Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

BabyCheeses

2 Scoops wrote: »

I care about the truth

-Trump Supporter




You had no problem saying that but won't just say you have no problem with Trump working with Russia to keep Clinton out?

2 Scoops

BabyCheeses wrote: »

-Trump Supporter

You had no problem saying that but won't just say you have no problem with Trump working with Russia to keep Clinton out?

I want to see proof there was some conspiracy with the DNC hacking or w/e else, that's it.

26000 Elephants

2 Scoops wrote: »

The only reason these people are getting arrested is because they're associated with Trump.

The only reason these people are getting arrested is because they are suspected of committing crimes.

The only reason these people are getting convicted is because they were found to be guilty of those crimes.

You need to understand what these two statements mean if you are to have any peace in your life from now on.

2 Scoops

26000 Elephants wrote: »

You need to understand what these two statements mean if you are to have any peace in your life from now on.

Yes, we cannot question why a probe that started out on the basis of "Russian collusion" based on opposition research has viciously attacked Trump aides none of which have anything to do with Americans colluding with Russian officials while the previous investigation didn't even bother to investigate the target.

HAIL Mueller

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

They are not being arrested for being associated with Trump. Either they have committed a crime or have been suspected of committing a crime.

I must have missed the part where the jury found Manafort guilty of association...

2 Scoops wrote: »

And you're fine with assuming that if the same level of scrutiny was applied to others in positions of power crimes wouldn't be found. The only reason these people are getting arrested is because they're associated with Trump.

26000 Elephants

2 Scoops wrote: »

Yes, we cannot question why a probe that started out on the basis of "Russian collusion" based on opposition research has viciously attacked Trump aides none of which have anything to do with Americans colluding with Russian officials while the previous investigation didn't even bother to investigate the target.

HAIL Mueller

It hasnt "viciously attacked Trump aides". It has simply examined the evidence, arrested them, charged them and in many cases (so far) convicted them of illegal activities.

Nothing vicious about it at all.

The "previous investigation" did the exact same thing: except they found no evidence to support the charges made and did not even get to the stage of making an arrest.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Why does that matter? Are you not happy these criminals are being brought to justice?

Mueller was to investigate possible Russian collusion and
"any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

2 Scoops wrote: »

If Trump didn't run for office do you think they'd have been arrested?

2 Scoops

26000 Elephants wrote: »

The "previous investigation" did the exact same thing: except they found no evidence to support the charges made and did not even get to the stage of making an arrest.

Just cannot take that seriously at all, I'm sorry.

26000 Elephants

2 Scoops wrote: »

Just cannot take that seriously at all, I'm sorry.

Like I said earlier, you are free to delude yourself as much as you like, That will not change reality.

2 Scoops

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Like I said earlier, you are free to delude yourself as much as you like, That will not change reality.

It's not delusion, it's in black and white for all to see. Feel free to believe whatever you hear on MSNBC or w/e garbage you listen to. The actual reality is the public persona people portray isn't like what they are behind closed doors. People are vengeful and have vendettas and have bias.

flazio

As much as it's fun to see the media get into a fuss, guaranteed Trump will announce something shocking that will distract from the investigation and by this time next week all reports will have been hushed up and back to business as usual. We're stuck with him for the full term, possibly two I'm sad to believe.

jooksavage

So now Trump has signed up to the white genocide conspiracy in South Africa (and before
we go down this rabbit hole, there's scant evidence that white SA farmers are more likely to be murdered in an admittedly violent country - https://qz.com/africa/1297437/farm-murders-in-south-africa-are-decreasing-even-as-conservatives-warn-of-genocide-of-white-afrikaners/.) His strategy to ride out the current controversies are straight out of the facsists handbook: MORE RACISM.

Bobeagleburger

Is there a cause going on about the misuse of money from the Trump charity? Haven't heard much about that with everything else going on.

everlast75

2 Scoops wrote: »

Yes, we cannot question why a probe that started out on the basis of "Russian collusion" based on opposition research has viciously attacked Trump aides none of which have anything to do with Americans colluding with Russian officials while the previous investigation didn't even bother to investigate the target.

HAIL Mueller

You say you're interested in truth, yet you repeat the lie that this investigation started because of the dossier. That's a lie.

Educate yourself and then argue your point based on truths. You'll do yourself a better service.

And as for upsetting his base, in the words of a certain green party member here, "excuse my unparliamentary language" here but **** them. On what basis should any country be afraid to do what's right because of a minority of hypocritical bible bashers?

