, their stance is THAT THEY CANNOT LOSE(1)
Simple example: take a house that costs 100'000 dollars. I'm an average joe who barely makes 500 dollars a month (excluding my average costs) on interim basis and has, say, 5000 dollars in savings. Chances of me paying of that debt is pretty low, because I haven't been able to scrape more money together. I shouldn't be able to loan 95'000 dollars. But to a bank, this is different. Their train of thought is that either I pull off the unlikely and pay off the debt (option A), or somewhere down the road something happens (loss of job, needing extra cash, ...) that causes me to become unable to pay (that's option B).
Option A) is pretty straightforward: at the end of the term, I will have payed back that money and interest (say...10'000 dollar interest, so total payback: 105'000 dollars, over 20 to 30 years). The bank obviously wins.
For option B), you've got to understand what 'mortgage' really means. It means that whenever you can't pay the bank, they can legally sell the house and claim their money back that way. So...say after one year of paying 500 dollars a month, I cannot pay any further because I lost my job and can't get another. I will have payed the bank 12*500=6000 dollars, so I still owe them 99'000 dollars(2). I can no longer pay, so the house gets sold. Assuming housing prices constantly rise, it gets sold for 101'000. The bank takes it's 99'000 dollars and I get the remains (2000 dollars...so basically I will have lost 4000 dollars). Again: the bank wins.

And that's why "normal circumstances" mean that whenever someone (ANYONE!!!) wants a loan, the bank granted it. Either option A or option B: they get their money.

That is, of course, with that assumption that housing prices constantly rise. That assumption is a calculated risk. Then banks started getting creative. ONE house can rise or lower in price, they argued, but on average, houses will always rise in price. So when we bundle ten or hundred of those loans together, then that bundle is guaranteed to make money in the end (again: either option A or option B will garantee money back). Those things were what CDO's CFO's, swaps and even more strange terms were invented and traded. Banks treated these bundles as solid foundations; as if 'owning' a bunch of people paying you back loans was equally worthy as owning money itself. 

The way I see the housing crisis is best described as "the wake-up call that houses CAN lower in value". And not just a few houses, but pretty much worldwide. That's why banks (who simply shouldn't be allowed to loan out money that they don't have) suddenly faced a huge-ass wave of problems. Not because "government forced banks to give people loans" (I haven't followed US news at that time, but this is honestly the very first thing I've seen, and it totally mismatches everything I've read on the topic), but because the board of directors thought they had found a way to print money.




(1): I'm currently buying my second house in my life, so unfortunately, this isn't a hypothetical position for me
(2): it's actually a bit more complex than that because you pay most of the interests first and there are file costs, but let's keep things simple for now.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> *sigh*
> 
> This is why the government should've sued the boards of directors of large banks. It would've hurted society, but in the long run you get this shit: people believing roughly the opposite of reality.
> 
> ...



Mate, you're essentially arguing that people are so stupid and gullible that the banks can do whatever they can. Espescially now that the housing crisis is over with, everyone's wisened up and is actually doing their research. Honestly, I think the economy has actually toughened up overall, and everyone came out a lot smarter.

Option C: Everyone avoids bad bank loans like the plague.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 3, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Mate, you're essentially arguing that people are so stupid and gullible that the banks can do whatever they can. Espescially now that the housing crisis is over with, everyone's wisened up and is actually doing their research. Honestly, I think the economy has actually toughened up overall, and everyone came out a lot smarter.
> 
> Option C: Everyone avoids bad bank loans like the plague.


Wisened up? 
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bespoke-cdo.asp
That's basically the same CDO that caused all sorts of people to lose their pensions and turned a mortgage crisis into an economic crash. Yes, it was rebranded and is being sold again. Invest away ... 

https://www.bankrate.com/mortgages/dodd-frank-reform-easier-to-get-mortgage/
It shouldn't be easy to get a mortgage. You should work hard and earn it through proper credit history, and the banks shouldn't be bailed out when they issue loans to people who shouldn't qualify. Again, they know that they're "too big to fail." They have insurance against losing gambles. Taxpayers.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> It shouldn't be easy to get a mortgage. You should work hard and earn it through proper credit history, and the banks shouldn't be bailed out when they issue loans to people who shouldn't qualify. Again, they know that they're "too big to fail." They have insurance against losing gambles. Taxpayers.



