Time to get on the TRUMP train

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

mumbles, the SDNY investigation is legitimately dangerous for trump, not the russian conspiracy one. you should be putting your focus on that

---

I’ve already mentioned the SDNY investigation

---

very few people read your posts and most of them only do so rarely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

i read an interesting piece that described that entire chapter as yet another psyop that got posted at rt.com and was immediately pushed by gov.ru twitter accounts and IRA fb accounts and ads, but i never heard anything else about it.

it does kinda make sense tho when you look at the numbers, bernie was nowhere close to getting the nom iirc.

i openly admit that it might be 100% true and what i read was just another piece of agitprop.

---

Ok maybe I need to walk it back a tad. Fixed might have been too strong a word. Strongly strongly encouraged is probably a more apt description. If Bernie came out and won state after state then maybe the DNC would have changed course. But I don’t think it’s unfair to say the super delegates were told to start with HRC as the default. As a result she got funding. Funding adds. Adds popularity. Popularity votes. Votes support the super delegate position. And once they got halfway through the primary and it was clear nobody was going to challenge the chosen one, truly... well that’s when the central office did everything to prop up HRC and submarine Bernie. The emails that were hacked were the end result of the deck being stacked.

But just like it’s not illegal for 45 to not pull the fire alarm on Russia, it’s also not illegal for the DNC to stack the deck. Both are “Unamerican” though and not right.

---

its such a funny thing tho because i was _positive_ hildawg bum rushed the primaries, like i thought she was just on her gangster and everyone went along with it because a) bernie's not a fucking democrat and b) the dnc isnt about that socialist life so it just kinda made sense to me, i didnt really object, and again i thought it was just fact and that it was also corroborated in the leaked emails.

but try to find something in the leaked emails to back any of that up. i looked, i couldnt find it.

maybe i missed it but mostly i think i was just bent over by some solid .ru agitprop.

Christchurch: (60 Muslims killed)

- condemnation from the entire Muslim world
- worldwide rallies
- fundraisers
- PM of NZ wears a hijab and speaks Arabic
- minute of silence marked by Islamic call to prayer

Sri Lanka: (hundreds of Christians killed)

- nothing


(((prolly just a jooincidence)))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

I’ve already mentioned the SDNY investigation

---

very few people read your posts and most of them only do so rarely.

---

he really doesn't comprehend that folks who haven't blocked him just scroll by anything his name is on --- can't you see him typing in his truck bed thinking "they will be so impressed with this..." as he hits enter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Ok maybe I need to walk it back a tad. Fixed might have been too strong a word. Strongly strongly encouraged is probably a more apt description. If Bernie came out and won state after state then maybe the DNC would have changed course. But I don’t think it’s unfair to say the super delegates were told to start with HRC as the default. As a result she got funding. Funding adds. Adds popularity. Popularity votes. Votes support the super delegate position. And once they got halfway through the primary and it was clear nobody was going to challenge the chosen one, truly... well that’s when the central office did everything to prop up HRC and submarine Bernie. The emails that were hacked were the end result of the deck being stacked.

But just like it’s not illegal for 45 to not pull the fire alarm on Russia, it’s also not illegal for the DNC to stack the deck. Both are “Unamerican” though and not right.

---

its such a funny thing tho because i was _positive_ hildawg bum rushed the primaries, like i thought she was just on her gangster and everyone went along with it because a) bernie's not a fucking democrat and b) the dnc isnt about that socialist life so it just kinda made sense to me, i didnt really object, and again i thought it was just fact and that it was also corroborated in the leaked emails.

but try to find something in the leaked emails to back any of that up. i looked, i couldnt find it.

maybe i missed it but mostly i think i was just bent over by some solid .ru agitprop.

---

knowing the debate questions in advance is high level cheating

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

its such a funny thing tho because i was _positive_ hildawg bum rushed the primaries, like i thought she was just on her gangster and everyone went along with it because a) bernie's not a fucking democrat and b) the dnc isnt about that socialist life so it just kinda made sense to me, i didnt really object, and again i thought it was just fact and that it was also corroborated in the leaked emails.

but try to find something in the leaked emails to back any of that up. i looked, i couldnt find it.

maybe i missed it but mostly i think i was just bent over by some solid .ru agitprop.

