Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, ignatius said:

that reporter who broke the panama papers story got killed. i think all the russian and trump stuff was probably in there.. surely some russians. 

 

 

fuk, i completely forgot about this. infuriating. i'm sure she had many enemies so it could be anyone, and i'm also sure whoever did it knew that would create a smokescreen. a car bomb doesn't come from just any petty criminal, defs implies a high degree of organisation. silencing the truth with violence and intimidation because it is inconvenient to your own selfish means is truly one of the most despicable acts. really hope there is justice on this issue one day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, auxien said:

for the 4th or 5th time, Mueller showed no direct evidence for Russian collusion or conspiracy. you (supposedly) read the report, you should know that. 

he actually did present evidence of conspiracy. look at this, from the intro to volume 1:

Quote

A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.

the phrase he is referring to, "did not establish," is the phrase he uses a couple paragraphs earlier, here:

Quote

The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

 

also, in mueller's may 29 public statement, he says

Quote

This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

"insufficient evidence" is not "no evidence"

basically all they were missing was evidence of  an agreement.

 

i should also point out that you are using the word collusion, and mueller is talking about conspiracy. however, the definition of conspiracy mueller is using is actually very narrow and very difficult to prove. evidence of conspiracy he lays out is also evidence of collusion.

 

for anyone who doesn't want to crunch the 448 pages of partially redacted fbi work product (it's actually not that bad), i recommend wittes' notes on the mueller report. available for free on that page or you can buy an audiobook here

Edited by very honest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you sure wasted a lot of words and time saying exactly what I already said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, goDel said:

Donors tend to be traceable. As politifact have shown in their article. 

Instead of guessing, https://www.opensecrets.org/ will give some insight. It's more transparent than you seem to think. 

And the politifact story was more than just semantics. It showed how poor the 'reporting' is. They flagged it as fake news.

Given the politifact article, Blavatnik wouldn't even be considered a foreign donor, btw. (US-UK passport, in the US since 70s, has a couple of US companies)

I agree with you that there are issues with campaign financing and all that. But this article doesn't do any good. So I'm having a hard time understanding why you're jumping into this rabbithole with a politifact article labelling it as fake news. I just don't understand.

 

yeah.. true. the connections raise eyebrows for me but i guess it's really quite normal. what's hilarious is the donations are dwarfed by Adelson's donations that were $25 million or something.  

as for foreign money i think it goes through PACs right? the super pacs get the 'dark' money and don't have to report any of it. it's quite laughable. direct contributions to campaigns are one thing but the PAC money is a separate thing entirely and for the most part those people don't have to reveal where the money comes from. i remember Colbert did a thing on it one season when he was still doing The Colbert Report. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, auxien said:

it's not a matter of whether i think the country is anywhere near changing their mind, look at the polls. 

assuming my position is a mistake on your part. for the 4th or 5th time, Mueller showed no direct evidence for Russian collusion or conspiracy. you (supposedly) read the report, you should know that. 

not sure where i went wrong in my assumptions? i can repeat your words and still get a response i don't understand.

Here:

Quote

At first it looks really shady but there's not much behind the curtain as Mueller detailed....it's (almost) all smoke and mirrors.

Looks the same to me.

 So we're saying the same. Can we actually on something? Not rocket science, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/19/2019 at 1:58 PM, auxien said:

 

goDel i didn't misread you. 

this is obvious attacking/trolling. 'admit to have not read the report' is condescending, as is 'parroting.' don't play coy.

 

if there's any misreading it's you focusing on one aspect of what I was saying instead of the larger point: 

Quote

Trump's lying seems to be more to protect his image and to keep division/his supporters loyal than because of any actual shit to hide, really. At first it looks really shady but there's not much behind the curtain as Mueller detailed....it's (almost) all smoke and mirrors.

there's not much actual shit (Russian conspiracy) to hide. that's what Mueller said.

maybe? the ones from a few years back that Maddow got in 2017? 18? those weren't anything special, tho it was the 'simplified' tax returns. we'll probably see the full load at some point, but i'm starting to wonder if it's just more smoke and mirrors and he doesn't have anything seriously hiding in there.

^how many times i gotta explain this to you goDel

 

anyway

 

polls show most Americans are against impeaching Trump as of right now, since after the Mueller report. that's not likely going to be swayed towards impeachment now, months after the Mueller report's been out. simple as that. if they're not interested, Congress almost certainly won't push it. end of story, really. cuss and raise hell all you want but it won't matter.

my position doesn't line up really. i think Trump likely should be impeached, perhaps for attempted conspiracy or at least for the attempted coverup/lies/misc stuff that Mueller basically handed over to Congress in his report. Congress should do their job and seriously (in a non-partisan way, lol) look at these things and make the president answer for them. but if you haven't guessed it yet, that's likely NOT going to happen, certainly not in any non-partisan way....which is really the only way to do it and it mean anything at all. 

