The Political & Philosophy Thread

[Einherjar86]

Well, gotta start somewhere. Is that good enough?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Everything's on the surface, including Trump's criminality.

o rly?

 

[Einherjar86]

4 rlz

 

[Dak]

Well, gotta start somewhere. Is that good enough?

Sure. We can start with the dirt the Russians had on Clinton .

 

[The Ozzman]

Locker room talk and being an egomaniac are not impeachable offenses. No one has presented any evidence of wrongdoing from him at this time. Trump Derangement Syndrome is pretty pervasive tbh.

 

[CiG]

He banged a pornstar and talked about grabbing the pussies of groupie sluts, arrest that man.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

He also talked with Putin. Literally treasonous, figuratively-speaking.

 

[CiG]

More importantly he paid a Russian hooker to piss all over him. #Trump2020

 

[The Ozzman]

More importantly he paid a Russian hooker to piss all over him. #Trump2020

L I T E R A L L Y A P I S S A N T

 

[Dak]

The odds Trump has evaded taxes is probably 100%, but if we are going after politicians for tax evasion the whole damn capitol would likely be in jail.

 

[Einherjar86]

The odds that he's obstructed justice are also 100%.

As far as criminality between Trump and the Clintons, Trump's probably worse. And he's president, so I think it's safe to start there.

 

[CiG]

As far as criminality between Trump and the Clintons, Trump's probably worse.

 

[Einherjar86]

Trump's basically done everything people have accused Clinton of; and on top of that, he's obstructing justice. So I rate him worse.

 

[CiG]

You said "the Clintons" which is why I laughed. Thinking Trump is worse than both of those cretins combined is just ridiculous.

 

[Dak]

The odds that he's obstructed justice are also 100%.

As far as criminality between Trump and the Clintons, Trump's probably worse. And he's president, so I think it's safe to start there.

While it's laughable to claim Trump is worse than Clinton, you're right in that she's less of a problem now that she is out of office (and probably one bad day from life support).

You can't obstruct what isn't there.

Mueller is specifically investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election (which Obama said was impossible!) based on no credible evidence to even begin the investigation. So far all he has found is finance/tax fraud in short time Trump associates. Where's the justification even for these discoveries?

This is why the term "witch hunt" is appropriate. This is why we are supposed to have a search warrant process. Cops can't just start snooping in your shit without probable cause, and there's been no probable cause provided other than the Steele dossier. Strzok said it's not the reason, but his private texts leave no reason to believe him, and there's no other reasons provided. The FBI began the investigation (for "collusion") under Obama, which looks quite dirty.

It does appear possible Russian agents approached a member of the Trump team with alleged dirt on Hillary. Meanwhile an Brit ex-spook provides the FBI with alleged dirt on Trump. Lets invetigate the FBI and Obama for colluding with Britain (while the DNC was colluding with Hillary, and we never got the alleged Russian dirt on Hillary, and she still lost).

Greatest political upset ever.

 

[Einherjar86]

While it's laughable to claim Trump is worse than Clinton, you're right in that she's less of a problem now that she is out of office (and probably one bad day from life support).

How's that kool-aid? Nice and artificial tasting?

You can't obstruct what isn't there.

Actually that's not true. Intervening in and affecting the process of the investigation can be construed as obstruction, whether there's anything "there" or not.

Mueller is specifically investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election (which Obama said was impossible!) based on no credible evidence to even begin the investigation.

This is why the term "witch hunt" is appropriate. This is why we are supposed to have a search warrant process. Cops can't just start snooping in your shit without probable cause, and there's been no probable cause provided other than the Steele dossier. Strzok said it's not the reason, but his private texts leave no reason to believe him, and there's no other reasons provided.

There's actually a lot of evidence and probable cause. If you're asking for proof, then no--there's no proof. But that's why an investigation's being done.

This isn't even conspiratorial because it's ridiculously plain. Trump has publicly promised Russian favoritism in exchange for their help (and he likely got it). You probably approve of this for its "stir the pot" mentality; but your approval doesn't vaporize the illegality in question.

Trump has two things on his side: a) plausible deniability, which is a great thing in a case like this. And he'll continue denying even if irrefutable proof is discovered; and b) semantic ambiguity (i.e. "I wasn't being serious when I said that"--but it doesn't matter if he wasn't being serious when he asked for Russia's help; if he got help, then that's on him).