---

knowing the debate questions in advance is high level cheating

---

- lol agreed

- but we are focusing on the bernie thing and i think that was v trump

- i feel like this is probably common practice somehow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

knowing the debate questions in advance is high level cheating

---

- lol agreed

- but we are focusing on the bernie thing and i think that was v trump

- i feel like this is probably common practice somehow

---

Donna Brazile is not apologizing for leaking CNN debate questions and topics to the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary. Her only regret, it seems, is that she got caught

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...llary-clinton/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GambleBotsSatire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

- lol agreed

- but we are focusing on the bernie thing and i think that was v trump

- i feel like this is probably common practice somehow

---

Donna Brazile is not apologizing for leaking CNN debate questions and topics to the Hillary Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary. Her only regret, it seems, is that she got caught

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...llary-clinton/

---

duly noted and an unfortunate look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Ok maybe I need to walk it back a tad. Fixed might have been too strong a word. Strongly strongly encouraged is probably a more apt description. If Bernie came out and won state after state then maybe the DNC would have changed course. But I don’t think it’s unfair to say the super delegates were told to start with HRC as the default. As a result she got funding. Funding adds. Adds popularity. Popularity votes. Votes support the super delegate position. And once they got halfway through the primary and it was clear nobody was going to challenge the chosen one, truly... well that’s when the central office did everything to prop up HRC and submarine Bernie. The emails that were hacked were the end result of the deck being stacked.

But just like it’s not illegal for 45 to not pull the fire alarm on Russia, it’s also not illegal for the DNC to stack the deck. Both are “Unamerican” though and not right.

---

its such a funny thing tho because i was _positive_ hildawg bum rushed the primaries, like i thought she was just on her gangster and everyone went along with it because a) bernie's not a fucking democrat and b) the dnc isnt about that socialist life so it just kinda made sense to me, i didnt really object, and again i thought it was just fact and that it was also corroborated in the leaked emails.

but try to find something in the leaked emails to back any of that up. i looked, i couldnt find it.

maybe i missed it but mostly i think i was just bent over by some solid .ru agitprop.

---

cute

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

MumblesBadly: Reading comprehension fail! I said that I already mentioned the SDNY investigations! And did you listen to what Maddow mentions about the details in the Mueller report???

mumbles, for clarity, what part of my below statement do you disagree with, if anything?

---

Blakey, it’s not what *I* think about the strawman distinction you draw here, as I am not a lawyer, but the distinction that Mueller, who, if memory serves me right, is a lawyer — of fucking course he is — drew in his report, as Rachel Maddow discusses in the segment of her show that I included above, and repeat here...

https://youtu.be/Zja0h1G6jxM

... And of which Eric Holder said:



But I will try to translate those comments for the benefit of your strawman distinction: It does NOT matter whether Trump was merely concerned about the public’s perception of his presidency thinking that the investigation was a “witch hunt”! The corruption is due to his abusing the power of the office as president to obstruct a legally valid investigation *regardless* of whether he *thought* it was merely poltically motivated.

To put it terms an ordinary citizen can understand: You do NOT have the right to ignore a lawful order a cop gives you even if you *think* it is illegal. And you do NOT have the right to interfere with an FBI investigation even if you *believe* no crime was committed that deserves investigating. And that applies to EVERONE in this country, the president included.

---

honestly, you make a decent argument. weirdly, it was the same argument i made in this thread like 3 weeks ago, but i apparently flip-flopped on that.

i think you're probably right (or at least i hope you're right) that trump couldn't take actions with the specific intent of obstructing the investigation, regardless of whether or not he was scared of what the investigation would turn up. i.e., even if he had nothing to fear, i don't think he could try to shut down the investigation.

it's weird though, that i've read a few legal authors who seem to think the exact opposite. i still have no idea what "corrupt intent" means.

either way, i guess the problem is that it might be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything trump did was done deliberately to impede the investigation. firing comey is the big one, but even mueller, in his report, indicates that trump fired comey only because comey refused to publicly clear trump to congress. also this was apparently before trump knew he was being investigated, which i didn't realize.

