Trump Lovers backing off

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-19-2018, 04:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Good you put the qualifier in.

But I am not just referring to infidelity.  Democrats who said "the same thing" were referring to one thing. Now they are referring to a range of activities, from publicly insulting women's looks to going around our intel services/precautions to speak to adversaries, to declaring the press "enemies of the people," to declassifying material over the objections of the FBI and CIA in hopes of stalling an investigation of which he is the target, to advancing Alex Jones conspiracy theories, to failing to understand his generals' explanations of why the U.S. is in South Korea.

Those were good times. These are not.

Wouldn't declassifying count as a push towards Transparency? no? Stalling an investigation?? more like forcing it to end. No proof, then STFU and move on.

Same with knowing that the Intel services has been/is possibly still spying on you and already busted plotting against you? Why would you trust them?

Insulting women's looks? Are you talking about the Beauty Pagents? if he tells one she's getting a little porky and it will cost her a win, is that advice or criticism?

The Press is keeping us divided, there is not much neutrality in the press anymore.

[SunsetBengal]

(09-14-2018, 04:50 PM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Anyone else notice how most of the Trump lovers here are backing off their love of Trump and all the dumb shit and lies that come out of his mouth? The Trumpsters are independent voters all of a sudden and are trying to distance themselves from this P grabber.  

What are you talking about?  Is this some crock of shit that you dug up from Mother Jones, or did you compose that yourself?  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-19-2018, 05:36 PM)Dill Wrote:
"Russia" did not release a dossier to Steele.  And Russia did not hack the RNC's server, or if they did they chose not to release its contents. And their disinformation campaign was intended, certainly, to divide us, but it was largely fake news about Hillary targeting the peculiarly susceptible Trump base.  The Russians saw back then that it was clearly to their advantage to back an inexperienced, undisciplined and manipulable pro-Russian candidate who already wanted to be Putin's new BFF.  Their bet has paid off, as Trump foreign policy actions favor Russia over our allies and his domestic actions raise the spectre of impeachment. This is not "playing both sides."  It is playing to a gullible base.  Successfully.

If you want to be legally precise, there is no investigation into "collusion" from either side.

Tipped off by the unprecedented number of contacts between members of the Trump campaign (not the Hillary campaign) and Russian spies and diplomats, amidst Russian efforts to subvert the US election in favor of Trump, the FBI opened an investigation into whether the campaign or members thereof were working with Russians, not only to subvert the election, but also to prepare special consideration for Russia, like easing sanctions--thus subverting current policy of Congress and then sitting president Obama.

Credible sources like the FBI and CIA discovered that Trump operatives like Carter Page were talking to Russian spies, and Mike Flynn was talking to the Russians about easing sanctions--though he denied it.  Trump jr. took a meeting at Trump Tower from Russians with Kremlin ties (one a counterintel specialist) purporting to have dirt on Hillary; what happened at that meeting is still under investigation.
 
You suggest the fact of these connections and meetings, and the resultant investigation, is some how dependent upon whether I post about them, not the FBIs findings?  Because that seems to me exactly the status of your claim Dems are the ones who really colluded. There is no evidence of meetings with spies or diplomats on the part of her campaign; hence no investigation, e.g., into a Chelsea meeting with Kremlin operatives etc. The Australian government did not alert the FBI that a Hillary campaigner had dirt on Donald. Dem collusion is only sustained by Fox news and blog posts.

Sure, Trump has a right to his personal opinion that Russia was not behind the DNC hacking or the hacking of state voter registration data bases or our power grid, and he has a right to believe Putin over our intel agencies. But the sum total of those "rights" is an incompetent president who cannot orchestrate a response to this present danger to national security.  Your vote put him there and. ignoring this behavior, your support keeps the danger in place.

It is a standard Fox/right tactic first to vehemently deny a charge and then to claim the other side really does it. So in response to an actual FBI investigation into contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives which actually occurred, we get first vehement denials ("there was no collusion--so I fired Comey") and then, finally, a counter narrative about the "real" collusion story, the Dems and Russia. The Dems set up Trump jr. Used the FBI to spy on Trump. Which of course no one is investigating because the 'deep state' won't go there.

What is a Trump supporter's definition of "totally out there"??

And it was reported that the Russians attempted to hack the RNC servers, but either failed to get past security or there was nothing of real importance there.