And as for your hail Mueller comment, that just makes me put you on mute as it demonstrates to me that you're not interested in a debate at all.

spacecoyote

2 Scoops wrote: »

I care about the truth

I actually did laugh out loud when I read this statement...What's the Trump lie count since entering office up to now?

everlast75

spacecoyote wrote: »

I actually did laugh out loud when I read this statement...What's the Trump lie count since entering office up to now?

Over 4000..

But if you think that's good, what til you see him lie under oath in the Daniels case and the Zervo as case too, both before Christmas!

ancapailldorcha

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Sharon Ní Bheoláin just after having a literal orgasm on air announcing the news that Michael Cohen implicated Trump in a crime.

No more of this please.

Penn

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Is there a cause going on about the misuse of money from the Trump charity? Haven't heard much about that with everything else going on.

Yes. Yesterday it was reported that Michael Cohen has been subpoenaed to answer questions relating to the Trump Foundation. Subpoenaing him is pretty much just a formality since he's working with prosecutors already, but it shows they have a line into possible crimes relating to the Trump Foundation.

Also, one of the jurors from the Manafort trial was on Fox News last night. She's a strong Trump supporter, but even she found that the evidence against Manafort was so overwhelming that 11 of the jurors wanted him found guilty on all 18 charges. There was only one juror who held out on 10 of the charges and wouldn't change their mind.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul-manaford-jury-deliberations_us_5b7e53efe4b0348585fd611e?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

“I thought that the public, America, needed to know how close this was and the evidence was overwhelming,” she said.

Duncan said she was a Trump supporter and wanted to believe that Manafort was innocent. She noted that even his critics had described him as a brilliant political consultant and that Trump had trusted him with overseeing his campaign.

“I did not want Paul Manafort to be guilty. But he was and no one is above the law.”

Duncan said some of the jurors had a problem accepting the testimony of Rick Gates, Manafort’s former right-hand man, because he was testifying as part of a plea deal and “would have done anything that he could to preserve himself.”

She said the jury decided to not consider Gates’ testimony and focus instead on the documentary evidence.

Hande hoche!

jooksavage wrote: »

So now Trump has signed up to the white genocide conspiracy in South Africa (and before
we go down this rabbit hole, there's scant evidence that white SA farmers are more likely to be murdered in an admittedly violent country - https://qz.com/africa/1297437/farm-murders-in-south-africa-are-decreasing-even-as-conservatives-warn-of-genocide-of-white-afrikaners/.) His strategy to ride out the current controversies are straight out of the facsists handbook: MORE RACISM.

Land seizures are a valid point, that have the potential to tank the South African economy. It's a reasonable area to investigate. The murders as you say are a factor of a violent country. So about half the tweet is somewhat logical, which by DJT standards, isn't bad.

Leroy42

2Scoops, I get the feeling that you seem to think that Russia Collusion is the only possible reason on which we should judge Trump, that no other crime should even be considered. And that once you get evidence of that then you will be satisfied. That is a pretty depressing state of affairs where you are basically saying that anything goes as long as he isn't actually in the room when a deal is done.

I find that odd, but it has never been shown that HC colluded with Russia. She had plenty of business dealings, but there has never been evidence of collusion, certainly not with Russia. So surely HC is clean, on your own standards. Bill didn't collude with Russia and yet he was impeached. Have the rules changed or something?

And we all ready have evidence of attempted collusion, Trump Jr and the Trump Tower meeting. Yet even with that confession we have opted to believe, based on nothing but Trumps word, that he had nothing to do with it. So I really don't buy this idea that you simply want the truth.

At almost every stage of Trump campaign and Presidency, we are constantly being told that the latest rumour is fake news, a witch hunt. Then, when the truth does come out we are told it doesn't matter anyway as it is the worst thing ever.

Even yesterday, (to be shown on Fox News today I think) Trump admitted to making the payments, and simply stated that Obama did much worse but got away with it. So there you have it from the man himself, his only defence being that others (and only he knows these details) did worse and got away so so should he.

Which begs the question. Did he know this at the time of making the payments and paid them thinking he would simply get away with it. Or did he not know it and is simply trying to cover his arse. The first way means he knowingly and actively went out to break the law. The second means he is simply scrambling around for an excuse.

aloyisious

2Scoops: Do you believe that the Trump associates who pleaded guilty to criminal charges in open US court or were found guilty of criminal charges by their peers in open US court are NOT guilty of the charges?

Are you saying that their guilt is assumed by themselves and others merely because they are Trump associates?

Do you want to them given "get out of jail free" cards despite their admissions and convictions of guilt to the charges brought against them in open US court?

jooksavage

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Land seizures are a valid point, that have the potential to tank the South African economy. It's a reasonable area to investigate. The murders as you say are a factor of a violent country. So about half the tweet is somewhat logical, which by DJT standards, isn't bad.