All that being said, it's pretty obvious that mueller thinks an obstruction case could be made. He does note, though, that you don't typically see obstruction charges without an underlying crime, since the "innocence" of the suspect will be used as a hammer by the defense as to the suspect's intent

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OSA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

its such a funny thing tho because i was _positive_ hildawg bum rushed the primaries, like i thought she was just on her gangster and everyone went along with it because a) bernie's not a fucking democrat and b) the dnc isnt about that socialist life so it just kinda made sense to me, i didnt really object, and again i thought it was just fact and that it was also corroborated in the leaked emails.

but try to find something in the leaked emails to back any of that up. i looked, i couldnt find it.

maybe i missed it but mostly i think i was just bent over by some solid .ru agitprop.

---

cute

---

the dnc hate anything remotley left wing, they would be happy running republicans that dont hate non-white and gay people

Who benefits from a war between Christians and Muslims?

Who could it be?

(((Who...could...it...be...)))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Blakey, it’s not what *I* think about the strawman distinction you draw here, as I am not a lawyer, but the distinction that Mueller, who, if memory serves me right, is a lawyer — of fucking course he is — drew in his report, as Rachel Maddow discusses in the segment of her show that I included above, and repeat here...

https://youtu.be/Zja0h1G6jxM

... And of which Eric Holder said:



But I will try to translate those comments for the benefit of your strawman distinction: It does NOT matter whether Trump was merely concerned about the public’s perception of his presidency thinking that the investigation was a “witch hunt”! The corruption is due to his abusing the power of the office as president to obstruct a legally valid investigation *regardless* of whether he *thought* it was merely poltically motivated.

To put it terms an ordinary citizen can understand: You do NOT have the right to ignore a lawful order a cop gives you even if you *think* it is illegal. And you do NOT have the right to interfere with an FBI investigation even if you *believe* no crime was committed that deserves investigating. And that applies to EVERONE in this country, the president included.

---

honestly, you make a decent argument. weirdly, it was the same argument i made in this thread like 3 weeks ago, but i apparently flip-flopped on that.

i think you're probably right (or at least i hope you're right) that trump couldn't take actions with the specific intent of obstructing the investigation, regardless of whether or not he was scared of what the investigation would turn up. i.e., even if he had nothing to fear, i don't think he could try to shut down the investigation.

it's weird though, that i've read a few legal authors who seem to think the exact opposite. i still have no idea what "corrupt intent" means.

either way, i guess the problem is that it might be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything trump did was done deliberately to impede the investigation. firing comey is the big one, but even mueller, in his report, indicates that trump fired comey only because comey refused to publicly clear trump to congress. also this was apparently before trump knew he was being investigated, which i didn't realize.

All that being said, it's pretty obvious that mueller thinks an obstruction case could be made. He does note, though, that you don't typically see obstruction charges without an underlying crime, since the "innocence" of the suspect will be used as a hammer by the defense as to the suspect's intent

---

You seem to be fixating on only Trump’s firing of Comey. Are you not aware that Mueller laid out a number of other instances of obstruction by Trump *after* that, and after he knew he was being investigated, that meet the definition of “intent”? Watch the Rachel Maddow Show segment provided to see what I mean.

mumbles, Rachel Maddow, the young turks etc are not going to convince anyone on Trump's side because they aren't objective journalists, they are leftist hitmen. the girl from the young turks is hot though, if you're gonna choose anti-conservative crap post her videos and pictures of AOC not that smug dyke maddow

do you think any right winger is ever gonna change your mind by posting Sean Hannity clips or /pol/ screencaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe

mumbles, Rachel Maddow, the young turks etc are not going to convince anyone on Trump's side because they aren't objective journalists, they are leftist hitmen. the girl from the young turks is hot though, if you're gonna choose anti-conservative propaganda post her videos or AOC not that smug dyke maddow

---

If Maddow were a hot female that showed a little cleavage (or a white guy!) that said all the same words, she would appear way more objective to all the slimy stubborn republicans that "hate that fucking dyke". She's actually very good at explaining shit - you have to be capable of watching an intelligent butch lesbian for more than a couple minutes without losing your mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

honestly, you make a decent argument. weirdly, it was the same argument i made in this thread like 3 weeks ago, but i apparently flip-flopped on that.

i think you're probably right (or at least i hope you're right) that trump couldn't take actions with the specific intent of obstructing the investigation, regardless of whether or not he was scared of what the investigation would turn up. i.e., even if he had nothing to fear, i don't think he could try to shut down the investigation.

it's weird though, that i've read a few legal authors who seem to think the exact opposite. i still have no idea what "corrupt intent" means.

either way, i guess the problem is that it might be difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything trump did was done deliberately to impede the investigation. firing comey is the big one, but even mueller, in his report, indicates that trump fired comey only because comey refused to publicly clear trump to congress. also this was apparently before trump knew he was being investigated, which i didn't realize.