Wait. So you agree with me? I'm unsure of your point here.


brickmii82 said:


> https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bespoke-cdo.asp
> That's basically the same CDO that caused all sorts of people to lose their pensions and turned a mortgage crisis into an economic crash. Yes, it was rebranded and is being sold again. Invest away ...


again, not sure of your point here. There are always going to be stupid people falling for easy scams. But it's not like we're gonna get yet another housing crisis.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 3, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Mate, you're essentially arguing that people are so stupid and gullible that the banks can do whatever they can. Espescially now that the housing crisis is over with, everyone's wisened up and is actually doing their research. Honestly, I think the economy has actually toughened up overall, and everyone came out a lot smarter.
> 
> Option C: Everyone avoids bad bank loans like the plague.


Hmm...I wouldn't call it the essence of my post, but I certainly don't disagree: people ARE so stupid and gullible that the banks can do whatever they can. Do you think I _want _to get in my current situation of having to pay off two mortgages(1)? I honestly don't. I didn't want the mortgage to begin with, but truth is that I (or a large part of the population) simply cannot afford a house without a loan.

Both my loans were after the crisis. Banks certainly put more requirements when it comes to loans (like having to have a larger starting capital), but the measurements that are taken in effect AFTERWARDS are no excuse for the excesses that happened LEADING UP TO the crisis. Especially when the lessons are being forgotten or twisted so another party gets pointed as the blamed. I don't want to sound rude, but your previous post in this thread didn't led me to believe that "everyone came out a lot smarter". 


(1): okay, I admit: my plan is to rent out my current appartment and pay off the first mortgage that way. Still...I'm not too fond of the idea


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 3, 2018)

The point is yes, yes we are. Corrupt people in the investment arena will create and exploit loopholes (the above are examples of the process happening) for financial gain and all those tax dollars will pay for it, including your kids.

Edit: If people aren't as stupid as I've claimed, explain the rise of ridiculous monoliths in todays pop-culture, ie Kardashians, Hiltons, dabbing, mumble-rap, Apple hitting a trillion ... would you like me to go on? People are shady AND stupid asf.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Hmm...I wouldn't call it the essence of my post, but I certainly don't disagree: people ARE so stupid and gullible that the banks can do whatever they can. Do you think I _want _to get in my current situation of having to pay off two mortgages(1)? I honestly don't. I didn't want the mortgage to begin with, but truth is that I (or a large part of the population) simply cannot afford a house without a loan.



So educate them. I really don't like the idea of putting kiddie gates all around full-grown adults. That isn't how you fix the problem. It's a very easily exploitable, very short term solution.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 3, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> So educate them. I really don't like the idea of putting kiddie gates all around full-grown adults. That isn't how you fix the problem. It's a very easily exploitable, very short term solution.


"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."


Sorry if I'm being thick here, but I don't understand your analogy.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 3, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Sorry if I'm being thick here, but I don't understand your analogy.


The analogy is that most don't want to be educated. They're perfectly content in their world of pop-culture references and ignorance. They've become incapable of critical thought and prefer to be herded into their preferred opinions. They like to get told what to think and believe. Thats society/culture today. Thats our America. The beauty and majesty of Lady Liberty has been tarnished and contaminated by an aristocratic, pop culture golden shower.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 3, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Sorry if I'm being thick here, but I don't understand your analogy.


Educating people how to avoid the problem doesn't fix the problem. You've got to address the source, rather than the consequences. The analogy was just saying you can try and educate the public, but people will still do dumb stuff even if they do know.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> The analogy is that most don't want to be educated. They're perfectly content in their world of pop-culture references and ignorance. They've become incapable of critical thought and prefer to be herded into their preferred opinions. They like to get told what to think and believe. Thats society/culture today. Thats our America. The beauty and majesty of Lady Liberty has been tarnished and contaminated by an aristocratic, pop culture golden shower.





osaka35 said:


> Educating people how to avoid the problem doesn't fix the problem. You've got to address the source, rather than the consequences. The analogy was just saying you can try and educate the public, but people will still do dumb stuff even if they do know.



