Time to get on the TRUMP train

[hongkonger]

Holy fucking shit - someone just won the Internet.

Omfg

One of the greatest songs ever btw

[thesidedish]

dish....



....its not your fault.

Libtards really trying to say talking to Russia about ISIS in December 2016 is election collusion? Should be embarassed u let ur party talk about this stuff

[Suicide King]

dish....



....its not your fault.

Libtards really trying to say talking to Russia about ISIS in December 2016 is election collusion? Should be embarassed u let ur party talk about this stuff

I think it was more about Obama sanctions but what evs!

[Suicide King]

[Dan Druff]

I think dish's point is that, even if Trump acted improperly regarding contact with the Russians, that by itself does not prove collusion. The prove collusion, it would have to be shown that favors were provided by Russia during the election IN EXCHANGE for favorable treatment later.

Or, at the very least, that the Trump Administration clearly rewarded Russia with favorable treatment specifically because of help during the election, even if Trump never asked for that help in the first place.

I'm not saying this isn't possible, but I'm also saying we're not there yet.

[Dan Druff]

Let me put this in a poker sense.

Say that poker player John Smith was in a WSOP tournament with me, and the action preflop goes raise, reraise, and I look down at AA and go all in. John calls my all-in with an average stack from the BB, and the other two fold.

Then everyone is shocked when John turns over T3o, the board runs out, and my aces win.

While I'm on a break, John says to me, "I did this for you because I love PFA Radio and I don't think you get enough breaks, so I gave you one here. Good luck!"

Two months later, I see John at Caesars Palace and he complains that his host screwed him and they want to charge him $500 per night for a room which they previously promised would be comped. John claims he's leaving and moving down the street to Circus Circus for his final night in Vegas -- the only place he can afford.

"No, don't worry about it," I say. "I'm leaving now, anyway. Just take my Caesars room for the night."

----

So in this story, was this proof of poker collusion?

Not really. Clearly I shouldn't have rewarded John with a free room for chip-dumping to me 2 months earlier, even if I didn't realize he was dumping until afterwards. I'm still rewarding him for it.

However, what if I wasn't rewarding John for the chip dumping, but instead was naive (and morally bankrupt) enough to take the dumping as a sign of friendship?

If I honestly wasn't rewarding John specifically for dumping chips to me, then it wasn't collusion. Unethical, perhaps (as I should steer clear of doing any favors for poker cheaters), but not collusion.

Now, had I told John before the tournament, "Hey, if you dump your chips to me, I'll do you favors in Vegas down the road", then it's 100% collusion.

If I tell John, "I had no idea you were going to dump chips to me, but since you did, I'm giving you this room", then it's not really collusion, but rather rewarding cheating on my behalf after-the-fact.

If I'm just a dumbass and somehow see John as a friend and for some reason don't mind that he befriended me by way of poker cheating, then it's still wrong and stupid, but not as bad.

[SrslySirius]

I think dish's point is that, even if Trump acted improperly regarding contact with the Russians, that by itself does not prove collusion. The prove collusion, it would have to be shown that favors were provided by Russia during the election IN EXCHANGE for favorable treatment later.

Or, at the very least, that the Trump Administration clearly rewarded Russia with favorable treatment specifically because of help during the election, even if Trump never asked for that help in the first place.

I'm not saying this isn't possible, but I'm also saying we're not there yet.

That he would knowingly take the enormous risk of lying to the FBI about it suggests that this is exactly what was going on. Now that he's flipped, I'm sure we'll be hearing all about it soon.

[sonatine]

Negotiating quid pro quo relationships with enemies of the republic requires a lot of extremely good legal advice to avoid being something illegal.

Obama basically warned Trump out the gate about this.

Trump chose to ignore the best advice anyone has ever given him and rely on literally this guy:



and now the legal chickens are coming home to roost.

The next stop is Kushner. Then Pence. And it's hard to imagine either of them falling on a sword to protect a senile real estate scammer.

[thesidedish]

Libtards really trying to say talking to Russia about ISIS in December 2016 is election collusion? Should be embarassed u let ur party talk about this stuff

I think it was more about Obama sanctions but what evs!

The ones they made up cuz trolls like me ruined their correct the record trolls by the 1000 so they called us russia cuz they couldn't believe they got beat that bad?

[Scandinavian Bob]

I think dish's point is that, even if Trump acted improperly regarding contact with the Russians, that by itself does not prove collusion. The prove collusion, it would have to be shown that favors were provided by Russia during the election IN EXCHANGE for favorable treatment later.

Or, at the very least, that the Trump Administration clearly rewarded Russia with favorable treatment specifically because of help during the election, even if Trump never asked for that help in the first place.