All that being said, it's pretty obvious that mueller thinks an obstruction case could be made. He does note, though, that you don't typically see obstruction charges without an underlying crime, since the "innocence" of the suspect will be used as a hammer by the defense as to the suspect's intent

---

You seem to be fixating on only Trump’s firing of Comey. Are you not aware that Mueller laid out a number of other instances of obstruction by Trump *after* that, and after he knew he was being investigated, that meet the definition of “intent”? Watch the Rachel Maddow Show segment provided to see what I mean.

---

i focus on the firing of comey because it was the most egregious act, and the hardest one for trump to justify.

also i read the actual mueller report and reviewed the facts identified by him as possible obstruction. the other acts are more easily justified.

i'm not telling you i think he didn't want to obstruct the investigation, because i think he did. that doesn't change the fact that he'll never face charges over it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe

mumbles, Rachel Maddow, the young turks etc are not going to convince anyone on Trump's side because they aren't objective journalists, they are leftist hitmen. the girl from the young turks is hot though, if you're gonna choose anti-conservative propaganda post her videos or AOC not that smug dyke maddow

---

If Maddow were a hot female that showed a little cleavage (or a white guy!) that said all the same words, she would appear way more objective to all the slimy stubborn republicans that "hate that fucking dyke". She's actually very good at explaining shit - you have to be capable of watching an intelligent butch lesbian for more than a couple minutes without losing your mind.

---

theres no reason for u to say this stuff, we already know what the insta triggered response would be at https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/ which is like half paid trolls

sux that ur not a real person. but maybe u might snap out of it soon, one of my favorite quotes is "when I turned 20 I thought I knew everything, when I turned 30 I realized I didn't know shit"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

If Maddow were a hot female that showed a little cleavage (or a white guy!) that said all the same words, she would appear way more objective to all the slimy stubborn republicans that "hate that fucking dyke". She's actually very good at explaining shit - you have to be capable of watching an intelligent butch lesbian for more than a couple minutes without losing your mind.

---

theres no reason for u to say this stuff, we already know what the insta triggered response would be at https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/ which is like half paid trolls

sux that ur not a real person. but maybe u might snap out of it soon, one of my favorite quotes is "when I turned 20 I thought I knew everything, when I turned 30 I realized I didn't know shit"

---

tHeRe Is No ReAsOn FoR u To SaY tHiS sTuFf!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

theres no reason for u to say this stuff, we already know what the insta triggered response would be at https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/ which is like half paid trolls

sux that ur not a real person. but maybe u might snap out of it soon, one of my favorite quotes is "when I turned 20 I thought I knew everything, when I turned 30 I realized I didn't know shit"

---

tHeRe Is No ReAsOn FoR u To SaY tHiS sTuFf!!!!!

---

lmao, ya the mocking alternating capitalization is big on https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

tHeRe Is No ReAsOn FoR u To SaY tHiS sTuFf!!!!!

---

lmao, ya the mocking alternating capitalization is big on https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/

---

Dude. There's really no reason for you to say that.

How do we calculate this?

By pulling the figures out of your ass.

Why would anybody ever trust the news media again?


https://scontent-sjc3-1.cdninstagram...ninstagram.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

You seem to be fixating on only Trump’s firing of Comey. Are you not aware that Mueller laid out a number of other instances of obstruction by Trump *after* that, and after he knew he was being investigated, that meet the definition of “intent”? Watch the Rachel Maddow Show segment provided to see what I mean.

---

i focus on the firing of comey because it was the most egregious act, and the hardest one for trump to justify.

also i read the actual mueller report and reviewed the facts identified by him as possible obstruction. the other acts are more easily justified.

i'm not telling you i think he didn't want to obstruct the investigation, because i think he did. that doesn't change the fact that he'll never face charges over it