If the Russians were all for Trump, then why did they back Anti-Trump Rallies??? They played both sides, that's how they work. And yes of course they called Flynn and asked him those questions, it is exactly the type of playing they did, I'm sure they called someone in Hillary's group and did the same, except they might not have been spying on them hunh cause Obama didn't tell them to???

Comey??? Should have been fired immediately after Trump took office. Trump gave him too much time to play his games.

However, you're still missing the bottom line. All of that is politics at it's best, and the Democrats couldn't beat one of the worst people in the world that ran against them for POTUS, what does that tell you about their chosen candidate and how people feel about them?

People like you that can't stand back and take a breather are just creating more and more Trump Supporters!! Thanks for your efforts.

[ballsofsteel]

(09-19-2018, 06:37 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What are you talking about?  Is this some crock of shit that you dug up from Mother Jones, or did you compose that yourself?  

Who in the hell is mother jones? Is that your news source Alex jones mother?

[Dill]

(09-19-2018, 06:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Wouldn't declassifying count as a push towards Transparency? no? Stalling an investigation?? more like forcing it to end. No proof, then STFU and move on.

Same with knowing that the Intel services has been/is possibly still spying on you and already busted plotting against you? Why would you trust them?

Insulting women's looks? Are you talking about the Beauty Pagents? if he tells one she's getting a little porky and it will cost her a win, is that advice or criticism?

The Press is keeping us divided,there is not much neutrality in the press anymore.

Beauty Pagents? lol

"The press" did not tweet out a beautiful picture of Melania with an ugly picture of Ted Cruz's wife and invite us to compare; the press did not tweet that Mika's face was bleeding from plastic surgery or that Omarosa was a "dog" or that Megan Kelly was bleeding from "wherever" or that women accusing Trump of sexual assault/harrassment were too ugly for his attentions.   Is grabbing P advice or criticism?

I'm sorry but if members of your campaign are illegally communicating with Russian diplomats and spies who are under already surveillance then you can't call it "plotting against you" when the surveillance is extended to your people.  If you don't "trust" the FBI in such situations it is for the same reason that Mafia members don't trust the FBI.  In this case the consequences are much worse because the mob boss is supposed to be working WITH the FBI in the interest of national security. 

Declassifying does not count as transparency when 1) the people's representatives of both parties have access to the classified material, 2) the FBI tells you it will compromise methods and sources, affecting their ability to protect the nation (one informant has already been outed and lost to the FBI) and 3) the president is trying to stall an investigation into his own behavior. Again.

When the press is upset about things the press--and the whole nation--should be upset about, then demand for press "neutrality" is really a demand the press look the other way.

What would "neutrality" look like in a report of how the president disputes the FBI finding that Russia interfered in our elections because Putin says they didn't?  Just reporting the facts in itself estbalishes dereliction of duty.

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2018, 08:08 PM)Dill Wrote:
Declassifying does not count as transparency when 1) Trump does it.

Just trying to save you some typing next time.

[Dill]

(09-19-2018, 08:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Dill Wrote:
Declassifying does not count as transparency when 1) Trump does it.

Just trying to save you some typing next time.

Not defending Trump again, I see.

Nice little shortcut around the substance of my point.

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2018, 08:15 PM)Dill Wrote: Not defending Trump again, I see.

Nice little shortcut around the substance of my point.

Well if considering declassifying documents a move toward transparency is the mark of a Trump defender; then we'll consider me guilty on this occasion.

Of course only a rational person would try to assert declassification is not a step toward transparency because of who did it.

As to the substance of your point:

What Trump did to MS Cruz was despicable and Ted should have dotted that eye. .

[Dill]

(09-19-2018, 08:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well if considering declassifying documents a move toward transparency is the mark of a Trump defender; then we'll consider me guilty on this occasion.

Of course only a rational person would try to assert declassification is not a step toward transparency because of who did it.

Yes--because of who did it--the president under investigation is using his power to derail that investigation.

The SUBSTANCE of the point is that 1) TWICE ALREADY at least calls for declassification have compromised FBI methods and assets without justifying the rationale for classification.  And 2) the declassification is politically motivated, as was the last round of declassification led by Devin Nunes.

Remember him? the guy now on tape saying it is the job of Republicans in Congress to protect Trump--head of the executive branch which Congress was intended to check.