Well, what is the root of the problem here? Genuine question.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 3, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Well, what is the root of the problem here? Genuine question.


People are the root problem. It's human nature to pursue self interests. While I'd love to say that we are capable of adhering to a moralistic ideology, you know as well as I do that when it's about protecting and gaining for me and mine, fuck you and yours. We're savage creatures at the core. How else would we have accomplished as much as we have as a species?


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 3, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> People are the root problem. It's human nature to pursue self interests. While I'd love to say that we are capable of adhering to a moralistic ideology, you know as well as I do that when it's about protecting and gaining for me and mine, fuck you and yours. We're savage creatures at the core. How else would we have accomplished as much as we have as a species?


Going against human nature is a really great way to fail. Instead of trying to fix human nature, why not build around it? A free-market system is the most natural of all systems, since private property is the basis of all human interaction and decision making. Telling people that they can't do certain things with their money, bodies, or lives is so unnatural that it's a wonder we got as far as we did with valuing it as little as we do.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 3, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Going against human nature is a really great way to fail. Instead of trying to fix human nature, why not build around it? A free-market system is the most natural of all systems, since private property is the basis of all human interaction and decision making. Telling people that they can't do certain things with their money, bodies, or lives is so unnatural that it's a wonder we got as far as we did with valuing it as little as we do.


You're right. It is madness. But we desire to live in a civilized environment also. Civilization comes with a price, and that price is a freedom here and there. For example, sure you and I could go into competition selling whatsadooodles. But without the regulation of "No murdering people" being set as a precedent for our society, what keeps me from gunning you down to eliminate competition or visa-versa? So the freedom of us having the right to spill each others blood is now sacrificed in the interest of living in a better world.


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 3, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> You're right. It is madness. But we desire to live in a civilized environment also. Civilization comes with a price, and that price is a freedom here and there. For example, sure you and I could go into competition selling whatsadooodles. But without the regulation of "No murdering people" being set as a precedent for our society, what keeps me from gunning you down to eliminate competition or visa-versa? So the freedom of us having the right to spill each others blood is now sacrificed in the interest of living in a better world.


Not murdering people is covered under accepting private property rights, as well as stealing and such. And a free-market based solution can be implemented, rights enforcement agencies. Here's a link to a video giving a very basic rundown. And you might say, "Hey, what about the poor!?" and yeah, the poor will have a tough time in this society, but they have a tough time in any society. (This is totally ignoring things like the reduced costs of living thanks to a free-market system, or the option to work a very low-skill job for a reduced pay, which is impossible with minimum wage laws)

Not to mention, forcing me to pay for anything is pretty immoral regardless. If I want to protect myself and my property with only a bat I should be allowed to.

And competition brings prices down, while the fact that petty crime like drug use is allowed, that's massive cost of business lifted, allowing companies to undercut their competitors even more.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 3, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Not murdering people is covered under accepting private property rights, as well as stealing and such. And a free-market based solution can be implemented, rights enforcement agencies. Here's a link to a video giving a very basic rundown. And you might say, "Hey, what about the poor!?" and yeah, the poor will have a tough time in this society, but they have a tough time in any society. (This is totally ignoring things like the reduced costs of living thanks to a free-market system, or the option to work a very low-skill job for a reduced pay, which is impossible with minimum wage laws)
> 
> Not to mention, forcing me to pay for anything is pretty immoral regardless. If I want to protect myself and my property with only a bat I should be allowed to.
> 
> And competition brings prices down, while the fact that petty crime like drug use is allowed, that's massive cost of business lifted, allowing companies to undercut their competitors even more.


Competition is fantastic. No economic engine has ever accomplished more. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying, is that to establish a fair and free society with an incentive to be productive and a consistent economic mobility, you will concede liberties and choices inevitably.


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 3, 2018)

brickmii82 said:


> Competition is fantastic. No economic engine has ever accomplished more. I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying, is that to establish a fair and free society with an incentive to be productive and a consistent economic mobility, you will concede liberties and choices inevitably.