I'm not saying this isn't possible, but I'm also saying we're not there yet.

Collusion is not illegal. A quid pro quo is also not illegal. Now, a POLITICAL crime could happen in that Trump said get me dirt on Hillary and I will try and help you out (Russia) on sanctions after elected. The issue is there was no help on sanctions, they were passed by Congress and signed into law. In any event there was no crime.

I have no doubt Trump probably said in the heat of the moment: "Get me whatever you can on Hillary" especially after the Access Hollywood tape. I am sure this involved Wikileaks. The issue the Democrats have is its Not a crime to dig dirt on a political opponent. Now if Dems were in power of both offices of Congress it would be impeachable, because impeachment is political. But you need 67 votes in the Senate and there are 48 Democrats right now and it will likely shrink in 2018 regardless of the House. The problem for people in this thread is they simply do not know how the Constitution works (I do, I have a significant education).

Also, there is no way a sitting President could ever get indicted. Just so you know.

[DJ_Chaps]

I think it was more about Obama sanctions but what evs!

The ones they made up cuz trolls like me ruined their correct the record trolls by the 1000 so they called us russia cuz they couldn't believe they got beat that bad?

trump is shit bro, get on teamdice tinychat. grass and i are formulating plot to win hella bread on draftkings sunday.

[SrslySirius]

But you need 67 votes in the Senate and there are 48 Democrats right now and it will likely shrink in 2018 regardless of the House. The problem for people in this thread is they simply do not know how the Constitution works (I do, I have a significant education).

Also, there is no way a sitting President could ever get indicted. Just so you know.

My understanding is that this is a bit of a gray area in the constitution and a somewhat contentious issue among scholars. But I do not have such a significant education!

It does seem odd that a president could go completely nuts, murder people in the streets, and be immune from the law like a Roman Consul. I guess we might have to do as the Romans and wait until he's out of office to pinch him.

[thesidedish]

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/936753649702727684

[GambleBotsSatire]

like you dumb dicked nerds can even afford facebook accounts.

nobody will be able to thanks to that fag ajit pai

that fag should be imprisoned for life for making big lebowski fans look dumb

[thesidedish]

I think dish's point is that, even if Trump acted improperly regarding contact with the Russians, that by itself does not prove collusion. The prove collusion, it would have to be shown that favors were provided by Russia during the election IN EXCHANGE for favorable treatment later.

Or, at the very least, that the Trump Administration clearly rewarded Russia with favorable treatment specifically because of help during the election, even if Trump never asked for that help in the first place.

I'm not saying this isn't possible, but I'm also saying we're not there yet.

Collusion is not illegal. A quid pro quo is also not illegal. Now, a POLITICAL crime could happen in that Trump said get me dirt on Hillary and I will try and help you out (Russia) on sanctions after elected. The issue is there was no help on sanctions, they were passed by Congress and signed into law. In any event there was no crime.

I have no doubt Trump probably said in the heat of the moment: "Get me whatever you can on Hillary" especially after the Access Hollywood tape. I am sure this involved Wikileaks. The issue the Democrats have is its Not a crime to dig dirt on a political opponent. Now if Dems were in power of both offices of Congress it would be impeachable, because impeachment is political. But you need 67 votes in the Senate and there are 48 Democrats right now and it will likely shrink in 2018 regardless of the House. The problem for people in this thread is they simply do not know how the Constitution works (I do, I have a significant education).

Also, there is no way a sitting President could ever get indicted. Just so you know.

The tape was released cuz the last wikileaks stuff was about to drop moron

[Daly]

So.... this tax plan is really happening and it's going to happen sometime in the early morning of a Saturday with no chance to read the bill.

Can't wait to see what's in the final product

[sonatine]

VAUGHN HCY

[Daly]

varys: Moving left

Not really. I'm happy for tax "reform". That said there isn't a chance in hell this has been well thought out.

[hongkonger]

varys: Moving left

Not really. I'm happy for tax "reform". That said there isn't a chance in hell this has been well thought out.

Finally, sanity.

If it's going to be done it should be done right.

[Mintjewlips]

Negotiating quid pro quo relationships with enemies of the republic requires a lot of extremely good legal advice to avoid being something illegal.

Obama basically warned Trump out the gate about this.

Trump chose to ignore the best advice anyone has ever given him and rely on literally this guy:



and now the legal chickens are coming home to roost.

The next stop is Kushner. Then Pence. And it's hard to imagine either of them falling on a sword to protect a senile real estate scammer.

You are beyond delusional, nothing you've predicted has ever come true, your political analysis and world view is on par with a babbling retard..................Just give it a break....