Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
This is some A+ concern trolling, fam.
It goes well with your C- misrepresentation.
This is some A+ concern trolling, fam.
I honestly don't understand how you can come to this conclusion, especially if you're looking at it from a group-political perspective. You're talking about a President who said all that he did during the campaign, to come out swinging as President in his innauguration speech and actions in the first months of his presidency. To now reversing on a portion of that bullshit in the span of one week and influenced by just one meeting. What country is looking at the US and the President now with confidence in anything? Hell NATO must be terrified knowing any given moment he could hop back in Twitter and blast them again. Trump's flip flopping is worse for them than him holding steadfast to his awful views.Well, from an outsider's perspective things are looking better. That's all we got. What you do inside the US is your business. I'm talking geo-politcs. For the US, Trump is an utter desaster and nothing else.
This will be the smoking gun that sinks the Trump administration, says increasingly nervous man for seventh time this year.
![]()
Yeah. Nothing is going to happen. We are stuck with Trump for 4 years...
It goes well with your C- misrepresentation.
Nah. This "guys, don't get too excited, don't jump to conclusions!" handwringing is, like, the dictionary definition of concern trolling.
I don't see how accusing the president of treason without hard evidence is not something to be worried about.
Do you think Paul Ryan has a shadow transition team formed yet
Because we're not lawyers or law enforcement or congresspeople. We're people on the internet playing detective with an incomplete puzzle. You're handwringing to shut down discussion just for the sake of doing it. That is concern trolling. You are concern trolling.
No, it's preventing people from expecting Trump to be impeached next week.
Constantly posting that "It's happening" gif leads to people getting impatient and losing hope because "nothing is happening". "Don't get too excited yet" is a perfectly valid response to this news, not because nothing will happen but because this doesn't mean that Trump will be in a jail cell come June.
You're kinda making my point here.
Evidence, as in, fire not smoke.
What goalposts have I moved? Couple of months? I've been saying the same thing since 2015.
Because we're not lawyers or law enforcement or congresspeople. We're people on the internet playing detective with an incomplete puzzle. You're handwringing to shut down discussion just for the sake of doing it. That is concern trolling. You are concern trolling.
Do you think Paul Ryan has a shadow transition team formed yet
I don't see how accusing the president of treason without hard evidence is not something to be worried about.
No, it's preventing people from expecting Trump to be impeached next week.
Constantly posting that "It's happening" gif leads to people getting impatient and losing hope because "nothing is happening". "Don't get too excited yet" is a perfectly valid response to this news, not because nothing will happen but because this doesn't mean that Trump will be in a jail cell come June.
1. I'm not trying to shut down the discussion. I'm adding to the discussion, or should I mischaracterize your post like you did mine and accuse you of concern trolling me?
2. I'm adding in my 2 cents not for the sake of doing it. It's for the sake of adding an unrepresented opinion and analysis to the overall discussion to see what other think about it.
Maybe you're making a semantic argument that is irrelevant.Smoke is evidence of fire.
Maybe you're confusing "evidence" with "proof".
There is hard evidence you are just claiming it doesn't count.
Your argument was well represented when there was a lack of evidence to go against it. Knowing what we know... not to mention what we don't.... it just comes off like you are shutting it down.
I honestly don't understand how you can come to this conclusion, especially if you're looking at it from a group-political perspective. You're talking about a President who said all that he did during the campaign, to come out swinging as President in his innauguration speech and actions in the first months of his presidency. To now reversing on a portion of that bullshit in the span of one week and influenced by just one meeting. What country is looking at the US and the President now with confidence in anything? Hell NATO must be terrified knowing any given moment he could hop back in Twitter and blast them again. Trump's flip flopping is worse for them than him holding steadfast to his awful views.
This will be the smoking gun that sinks the Trump administration, says increasingly nervous man for seventh time this year.
![]()
1. I'm not trying to shut down the discussion. I'm adding to the discussion, or should I mischaracterize your post like you did mine and accuse you of concern trolling me?
2. I'm adding in my 2 cents not for the sake of doing it. It's for the sake of adding an unrepresented opinion and analysis to the overall discussion to see what other think about it.
Problem with this^^ thinking is that you dont account for the fact that Trump could (and almost certainly will) change his opinion again at some point.
This phase of being "sensible" might last all of 2 weeks.
Maybe you're making a semantic argument that is irrelevant.
That is?
So you're being an armchair psychologist to justify concern trolling.
It's still concern trolling.
Well, take it for what it's worth, but my intention isn't to shut it down. If the media want to continue in a path that is good for their pocketbooks, but bad for the Democrats, then I can't really do much else to convince them to change their minds. (on this forum anyway).
You've been stridently insisting Trump and his campaign have no meaningful Russian links, which even Fox has the common sense to dance around.
Misrepresentation #2 - I've stated that any bombshell revelations in the dossier (including peepee tape) that might directly link Trump to collusion, have not been verified yet. A lot of other things have, but those are relatively minor things that aren't evidence of Trump being a Manchurian Candidate.And as each aspect of the dossier continues to hold water you've decided the real scandal is the peepee tape despite that being the only legal thing described in the dossier.
I don't believe I ever denied these things have happened. They could be part of a huge case against Trump, or mostly coincidences, or something in between. But it's not hard evidence of collusion of the kind that a lot of Democrats seem to be pushing.Trump's campaign is bizarrely connected to an ever widening set of banks, spies and oligarchs- something that isn't even contested at this point. He's lost four senior staffers over their links to Russian shenanigans. Sessions and Nunes recused themselves from their own investigations.
Misunderstanding #3 - I didn't say they're purely financial. I said that it looks to me like it's financial, because that seems the most plausible at this juncture. It is less clear to me currently that it is more than that, but I leave open the possibility that it is.But you for some reason are convinced his "suspicious" activity is purely financial.