But what must you give up? You don't have a right to kill people, and you don't have a right to kill. What must we give up?


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 3, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> But what must you give up? You don't have a right to kill people, and you don't have a right to kill. What must we give up?


I already gave an example and you even elaborated on it. Murder and theft. The lion murders the gazelle and the snake steals the sparrows eggs. That's simply nature. If you want to debate semantics then you can do it with yourself. This psuedo-anarchy garbage you've presented is idiotic and unfeasible on any level. If you don't believe it, again, like I've said for the millionth time. Put your money where your mouth is and move to Mexico and have at it with the drug trade.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 3, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> So educate them. I really don't like the idea of putting kiddie gates all around full-grown adults. That isn't how you fix the problem. It's a very easily exploitable, very short term solution.


These "them" generally don't come asking me for advice. Part of the problem is that until it goes sideways, it's a win for all the parties involved. Brokers, the notary and the seller just get payed, and don't even get to see your financial situation. The bank also gets payed, as I've outlined. That just leaves buyers who need to get smart about a thing they've never done before in their life.

Btw...is this piece still related to the OP in any way?


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Btw...is this piece still related to the OP in any way?


Apparently not.  I wouldn't mind if the mods would do some cleaning in here, maybe move off-topic stuff to that generic "discussion on politics" thread, but at the same time I realize this is a lot to sift through.

Either way, I've just been waiting on more Mueller news to post.  I missed this one a day ago:

'Manafort meets with Mueller prosecutors'

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/01/paul-manafort-meets-mueller-prosecutors-855388


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 3, 2018)

Has there been any updates on this issue? I'm assuming nothing will come of it. Our current government doesn't listen to the needs of the people and never took ethics 101 (apparently including supreme court nominations). I have little hope of the good guys winning anything this time around.



Attacker3 said:


> Going against human nature is a really great way to fail. Instead of trying to fix human nature, why not build around it? A free-market system is the most natural of all systems, since private property is the basis of all human interaction and decision making. Telling people that they can't do certain things with their money, bodies, or lives is so unnatural that it's a wonder we got as far as we did with valuing it as little as we do.


Why do people assume natural=good? It's very confusing. You have to work with human nature in-mind, yes, and you can leverage it with great success, but you can't just assume letting human nature do its thing will lead to progress. We need to channel the more destructive elements of human nature, not let them be as destructive as they'd like to be as you're arguing for.


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 3, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> Has there been any updates on this issue? I'm assuming nothing will come of it. Our current government doesn't listen to the needs of the people and never took ethics 101 (apparently including supreme court nominations). I have little hope of the good guys winning anything this time around.
> 
> 
> Why do people assume natural=good? It's very confusing. You have to work with human nature in-mind, yes, and you can leverage it with great success, but you can't just assume letting human nature do its thing will lead to progress. We need to channel the more destructive elements of human nature, not let them be as destructive as they'd like to be as you're arguing for.



I never said it was good, you just assumed I did. Next time please try to refrain from putting words in my mouth. Natural means natural. We're pretty violent. That's not good, but do you know what we do? We built an entire industry of media fulfilling that natural desire. Now, it would be nice if everyone could dance in the daisy fields and have an everlasting peace, but that is unnatural. That is not going to happen. Is it a shame? Yes, it is, but that is how life is. We can try to make it as peaceful as possible, but in the end war and violence is natural. So is greed, and like with war, you can try your darndest to stop it, but in the end it's natural. You CANNOT stop greed, so instead of having a massive power hierarchy, where only a few benefit from greed, why not let more people benefit? You say you have to "channel the more destructive elements of human nature, not let them be as destructive" which is exactly was a free market does. In a free-market system, everyone benefits if you want something. Let's say that you write a book, for instance, and you've wanted to publish a book for a long time, a lifelong goal, and perhaps make a nice amount of money. Guess what? Because you are publishing that book in order to make some money and fulfill a selfish dream of yours, you just helped out perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. You've helped out the editors, the people in the factories that print the book, and the people who WANT to buy their book to fulfill their own desire to read it! 