Edited by auxien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aux, I hope we're not going back to having an argument we already said we didn't want to have. I just wanted to make sure I didn't misrepresent your statement, while still being succinct. Still not sure what went wrong there, but here we are. Lets leave it there.

Wrt the partisan approach of congress, the comparison with watergate is interesting. I tend to look at that history and see a lot of similarities. So that leaves me more hopeful, even if it currently looks hopeless. To a degree it was hopeless back then as well. 

But it's also the case that the media nowadays is mostly a shit-filter. With more  focus on the shit and less on the good stuff. Moreso than back then, I believe. The political side was always nasty. Which is basically proven by the actual watergate event itself, I'd argue. So I'm a bit weary following the coverage. Especially the shit thats labelled as 'breaking news'. That's the McDonalds of news. The media also plays a role in framing a hopeless reality. (As is my own psychology, btw)

So as far as I'm concerned, we're still in the middle of watergate where public opinion was still divided. And events could unfold similarly. Even if it doesn't look that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New polls show Trump tanking to the Dems in 2020 election.  God, let this be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine believing he’s innocent of all that stuff we saw ridiculously damning evidence of for two straight fucking years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm imagining that right now.

wow, this is so easy to imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Salvatorin said:

i'm imagining that right now.

wow, this is so easy to imagine.

Especially if you can’t read. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, goDel said:

Aux, I hope we're not going back to having an argument we already said we didn't want to have. I just wanted to make sure I didn't misrepresent your statement, while still being succinct. Still not sure what went wrong there, but here we are. Lets leave it there.

i'm not interested enough in what you have to say to argue with you

 

1 hour ago, Candiru said:

Imagine believing he’s innocent of all that stuff we saw ridiculously damning evidence of for two straight fucking years.

imagine seeing Trump for the last two years and thinking anything is going to happen to him re: all this Russia/obstruction/Mueller stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tariffs on China will drive Chinese tech to become more independent and less interconnected, therefore more likely to create bipolar tech world...and.....war part 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't want to hear any of these people's voices anymore. honestly, they're all quite sickening how boldly they lie. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rubin Farr said:

New polls show Trump tanking to the Dems in 2020 election.  God, let this be true.

This made me think, what if it's closer to game time and don's still trailing big time? Will the R's throw lyin' Ted out there or maybe pull Mr. America Paul Ryan off the bench? Or worse yet, what if the Lord's Crusader, Michael miracle man Pence, has his come to moment and realizes it's his time? Will the R's back his ass up and choose him over the complete mess that is donald j trump? You know he's chomping at the bit to get in there, biding his time waiting for his evil master to falter so he can rise again from the ashes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ those are all fun fantasies but they've all bought in w/ shit-for-brains to the point of no return.  I imagine the more likely scenario is that they'll kick it up a notch with the tried 'n tru playbook tactics (disinformation, fearmongering, scapegoating, voter suppression, etc.), clear some lanes for foreign interference, and maybe dabble in a little rigging themselves.  The fact that nothing has (and likely nothing will) come of the Mueller Report is basically a green light for these bitchass ho's to continue with their fuckery.

Has anyone been crunching the numbers on the house and senate seats up in 2020 yet?  Have dems copped on to how they can't effect shit while Turtlefuck & co. run the upper chamber?

8 hours ago, ignatius said:

i don't want to hear any of these people's voices anymore. honestly, they're all quite sickening how boldly they lie. 

I was watching a clip of that Watergate guy's testimony when without warning it cut to that paedo-enabling knuckle-dragger Jordan and his retard fury.  Tab insta-closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zero said:

This made me think, what if it's closer to game time and don's still trailing big time? Will the R's throw lyin' Ted out there or maybe pull Mr. America Paul Ryan off the bench? Or worse yet, what if the Lord's Crusader, Michael miracle man Pence, has his come to moment and realizes it's his time? Will the R's back his ass up and choose him over the complete mess that is donald j trump? You know he's chomping at the bit to get in there, biding his time waiting for his evil master to falter so he can rise again from the ashes...

The Emperor wears no clothes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BobDobalina said:

^ those are all fun fantasies but they've all bought in w/ shit-for-brains to the point of no return. 

yeah, I know the orange villain will never pass the torch unless he's forced to (impeachment). R's are dug in deep with shit heel.

But I have no doubt we're going to see Pence 2024. ya never know, the jack-assery could continue on for 12 more years... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way the R's currently treat Justin Amash, they're more like the ruling party in North Korea or China.

R's idea of "Land of the free" is a mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's a difference between 'opposition research' and 'inviting foreign governments to hack to the emails of your opponent'. 

i hope donald trump dies soon. still hoping it happens on the toilet so he flops onto the floor half naked w/shit all around him. or has a stroke live on air and no one is sure what is happening because he kind of looks/sounds like he's having a stroke sometimes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...