Keep in mind that the original mandate of the House Intel Committee Nunes chairs was to investigate the Russian attack on the US elections and the degree of connection between Russians and the Trump campaign.  For the last two years he has been discharging that duty by protecting Trump, generating crazy media shows, after at least once recusing himself from duty.

This is the same guy who was shown, by White House officials, that Trump campaign members like Flynn had been "unmasked" at the request of Susan Rice back in 2016. And then he made a dog and pony show for the press, driving from the Capitol building to the WH to "inform" Trump as if he had made this "discovery"on the hill while poring over house intel committee documents. Followed by claims all this confirmed out Trump's tweet that Trump tower was "wiretapped" by Obama and demanding the record of requests and unmasking be made public. All we learned was that Flynn had talked to the Russians three times about undoing sanctions and lied about it. And Trump campaigners had been talking to spies. So then came "FISAgate," "bigger than Watergate"; the Democratic Party was finished. And . . .fizzle. . . except the FBI lost an asset and for anyone looking, a method of clandestine surveillance through assets was laid bare.

Now Trump wants documents he himself has not seen released to the public. Because, in his own words, the Russia investigation (which has produced how many indictments and guilty pleas?) is a "hoax." 

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/407335-exclusive-trump-says-exposing-corrupt-fbi-probe-could-be-crowning-achievement.

Trump said he had not read the documents he ordered declassified but said he expected to show they would prove the FBI case started as a political “hoax.”

“I have had many people ask me to release them. Not that I didn’t like the idea but I wanted to wait, I wanted to see where it was all going,” he said.

In the end, he said, his goal was to let the public decide by seeing the documents that have been kept secret for more than two years. “All I want to do is be transparent,” he said.

Asked what he thought the outcome of his long-running fight with the FBI, the president said: “I hope to be able put this up as one of my crowning achievements that I was able to ... expose something that is truly a cancer in our country.”

So continues the kneecapping of the FBI, during an ONGOING investigation, creating FOX smoke on a hundred right wing blogs explaining how Hillary had enough time during her campaign to get the FBI to set up Trump jr. to discredit Trump AFTER the election. Or something.  Enough to keep the base pressuring Republican representatives to protect Trump from the deep state, from all those people who are angry at Trump's "audacity."  Smoking up all that "fake news" which keeps track of the facts.

Why are the actions of Trump and defenders not a wholesale downgrading of trust in necessary institutions, a degrading of the U.S. government, in a desperate attempt to save his own ass?  How can your defense of this square with your demands of "respect" for the flag. Symbol over substance?

[ballsofsteel]

Transparency? Release your tax returns you crook.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(09-20-2018, 06:31 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Transparency? Release your tax returns you crook.

It's not required and I'm sure he did just as anyone else would do in his shoes, filed for the best advantage he could, but you want to be butt hurt about it and make a scene like a little drama queen.

But at least he filed and apparently doesn't owe unlike how many others political people right Rev?

And I so enjoy how they always say, innocent til proven guilty in defense of the Clintons, but Trump is always guilty until proven innocent and even then still guilty. The old Hillary line works here, what has he been convicted of??

I mean I get it, Trump called your momma's ugly and wouldn't touch her P, so now you're all butt hurt about it.

Trump 2020!!

[Dill]

(09-24-2018, 01:52 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It's not required and I'm sure he did just as anyone else would do in his shoes, filed for the best advantage he could, but you want to be butt hurt about it and make a scene like a little drama queen.

But at least he filed and apparently doesn't owe unlike how many others political people right Rev?

And I so enjoy how they always say, innocent til proven guilty in defense of the Clintons, but Trump is always guilty until proven innocent and even then still guilty. The old Hillary line works here, what has he been convicted of??

I mean I get it, Trump called your momma's ugly and wouldn't touch her P, so now you're all butt hurt about it.

Trump 2020!!

I don't think many people would really do as Trump does.

Claiming Trump is innocent until proven guilty really isn't a good defense of a president who won't release his tax returns, a president with a history of stiffing contractors, business scams, bankruptcies, and Russian connections. Candidates releasing tax returns was never a legal requirement, only a norm of transparency which presidents have, until Trump, willingly met.

All defenses of Trump involve lowering standards for and expectations of public office.

Good reason for the nation to feel "butthurt" about that.

[GMDino]

(09-24-2018, 05:30 PM)Dill Wrote: All defenses of Trump involve lowering standards for and expectations of public office.