Plus I would like for you to say was is destructive about my argument, because if we just let greed be destructive, it would mean me going over to my neighbors and slitting his throat to steal his TV that I really really wanted.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 3, 2018)

to try and bring this back on topic lol we need to be able to hold folks accountable for their actions, especially if they're in government. the seriousness of the position should allow for greater scrutiny, not less. 



Attacker3 said:


> I never said it was good, you just assumed I did. Next time please try to refrain from putting words in my mouth.





Attacker3 said:


> Going against human nature is a really great way to fail....A free-market system is the most natural of all systems, since private property is the basis of all human interaction and decision making. Telling people that they can't do certain things...is so unnatural.



It was heavily implied. You were using "natural" as a reason why the free-market system is the best system to use (best, given your other comments. though perhaps you don't think it's the best?). Seems fairly straight forward you thought it being "natural" was one of the main reasons it was a good system. Are you saying you weren't saying it's good because it's "natural"? 



Attacker3 said:


> Natural means natural. We're pretty violent. That's not good, but do you know what we do? We built an entire industry of media fulfilling that natural desire. Now, it would be nice if everyone could dance in the daisy fields and have an everlasting peace, but that is unnatural. That is not going to happen. Is it a shame? Yes, it is, but that is how life is. We can try to make it as peaceful as possible, but in the end war and violence is natural. So is greed, and like with war, you can try your darndest to stop it, but in the end it's natural. You CANNOT stop greed, so instead of having a massive power hierarchy, where only a few benefit from greed, why not let more people benefit? You say you have to "channel the more destructive elements of human nature, not let them be as destructive" which is exactly was a free market does. In a free-market system, everyone benefits if you want something. Let's say that you write a book, for instance, and you've wanted to publish a book for a long time, a lifelong goal, and perhaps make a nice amount of money. Guess what? Because you are publishing that book in order to make some money and fulfill a selfish dream of yours, you just helped out perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. You've helped out the editors, the people in the factories that print the book, and the people who WANT to buy their book to fulfill their own desire to read it!
> 
> Plus I would like for you to say was is destructive about my argument, because if we just let greed be destructive, it would mean me going over to my neighbors and slitting his throat to steal his TV that I really really wanted.


A free market is only free when given structure. It is not inherently going to resist corruption. And slitting your neighbors throat is very much restricted against and that is something you are told you cannot do  For many of the same reasons, folks are told they can't do certain things with their businesses or treat people a certain way. Just because a game has rules does not make the game unplayable, they're usually there so the game itself can be played and fairness established.

A free market is constantly trying to become a fixed market, and it's our job to ensure the holes are plugged and the free market is assured.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> These "them" generally don't come asking me for advice. Part of the problem is that until it goes sideways, it's a win for all the parties involved. Brokers, the notary and the seller just get payed, and don't even get to see your financial situation. The bank also gets payed, as I've outlined. That just leaves buyers who need to get smart about a thing they've never done before in their life.
> 
> Btw...is this piece still related to the OP in any way?



So what's your suggested solution?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> to try and bring this back on topic lol we need to be able to hold folks accountable for their actions, especially if they're in government. the seriousness of the position should allow for greater scrutiny, not less.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While I'm a very pro-free-market guy, I 100% agree with you. Espescially among the huge megacorps, there does need to be laws against anti-competitive practice. The problem I have with regulation beyond that and other common sense business laws (no child labour, etc.) is that they tend to help the big guy more then the little guy.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 4, 2018)

@brickmii82 Lenders didn’t just out of nowhere start to give risky lending to people who were not qualified under traditional loans, which was the fixed interest rate and 20% down payment. It was government that was pressuring and even threatening banks under persecution of the Justice Department to loan to people who didn’t qualify under the traditional way. If a Black person is rejected for a loan it’s not racism. It’s because they can’t keep up with payments and have bad credit. 

They were giving out mortgages with no down payment, no income verification, and other creative ways. Subprime loans grew because banks were forced to meet quotas under governments stupid equality of outcome paradise. And this whole problem for taking risky loans was to try to fix another government created problem which made houses more expensive because of land and building restriction laws. This problem wasn’t everywhere in the U.S., it was only in specific housing markets like in coastal California where government interference caused artificially high prices and it was too expensive that people in these markets became desperate which lead to riskier creative loans pushed by government. 