---

Actually, the hardest one for Trump to justify are his repeated attempts in late Spring/early summer of 2017 to get Cory Lewandowski, who wasn’t even working for the administration at the time, to give Jeff Sessions that asinine word-for-word written-down backchannel instruction to unrecuse himself from Mueller’sinvestigation and then ordering Mueller to only investigate “future” election-related crimes, and this was after Don McGahn, who was White House Counsel, directly refused Trump’s request to tell Sessions to unrecuse himself and fire Mueller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zap_the_Fractions_Giraffe

mumbles, Rachel Maddow, the young turks etc are not going to convince anyone on Trump's side because they aren't objective journalists, they are leftist hitmen. the girl from the young turks is hot though, if you're gonna choose anti-conservative propaganda post her videos or AOC not that smug dyke maddow

---

If Maddow were a hot female that showed a little cleavage (or a white guy!) that said all the same words, she would appear way more objective to all the slimy stubborn republicans that "hate that fucking dyke". She's actually very good at explaining shit - you have to be capable of watching an intelligent butch lesbian for more than a couple minutes without losing your mind.

---

The problem with your analysis is that it is incorrect.

Nothing wrong with her being a "butch lesbian". It's the smug, smarmy, self satisfaction that is off-putting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

If Maddow were a hot female that showed a little cleavage (or a white guy!) that said all the same words, she would appear way more objective to all the slimy stubborn republicans that "hate that fucking dyke". She's actually very good at explaining shit - you have to be capable of watching an intelligent butch lesbian for more than a couple minutes without losing your mind.

---

The problem with your analysis is that it is incorrect.

Nothing wrong with her being a "butch lesbian". It's the smug, smarmy, self satisfaction that is off-putting.

---

hes a programmed millennial drone. he doesn't have the time (or wisdom) to actually study politics cuz he's too busy trying to fit in and listening to his peers' dumbass stories about themselves trying to fit in so he word vomits his programmers' step 1 instructions: play the race card (or gay card I guess)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tony bagadonuts

The problem with your analysis is that it is incorrect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

theres no reason for u to say this stuff

---

is this a new trend?

dems moving on impeachment apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

dems moving on impeachment apparently.

---

Dems gonna Dem. Will be a gift for Trump. How short sighted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

is this a new trend?

---

ya is it? cuz we are just responding to your god awful back 2 back posts in different threads that Republicans are only capable of hearing straight white males' thoughts. lol seriously bringing this weak garbage on page 1758 is mega embarrassing bud. its falling-behind-mumbles tier

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

is this a new trend?

---

ya is it? cuz we are just responding to your god awful back 2 back posts in different threads that Republicans are only capable of hearing straight white males' thoughts. lol seriously bringing this weak garbage on page 1758 is mega embarrassing bud. its falling-behind-mumbles tier

---

There is NO REASON for you to be saying THIS STUFF!

"I believe Jussie Smollett" - duped Samaritan, I shit u not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesidedish

"I believe Jussie Smollett" - duped Samaritan, I shit u not

---

The problem with your analysis is that it is incorrect.

Warren has decided her campaign isn’t real anymore and is going to try and sell books with this town hall she’s throwing.

Some people wonder why parties have super delegates..... the answer is right here folks. It’s posible Warren could win a primary. She will get murdered in the general.

Hate to say it but she would make a good VP choice for someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daly

Hate to say it but she would make a good VP choice for someone.

---

At this point, I think the VP debate is more interesting than the "who's gonna be the DNC nominee' debate"

General consensus right now seems like top 5 are (let's not debate the order):

- Biden
- Bernie
- Kamala
- Pete
- Beto

I feel like she would be far too much of a liability for anyone to tap her as VP.

She looks like Hillary.


Pete vs Trump or Pete vs Pence in a televised debate would be incredible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duped_samaritan

Pete vs Trump or Pete vs Pence in a televised debate would be incredible.

---

dead serious, i think there's a 35% chance trump mentions pete "taking it in the ass" during the debates

cause he keeps it 100

“We should have that conversation” about allowing the Boston Marathon bomber to vote from prison.

-Kamala Harris


Yeah, zero chance Trump brings that up.


LULZ

i'm watching msnbc this morning and they're gushing over pete, while showing him kissing his husband on stage after a campaign rally, and can't help but feel the democrats may be 200 years away from winning another election.

i'm assuming we will see a transgender candidate in 2024.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blake

i'm watching msnbc this morning and they're gushing over pete, while showing him kissing his husband on stage after a campaign rally, and can't help but feel the democrats may be 200 years away from winning another election.

i'm assuming we will see a transgender candidate in 2024.

---

I'm praying Pete gets the nomination. The Trump tweets will be epic.