Violence against white farmers in South Africa is a perennial topic among the far right, particularly in Britain and among those who talk about "white genocide". Trump saw something on Tucker Carlson's show about violence against whites and hey-presto - now he's on the case of the white farmers in SA.

Also, the fact that Tucker Carlson still has a show is beyond comprehension and indication of where we are. Carlson owns the Daily Caller, which has published pieces by actual, no-sh**, loud-and-proud nazi's like Jason Kessler.

everlast75

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Land seizures are a valid point, that have the potential to tank the South African economy. It's a reasonable area to investigate. The murders as you say are a factor of a violent country. So about half the tweet is somewhat logical, which by DJT standards, isn't bad.

It may or may not be a valid point. The issue here is why is Trump focusing on that now. When did he ever care about those "sh1thole" Countries?

I suspect the answer is he "cares" now because a way to feed his base is to victimise the white race and blame others in SA, with the inference being that the same issues apply in the US.

As has been said dozens of times before, not all Trump supporters are racists, but all racists are Trump supporters.

BTW - anyone else freaked out by his videos? I almost wish he would go back to his inane written ramblings.

Beechwoodspark

Trump has a tried and tested Tactic of scouring the news to find something that will distract from whatever the latest scandal is. Doubt he gives a damn about South Africa

Igotadose

everlast75 wrote: »

As has been said dozens of times before, not all Trump supporters are racists, but all racists are Trump supporters.

I think it's more nuanced than that. Plenty of 'keep them out of my neighborhood' racism on the left, not burning crosses or using the N word, but excluding through perceived 'acts of kindness'. And that type of racist wouldn't be caught dead voting R.

Agreed that the 'classic' racist is a Trump supporter, but racism's a thing in the US that's pervasive on all sides, and political ideologies.

Dohnjoe

2 Scoops wrote: »

Yes, we cannot question why a probe that started out on the basis of "Russian collusion" based on opposition research has viciously attacked Trump aides none of which have anything to do with Americans colluding with Russian officials while the previous investigation didn't even bother to investigate the target.

HAIL Mueller

If the investigating team uncovers crimes, which they are, then they will be prosecuted accordingly - that's their mandate

It comes across as irrational and partisan to maintain a dogmatic mantra of "I don't care how many crimes he and his team committed as long as it wasn't that one"

Captain Obvious

2 Scoops wrote: »

I want to see proof there was some conspiracy with the DNC hacking or w/e else, that's it.

There's proof there though. Trump said he would have dirt on Clinton after the weekend and Trump's campaign then met with a representative of the Russian government in Trump Tower to obtain dirt. The Russian representative stated they wanted Trump to win at the meeting. Putin said he wanted Trump to win after the meeting. Trump asked Russia to find DNC emails and the same day the Russians tried to hack the DNC server. Collusion/conspiracy has already been proven. What exactly are you still looking for? Even Trump's legal team has moved on to "Collusion is not a crime".

Also, can we just clarify something. The Mueller probe was primarily into Russian interference in the election. However he was also directed to look at three other things.
1) links to Trump Campaign
2) any other crimes he discovers
3)Any crimes attempting to interfere with his investigation

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

All three were secondary and given equal importance. So why are you prepared to ignore all else in favour of one?

Water John

So the Manafort jury would have convicted Manafort on all charges if the Judge had accepted and 11 or 10 majority. That juror Duncon seemed very fair in her judgement, even as a Trump supporter. Hope there are many others like her.

Stallingrad

Interesting to see Shep Smith on Fox news obviously frustrated with Trumps carry on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFtNQhPNPCY&t=587s

Penn

Water John wrote: »

So the Manafort jury would have convicted Manafort on all charges if the Judge had accepted and 11 or 10 majority. That juror Duncon seemed very fair in her judgement, even as a Trump supporter. Hope there are many others like her.

While I mostly agree, this part of what she said worries me a little:

Duncan said some of the jurors had a problem accepting the testimony of Rick Gates, Manafort’s former right-hand man, because he was testifying as part of a plea deal and “would have done anything that he could to preserve himself.”

She said the jury decided to not consider Gates’ testimony and focus instead on the documentary evidence.

Trump himself seems to be pushing that line of thinking regrading Cohen, that he must be making stuff up just in order to try and cut a deal for himself. It could tarnish the testimonies and evidence from those who are making plea deals in the minds of future jurors. It's clear that just testimony won't be enough. As with Manafort, Mueller's team are going to need strong evidence of the paper trails behind it all.