In the 90’s the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) required mortgage lenders to collect data and show them the data to see if they were meeting the quotas under the Community Reinvestment Act to push for mortgage loans to lower income people. And while all this suing was going on from both the HUD and Department of Justice against mortgage banks just because there was a disparity in Black and White rejection rates, when at the same time Whites were being rejected from loans more often then Asians. But this information never got out even though they are on the same statistical data.

Fannie May and Freddie Mac were government sponsored programs that bought risky mortgage loans from banks and they were pushed by government agencies. There was a promise that government will not let Fannie May and Freddie Mac fail in a crisis which allowed for risky loans. Glass Steagall is irrelevant because government wanted to push for more home ownership. Under a free market banks wouldn’t have made the risky loans to people who couldn’t afford because they are a business, they wouldn’t survive with all these bad loans. It wasn’t free markets and deregulation that failed, it was government that failed for forcing private banks to give bad loans. It’s government regulation that caused the Housing Boom and Bust.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 4, 2018)

SG854 said:


> @brickmii82 Lenders didn’t just out of nowhere start to give risky lending to people who were not qualified under traditional loans, which was the fixed interest rate and 20% down payment. It was government that was pressuring and even threatening banks under persecution of the Justice Department to loan to people who didn’t qualify under the traditional way. If a Black person is rejected for a loan it’s not racism. It’s because they can’t keep up with payments and have bad credit.
> 
> They were giving out mortgages with no down payment, no income verification, and other creative ways. Subprime loans grew because banks were forced to meet quotas under governments stupid equality of outcome paradise. And this whole problem for taking risky loans was to try to fix another government created problem which made houses more expensive because of land and building restriction laws. This problem wasn’t everywhere in the U.S., it was only in specific housing markets like in coastal California where government interference caused artificially high prices and it was too expensive that people in these markets became desperate which lead to riskier creative loans pushed by government.
> 
> ...


I suppose I don’t disagree with what you’re stating, however it was only part of the issue that caused the crisis and collapse. There were many other factors as well. 

At the heart, my point is that some regulations/laws are necessary to hold those accountable that engage in scrupulous investing activities. I will concede that over regulation is just as dangerous as under regulation. 

http://www.stat.unc.edu/faculty/cji/fys/2012/Subprime mortgage crisis.pdf

This honestly has gone off/topic so I’ll just leave this as my last contribution to the side-discussion. That was a very well written and thought out point so you deserved a response.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 4, 2018)

TerribleTy27 said:


> So what's your suggested solution?


Bank regulation. Before the crisis, banks soothed themselves after granting a bad loan that if they didn't do it, another bank would have. Regulations make sure that people desperately wanting things they can't afford, don't get loans they...well: cannot afford.
As a customer, it's not as fun either. To get a loan, you pretty much have to prove that you don't need one. And as I'm finding out, there are more hoops to jump through than last time (background check of my job payments, a minimum start capital, thorough checks from the notary, and even an independent estimation on the value of the house). But in the end, they'll be for my own good.

And on the positive side: the apartment I'm writing this post from is mine. When I first expressed my interested in it, I was told that it was in the process of being sold to someone else. I thought that that was that...until a couple weeks later, I heard that they couldn't get the loan. It's obviously a pity for whomever wanted this place before me, but the reason he or she couldn't get the loan wasn't because the bank didn't want to grant it but because the chances were most likely too high for that person to be able to pay back the loan. As I've shown in my previous post, that situation can be pretty costly when in that situation...

BTW: this'll be my last post in this thread (honestly: it only gets sidetracked further). If there are further questions, I'll make another thread about it.


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 4, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> It was heavily implied


You mean you heavily inferred it.


osaka35 said:


> Might want to tidy up your language then.


I've said everything I wanted to say in the way I wanted to say it, it is not my problem if people want to take it the wrong way.


osaka35 said:


> and it's our job to ensure the holes are plugged and the free market is assured.


