Donald Trump

TheRock · Post by **TheRock** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:51 pm

As for my view on politics: There is a bunch of dictatorships and bunch of countries which are atleast attempting to do democracy. Pick your side.

Radulfr · Post by **Radulfr** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:52 pm

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Jul 18 2018, 11:47 PM) Why do you believe this? Can you give some examples?

https://www.rt.com/uk/433733-feminists- ... sts-clash/
An article from today - certainly not my favorite topic, but I can't even tell which side the author is on. Why don't you browse yourself and read something that interests you. I read five+ articles while sitting on the toilet today

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Jul 19 2018, 01:58 PM) Mueller: "So today we've put Trump's former campaign manager under house arrest for crimes committed."

That guy did it, not Trump, and that guy did it long before working for Trump.

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Jul 19 2018, 01:58 PM) Mueller: "Also his former national security adviser plead guilty to selling state secrets."

That guy did it, not Trump.

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Jul 19 2018, 01:58 PM) Mueller: "And today we had to actually just throw Trump's campaign manager in prison for violating the terms of his supervised release."

The same guy did it, not even relevant.

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Jul 19 2018, 01:58 PM) Mueller: "Today we've indicted 12 Russian agents in connection with hacking the DNC."

"indicted" means "accused" which means ... nothing.

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Jul 19 2018, 01:58 PM) Mueller: "Now we've indicted a Russian national who's been working with the NRA who at least attempted to sell illegally obtained dirt on a House candidate to another House candidate."

Same.

So what was your grand conclusion again from all these "mountain of evidence"?

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:55 pm

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Jul 19 2018, 11:58 AM) Trump: "IT'S A WITCH HUNT!"

I really am struggling to understand the mind of a Trump supporter here in the most charitable way.

Here's my best attempt:

Basically, we all know Trump was open to receiving derogatory information about Clinton from any source (he literally asked Russia on live national TV to hack into Clinton's emails and release them). He was completely uninterested in the motives of his sources. If the information came from a foreign government who wanted, for whatever reason, to see him elected -- so be it. Anyone who supports his candidacy must be a good person, almost by definition. Anyways he probably didn't get any information, or whatever he got wasn't very useful or he could have gotten the same thing somewhere else.

In fact, if anyone in Trump's campaign did happen to work with Russian hackers or Russian intelligence services, they only did it for the good of the country -- if it's a crime, it shouldn't be. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't -- in any case, Trump didn't know about it, and doesn't care to know now, and that's fine.

The whole thing is just much ado about nothing, it's just Democrats' version of BENGHAZI!! and the fact that it's a distraction is more important than whether any crimes were committed or whether there is something fundamentally wrong about hackers and geopolitical rivals being involved in our political system in this way.

Post by **zombywoof** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:04 pm

Radulfr wrote:QUOTE (Radulfr @ Jul 19 2018, 12:52 PM) So what was your grand conclusion again from all these "mountain of evidence"?

Trump is a moron, and many high-profile republicans and republican-friends are up @#(! creek and are losing their grip on the paddle.

Radulfr · Post by **Radulfr** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:16 pm

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Jul 19 2018, 02:55 PM) we all know

Why does this phrase always make me so suspicious..

cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Jul 19 2018, 02:55 PM) he literally asked Russia on live national TV to hack into Clinton's emails and release them

Hillary was obligated to reveal those emails, but didn't and pretended to have lost them. She probably lost them for good reason.
Asking someone to reveal those emails which should legally be revealed is a crime then? Maybe, but it shouldn't be more than a bagatelle.

Also, if you are using the word "literally" - he was saying "find", not "hack".

ryujin · Post by **ryujin** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:56 pm

Radulfr wrote:QUOTE (Radulfr @ Jul 19 2018, 02:52 PM) That guy did it, not Trump, and that guy did it long before working for Trump.

Interesting. Wasn't Manafort working for the Trump campaign from February of 2016 until August of 2016?

What is up with all this evidence during that same time period?

I'll resist making personal attacks, but it really seems like you enjoy burying your head in the sand.

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:45 pm

Radulfr wrote:QUOTE (Radulfr @ Jul 19 2018, 01:16 PM) Hillary was obligated to reveal those emails, but didn't and pretended to have lost them. She probably lost them for good reason.

No, she wasn't. She was ordered to produce all work-related emails from her personal email account, in response to a FOIA request. In December 2014, she reviewed her personal email account and turned over 30,000 emails she (and her counsel) deemed to be work related.

She then set the retention policy on her personal email account, leading to most email to be expunged. She had the right to do this on her personal email account for her personal emails.

Several months later, she (and the State Department) was sued by a conservative watchdog group who alleged that her review was improper and that, either intentionally or unintentionally, there may still have been work-related emails among the set of emails that she purged. This kicked off a process where, as part of discovery, the State Department went on a hunt for any copies that may be found elsewhere, for example the mailbox of the recipient. About half of the personal emails turned up as a result of this search.

The FBI concluded:

QUOTE [W]e found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.[/quote]

Of course, it is fair to say, as the IG report concludes, that Clinton should not have mixed work and personal emails together; that she should have relied on a State Department email system and that would have made compliance with the relevant statues much simpler, but that was an issue that predated the Obama administration and continues even under the Trump administration.

QUOTE Asking someone to reveal those emails which should legally be revealed is a crime then?[/quote]

Yes, hacking into someone's personal email server and dumping private email to Wikileaks is a crime. Even if by chance it happens to relate to some legitimate investigation, this is still vigilantism, not justice.

cashto · Post by **cashto** » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:06 pm

Radulfr wrote:QUOTE (Radulfr @ Jul 19 2018, 12:52 PM) https://www.rt.com/uk/433733-feminists- ... sts-clash/
An article from today - certainly not my favorite topic, but I can't even tell which side the author is on.

That is indeed an unbiased article. Of course, just because Shep Smith is on Fox News doesn't mean Sean Hannity isn't.

Even though Russia is generally socially conservative and anti-LGBT, this article doesn't really disturb any narrative. My priors are that when there is a narrative on RT, it will either be a) anti-LGBT or b) calling out some other country, not Russia, for its homophobia (ie, concern trolling). Bias is most often not what is said, but what is unsaid. My priors is that you will never, ever, ever, see an article on RT lamenting anti-LGBT sentiment in Russia, or by the Russian government.

Finally, my priors are that you will also never, ever, ever see anything remotely pro-Clinton on RT, or anti-Trump, or anti-Putin.

minigun · Post by **minigun** » Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:00 am

Does anyone really like trump? I think electing an independent president not tied to any party is good. Trump appears to be getting things done, in a hateful kinda way. 8 years of Obama was like watching paint dry. He seemed to do alot of nothing, over and over. The economy sucked and you really just wanted to scream for change. To offer Hillary after Obama? OMG I'd take 10,000 trumps over 1 Hillary.

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:29 am

What does "like" mean? Does anyone like his personality? Probably not. I like a few of his administration's changes to a few things a lot though I don't think he's smart enough to come up with any of it on his own. He's got brilliant venture capitalists on his payroll and they're taking advantage of his position as POTUS to benefit him as much as possible. Whether or not it benefits anyone else really just depends on what industries/companies you're reliant upon/working for or with/invested in so it's kind of a wash since there's not really any consistent method to anything, it's all just off-the-cuff salesmanship/politics. In a lot of ways I wish he were a lot more republican - especially a fiscally conservative small government old-school republican, not new age republican. But he's all over the place on a lot of things because he's not actually a politician or interested in touting party lines very much. Plus he's dumb and senile.