I'm going to say something that most people probably won't believe: I hope there was "no collusion." Because if there was, then I'm not sure what kind of protocol there is. And I know that Trump won't stroll willingly toward impeachment. It will be much easier to maintain a hyper-critical front to all the other asinine (if legal) things he does/says, and hope democrats get a little power back over the next four to six years.

The FBI began the investigation (for "collusion") under Obama, which looks quite dirty.

Thank goodness it began that early. If it hadn't it probably would have been obstructed into oblivion.

 

[Dak]

Actually that's not true. Intervening in and affecting the process of the investigation can be construed as obstruction, whether there's anything "there" or not.

What I meant was there's nothing just about the investigation or its proceedings, so there's no justice to obstruct. If Trump fires Mueller, there'd be a plausible argument for obstruction in the technical sense. "Affecting" is far too broad of a word.

This isn't even conspiratorial because it's ridiculously plain. Trump has publicly promised Russian favoritism in exchange for their help (and he likely got it). You probably approve of this for its "stir the pot" mentality; but your approval doesn't vaporize the illegality in question.

You mean this?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/13/poli...s-they-immediately-started-trying-/index.html

But it would be interesting to see -- I will tell you this -- Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens. That'll be next.
Now, in context, we should note that Trump did not specifically ask Russians to hack Clinton campaign officials, which is what they ended up doing. He was referring to emails from her time as secretary of state that were wiped from the private server where she kept them.
But he did say, "Russia, if you're listening," and then ask them to get Clinton emails. It was a shocking moment in a campaign chock full of them and now it has even more resonance.

Trump has two things on his side: a) plausible deniability, which is a great thing in a case like this. And he'll continue denying even if irrefutable proof is discovered; and b) semantic ambiguity (i.e. "I wasn't being serious when I said that"--but it doesn't matter if he wasn't being serious when he asked for Russia's help; if he got help, then that's on him).

I'm going to say something that most people probably won't believe: I hope there was "no collusion." Because if there was, then I'm not sure what kind of protocol there is. And I know that Trump won't stroll willingly toward impeachment. It will be much easier to maintain a hyper-critical front to all the other asinine (if legal) things he does/says, and hope democrats get a little power back over the next four to six years.

Thank goodness it began that early. If it hadn't it probably would have been obstructed into oblivion.

You mean thank goodness for dirty politics because you don't like Trump. If I were to be a mindful Democratic voter I would be very concerned at harm done to the party, and by extension to the country, by Obama, Hillary, and the DNC. Trump is a symptom, not a cause, and not merely a symptom of staunch Republican voters (9-12% of Obama voters flipped to Trump, and millions stayed home).

I agree that if one could somehow find something that we could all agree was "collusion", it would create a procedural crisis because we haven't had to deal with something publicly like that. It won't create much of a crisis of faith in our processes or DC institutions because they rank so low in confidence/opinion polls anyway.

 

[Einherjar86]

What I meant was there's nothing just about the investigation or its proceedings, so there's no justice to obstruct. If Trump fires Mueller, there'd be a plausible argument for obstruction in the technical sense. "Affecting" is far too broad of a word.

He explicitly linked his firing of Comey to the investigation. I think that counts.

You mean this?
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/13/poli...s-they-immediately-started-trying-/index.html

I do.

You mean thank goodness for dirty politics because you don't like Trump.

Well, Trump's politics are dirty politics. I'd only say thank goodness that some dirty politics got the ball rolling before his deflated it. [insert Patriots joke here]

 

[Dak]

He explicitly linked his firing of Comey to the investigation. I think that counts.

I do.

And Democrats wanted Comey's head over his handling of the Clinton emails, even though he saved her bacon by giving her an "oopsie!". No pleasing some people.

If that's what you meant, there is literally nothing there. Unless Trump was "dog whistling" by saying "press". That's a massive leap with no supporting evidence, since a dump of Clinton email contents would get massive media play by Fox at a minimum.

Well, Trump's politics are dirty politics. I'd only say thank goodness that some dirty politics got the ball rolling before his deflated it. [insert Patriots joke here]

Trump's real estate work was probably as dirty as it gets. I don't see it in the politics, ie, he isn't shown working tons of dirty deals. He just tweets, badgers the crappy leaders of other countries, and has a patchy record of hires.


I'm sort of fine with a Machiavellian approach to dirty politics, just don't act like there's a moral/ethical component.

 

[CiG]

Wait, Trump saying Russia will be rewarded by the American press if they can find the deleted emails live on television is the key proof that they colluded to help secure the presidency for Trump?