Then tell me this, friend, why the fuck isn't there a true free market anywhere? The closest we have is Hong Kong or maybe Switzerland, but even then, they're heavily regulated and still have massive issues with government meddling. If the purpose of government was to keep a free market intact, they've failed so badly that it brings into question the point of such an inept entity. How can you say that a market is free with literally thousands upon thousands of rules saying what people can and cannot do? That's isn't free!


osaka35 said:


> A free market is constantly trying to become a fixed market


Ok friend, fixed by who? Let's say there is no government involvement and there is no huge power structure to control the market. What would corruption do other than destroy individual businesses? Corruption is also natural, so why not make sure there isn't a way for it to influence literally everyone. You're saying that we need a government to add only slight regulation to the market to stop it from becoming a fixed market, but in order to add even the slightest amount of government regulation, you need to assert that you are in control of the markets, and with that, it will just grow from there.

baka lainposters >:c

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> Bank regulation. Before the crisis, banks soothed themselves after granting a bad loan that if they didn't do it, another bank would have.


That's the thing, if the government hadn't given out literal tens of billions of dollars to other banks to buy out the failing ones, the banks that were doing shitty things like this would've gone under.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 4, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> If the purpose of government was to keep a free market intact, they've failed so badly that it brings into question the point of such an inept entity. How can you say that a market is free with literally thousands upon thousands of rules saying what people can and cannot do? That's isn't free!



I think at this point it's important to define what you think is a success.

For me, I care mainly about increased GDP, increased quality of life for everyone, and decreased environmental impacts. I require all three in order to consider the method to be a success.

How many rules do you think are appropriate? And why do you think this will make a free market more successful?


----------



## Attacker3 (Oct 4, 2018)

osaka35 said:


> For me, I care mainly about increased GDP, increased quality of life for everyone, and decreased environmental impacts. I require all three in order to consider the method to be a success.



There's a couple things. First off, which is more important? If you had to choose an increased quality of life for everyone, or a decreased environmental impact, which would it be? If you could have all the governments in the world shove most of it's production into one, which would it be?




osaka35 said:


> How many rules do you think are appropriate? And why do you think this will make a free market more successful?



Pretend there are 3 regulations introduced over some years. 1 costs a business 40 thousand dollars. A company already established says “ok, I will do this, I will take a hit, but it will be alright”. Then, 3 years later, another comes out, which costs 60 thousand dollars. The company already established says “ok, I will do this. I will take a hit, but it will be alright”. Now, another 3 years later, another 50k regulation is introduced. The company will again be forced to abide by the regulation. They’re able to do this because they’ve been making a profit for a while, and have an established customer base. Even if one of these regulation makes them go in a red, they are likely to get back into the black anyways.


But let’s say you wanted to go into the same industry as this business. Guess what my friend, you don’t have the leisure of paying the cost of those regulations over a decade, you must pay them all at once. That is 150 thousand dollars, plus the cost of actually setting up whatever your business is. 150 thousand is just a number, because there is most likely hundreds or thousands of regulations depending on the industry. Some won’t cost so much, and some will cost more, but the point is that it’s an increased cost to starting a business which puts off a lot of people of even trying. And even if you did get everything covered and were starting to go, one regulation to your industry could put you out of business. Large companies can absorb regulations fairly easily, the same can’t be said for smaller companies."


It is a basic fact that competition between companies to undercut each other reduces prices of goods, but increasing the cost to make a business and maintain it reduces the amount of profit they have to tap into if they want to undercut their enemies. It gets to a point where companies can't sell it for any lower or else they'd be losing money (which some will do for short amounts of time to lure customers over). Regulations raise that drastically, meaning there is a higher minimum price for goods. A minimum price is almost impossible in a free-market society, since even the producers of capital goods will be competing, and even then a new technology could raise the prices again. Sure, Intel could mass produce Core II Duos and sell them for 10 dollars, but the thing is nobody wants them because there are bigger and better things. New designs are created every day for thousands of products, but people can't enter the market.