You don't know that for sure either, and there's as of yet not enough evidence to show it wasn't.It's not purely financial.
What was the single GOP platform element the Trump campaign asked to be changed?
Just answer the above question. Just that single question.
Well, take it for what it's worth, but my intention isn't to shut it down. If the media want to continue in a path that is good for their pocketbooks, but bad for the Democrats, then I can't really do much else to convince them to change their minds. (on this forum anyway).
You're dominating the discussion, which is shutting down the discussion otherwise. The last, like, three pages of this thread are mostly filled with people just arguing with you along the same few lines of reasoning and logic. What makes you think that your opinion -- which you've admitted is tainted by confirmation bias -- is so important that it should become the focus of the discussion here?
I'm gonna back out now because I know that this conversation is going to head down the path towards bansville real fast if I don't, but damn dude.
It's not enough to claim that we know Trump colluded with Russia to be a Manchurian Candidate. It might be for you, but it isn't for me. There's a lot of connections to other foreign nations too.The dossier, and several pieces of that being confirmed. The contacts between his campaign and Russian officials. Carter Page. Paul Manaforts confirmed payments from Russian-backed ukrainians just prior to the campaign. Trumps public statements and action on russia prior to the Syria bombing. Leaked statements from American and foreign intelligence agencies. Kushner purposefully omitting meetings with Russians from Security clearance paper work. Ditto for both Sessions and Flynn. Multiple instances of Russian Agents being documented as being in the same physical location as Trump, his sons, and his son-in-law during the campaign.
None of that is 100% proof of collusion, but it is all evidence. Much of it is in fact proven facts. Understand that it is unlikely that there is like a recording of Trump holding Putins dick saying "you're my huckleberry I can't quit you." But there is a lot of currently public evidence, and potentially proof elsewhere.
Trump's time in office being besieged by scandal is not bad for Democrats.
Oh... this is hurting the dems. Ok.
Misunderstanding #1 - I haven't said that. I've said there are lots of links, lots of smoke, but none that suggest anything treasonous.
Misrepresentation #2 - I've stated that any bombshell revelations in the dossier (including peepee tape) that might directly link Trump to collusion, have not been verified yet. A lot of other things have, but those are relatively minor things that aren't evidence of Trump being a Manchurian Candidate.
I don't believe I ever denied these things have happened. They could be part of a huge case against Trump, or mostly coincidences, or something in between. But it's not hard evidence of collusion of the kind that a lot of Democrats seem to be pushing.
Misunderstanding #3 - I didn't say they're purely financial. I said that it looks to me like it's financial, because that seems the most plausible at this juncture. It is less clear to me currently that it is more than that, but I leave open the possibility that it is.
You don't know that for sure either, and there's as of yet not enough evidence to show it wasn't.
If you're talking about taking out the part about supplying Ukraine with lethal weaponry, and making it more like President Obama's position, then I don't see what is supposed to be so nefarious about that.
My god. Right down to the squirrelly obama talking point detail.
De-escalation of tensions. The horror! Are you in favor of escalating a proxy war with Russia?
It's not enough to claim that we know Trump colluded with Russia to be a Manchurian Candidate. It might be for you, but it isn't for me. There's a lot of connections to other foreign nations too.
If they keep pushing this too hard at the expense of advocating for progressive policies, then it will hurt them. Especially if it actually does turn out to be overblown. We'll see in 2020 how it turns out.
Did you just come out of Finding Dory?
It's not enough to claim that we know Trump colluded with Russia to be a Manchurian Candidate. It might be for you, but it isn't for me. There's a lot of connections to other foreign nations too.
If they keep pushing this too hard at the expense of advocating for progressive policies, then it will hurt them. Especially if it actually does turn out to be overblown. We'll see in 2020 how it turns out.
It's not enough to claim that we know Trump colluded with Russia to be a Manchurian Candidate. It might be for you, but it isn't for me. There's a lot of connections to other foreign nations too.
If they keep pushing this too hard at the expense of advocating for progressive policies, then it will hurt them. Especially if it actually does turn out to be overblown. We'll see in 2020 how it turns out.
I don't believe the evidence for Russia being behind the hacking is as strong as you think it is.That he colluded with Russia isn't even up for debate. He did it in the open. He called on them to hack his opponent, and release the information. He actively used information produced by their intelligenxe agencies as talking points in their campaign. Some of which was true but hacked, some of which was specifically false. In response he played nice and spoke nicely of them.
That he colluded is 100% proven fact. I think what you mean is that we can't prove he conspired
Oh....you're moving goals again by bringing the dems into it. I'm out. I should've been out a few responses ago.
"At the expense of advocating for progressive policies"? What the fuck are you talking about? Do you have even the foggiest idea of what the party has been doing lately?
Also, you're shifting goalposts and not doing a good job of obfuscating the transparent (and bannable) shitposting you're doing in this thread.
Do you have even the foggiest idea of what the party has been doing lately?
Are you calling me a sea creature? I'm not sure what this means.
I'm not sure how electing a president who refused to share his taxes for completely bogus reasons, readily equates minorities with rapists, terrorists and worse, was caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women, and casually suggested Russian hackers and "2nd Amendment People" should go after his opponent, isn't something to be worried about either; but we seemed to clear that hurdle just fine.I don't see how accusing the president of treason without hard evidence is not something to be worried about.
I don't believe the evidence for Russia being behind the hacking is as strong as you think it is.
How is that moving goalposts? I've always said that.
I don't believe the evidence for Russia being behind the hacking is as strong as you think it is.
De-escalation of tensions. The horror! Are you in favor of escalating a proxy war with Russia?