Another issue I have is copyright. They only really benefit larger businesses, contrary to the belief that larger companies would just steal them. Yes, companies would definitely take them and produce them on theirown, but it would be much harder for them to immediately produce them. You on the other hand, could start a business and produce them before the other companies even catch wind. And even then, you'll be selling them and hopefully making some money. Eventually companies will sell your design, but you'll have a window of time where you establish yourself as the creator of the product, and people will recognize your brand. Then you must compete with the larger company, which is fantastic for the consumer. Both companies (Not just a company vs an inventor at this point) would try and undercut one another. This is great for the consumer.
   But with copyrights, when you try and make a business and you have to deal with rules upon rules and a huge capital investment, people are more likely to just sell their designs to big companies and get their money immediately. Then those companies will have free reign over that design, even if it's revolutionary and everyone could use. Drugs are a good example. If a pill was created to cure cancer, one company would have free reign over the production and price of it, meaning no competition for that drug, meaning they can set the price to whatever the fuck they want. That's not good. Hell, even games in a loading screen was under copyright by Namco for the longest time.
   Even if you could produce a product that a big company made cheaper, you can't. Sorry pal, they legally own a fucking IDEA.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 4, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> That's the thing, if the government hadn't given out literal tens of billions of dollars to other banks to buy out the failing ones, the banks that were doing shitty things like this would've gone under.


Hmm..."the government" isn't really correct: it should be "governments": this happened so often that I honestly can't think of a single country that didn't had to buy out banks.

The "had to" is how these governments sold it to us. And not without reason, because even though I'm sure many politicans hated the actions they took, but had no option because ALL THE BANKS did it. If it was just one or two banks it could've been contained. The other banks could've been forced to take over the loans while getting the savings. But again: even if banks weren't active in manipulating people into bad loans, they at least had some bundles of bad loans under their belt "as if it was money". The bancrupcy of Lehman brothers turned out to be a tumbling domino stone. Allowing more banks to fall would cause more of those to fall over, up and until there was no bank left. Meaning: all savings of all the people in the world would've been evaporated (it sounds crazy, but I honestly feel that that is what most economists mean when they say that "a total breakdown of the economy" was barely averted).


----------



## SG854 (Oct 14, 2018)

First point, An Indictment is a formal acusation that a person has committed a crime. It doesn’t mean the person is guilty of a crime.

Indictments are easy to get because there is no judge, attorney, or opposition.

This is more non sense of the Russians being involved conspiracy theories, just like the Russian bots conspiracy.

No proof that the Russian government was involved. No Americans knew about the troll operations. No proof that trolling affected the 2016 election. The indictments and investigations was a big waste of time.

The trolls used hashtags and bad memes. It’s a joke that people actually believe these trolls that can barely speak English and have little knowledge of American politics robbed the election. 

There was anti Trump and pro Trump memes. For Hilary, against Hillary. Pro Muslim, Anti Muslim. For Guns, Anti Guns. There’s Woke Blacks, Black Lives Matter, Black Lives Don’t Matter. They were playing all sides.

Like really? These are the Facebook pages that over threw our Democracy in 2016?

And the ridiculousness was that Hillary Clinton blames her presidential loss on Russian bots and 13 Russian trolls. Somehow these trolls with bad memes were more effective at persuading the entire American nation then Hillary Clinton and her 1 billion campaign was. And to prove Russians did it CNN started dumpster diving into Russian trash. Are you guys comedians or something. 

People believe in the craziest conspiracies. They'll just believe anything no matter how ridiculous as long as it’s against Trump. You guys are just comedy. Blame Russians, it’s all those Russian bots.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 15, 2018)

SG854 said:


> First point, An Indictment is a formal acusation that a person has committed a crime. It doesn’t mean the person is guilty of a crime.


Doesn't negate all the guilty pleas and cooperation thus far from people close to Trump, does it?



SG854 said:


> No proof that the Russian government was involved.


Other than every American intelligence agency having plainly stated that, sure.



SG854 said:


> People believe in the craziest conspiracies.


This has already been one of the largest in scope and most successful independent federal investigations in the nation's history, and it's still ongoing.  You don't get to cry "conspiracy" after Trump's personal lawyer and his ex-campaign manager have already plead guilty to multiple charges and are cooperating on further charges.  There are a lot more facts to be revealed still, but what we know so far is damning.  And that's just from Mueller's work, not counting all the various tax scandals uncovered elsewhere.


----------

