***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[whywesteppin]

Mueller report pretty much all stuff we already knew or suspected, except for whatever is in the 50 pages of redactions.

It's funny how the bar has moved. Two years ago this was all crackpot theories and the dossier was a political hit job. Now it's like no big deal.

 

[Nike Jordan]

The Democrats better run a great candidate because it’s looking like an uphill battle.

There's plenty of candidates running right now that can beat The Bigot™.

Unless you have any suggestions just want to troll.

 

[mister friendly]

How the heck am I supposed to have suggestions of good candidates?

I thought Trump was a horrible candidate and he won the Presidency and is probably trending towards reelection. ( it’s early though)

The people decide. I’m just saying the Mueller report wasn’t the smoking gun some people hoped for. The redacted version probably has some more “bad” stuff about Trump but honestly will it be explainable to the salt of the earth type of people that election hing on?

President Trump will tweet/campaign so much misinformation about the Mueller investigation, the common voter won’t know what’s true.


Let’s be honest it’s currently looking like the Telfon Don won the Mueller report battle.

 

[Nike Jordan]

How the heck am I supposed to have suggestions of good candidates?

That's a great answer.

 

[rolaholic]

Heh...

 

[blastercombo]

Fry cook getting his buns squeezed in here again LOL


****ing humiliating

 

[HIM]

You start exonerated. You are innocent unless proven guilty. Prosecutors didn't have enough to conclude he obstructed justice. They have the burden to prove it. That means he is innocent.

Wasn’t Trump the first to use “exonerated” though?

 

[Nereyda Vuelve Por Dios]

On the issue with dwalk and his role in this arena, i feel it is very much needed.

He maybe a a bad lawyer, aloof on the role of government, ****ty debater, flat out disingenuous. But he is needed to offset the circle jerk. They say every hero needs a villan. And he is our cock Cheney.

I flat out ignore/skim though his empty post. But dont think he antganoistic. Hes just flat out wrong/illogical

Let him be wrong. Its fine.

 

[blastercombo]

On the issue with dwalk and his role in this arena, i feel it is very much needed.

He maybe a a bad lawyer, aloof on the role of government, ****ty debater, flat out disingenuous. But he is needed to offset the circle jerk. They say every hero needs a villan. And he is our cock Cheney.

I flat out ignore/skim though his empty post. But dont think he antganoistic. Hes just flat out wrong/illogical

Let him be wrong. Its fine.

There should be a “circle jerk” when it comes to equality, anti racism, anti sexual abuse, etc. why in the hell would you want to hear the “other side” to that? Get him the **** outta here.

 

[plansb]

Is his 2020 slogan going to be “no collusion, no obstruction”?

 

[gry60]

I’m just saying the Mueller report wasn’t the smoking gun some people hoped for

I disagree. There's plenty in there to implicate Trump in obstruction of justice, violation of the emoluments clause, and all the other **** we've seen him do that violates the office of the president. ****, asking people to lie to the government for you is illegal even if they don't do it. Mueller just didn't recommend legal action in part because he felt it was the role of the legislative branch to do so and current DOJ (part of the executive branch) guidelines do recommend against indicting a sitting president (also executive branch). I also don't think he wanted the heat that would come from causing a constitutional crisis.

To maintain the principle of checks and balances on which the American government is built, it is important that checks to the president's actions come from the other two branches (judiciary and legislative); the GOP is already polarizing the judiciary with the record number of right-wing judges being appointed, which means that like in November, the people will have to come out in droves to kick the GOP out of the Senate and increase the Dem control of the House. Otherwise, we're looking at a 7-2 Supreme Court and a reversal of a whole lot of decisions that protect those who are not part of the GOP base.

Until then, I want the House Democrats to beat the impeachment drum (until it doesn't make sense to do so) as well as promote their economic and social agendas. They can walk and chew gum at the same time.

And they better put those fools in jail if they get back control of government. None of that forgiveness bull****.

 

[whywesteppin]

I just returned from my circle jerk of breathing oxygen and holding doors open for the elderly.

Now I'm about to embark on my circle jerk of driving on the right side of the road and stopping at red lights.

He maybe a a bad lawyer, aloof on the role of government, ****ty debater, flat out disingenuous. But he is needed to offset the circle jerk. They say every hero needs a villan. And he is our cock Cheney.

I kind of see what you're saying but I would rather have a right-leaning conservative who doesn't have to be disingenuous.

 

[RustyShackleford]

On the issue with dwalk and his role in this arena, i feel it is very much needed.

He maybe a a bad lawyer, aloof on the role of government, ****ty debater, flat out disingenuous. But he is needed to offset the circle jerk. They say every hero needs a villan. And he is our cock Cheney.

I flat out ignore/skim though his empty post. But dont think he antganoistic. Hes just flat out wrong/illogical

Let him be wrong. Its fine.

Nah

Not everyone in here agrees all the time. That will definately be the case closer to primaries. There is no ciriclejerk, reasonable people just agree that Trump is trash.

You literally can't debate anything with DWalk in good faith because he gives up on presenting his case very early and focuses on ways to obfuscate the situation. You can literally presenta a cogent argument, or provide sources, or even quote DWalks all post contradicting himself and dude will just keep spinning it as you being somehow unreasonable. He baits people then when they react he wants to police their tone, he is hypocritical in his demands of how the debate you be conducted.

Plus DWalk now is not as bad as he used to be when he would be intentionally flippant just to get a reaction.

He has been given numerous chances to stop his trolling antics and disagree with people in good faith. He refused.

Famb gotta go. All the bigots than have came through here claimed to be "breaking up the circlejerk" too.

 

[Nereyda Vuelve Por Dios]

There should be a “circle jerk” when it comes to equality, anti racism, anti sexual abuse, etc. why in the hell would you want to hear the “other side” to that? Get him the **** outta here.

You are speaking in a generalities though. I dont think he attest to rapist and sexist. And this is moreso to defend smart insightful repugs from speaking they mind without being labeled nazi supporters and baby rape apologist becuase they voted for a repug who supports trump.

I feel its a slippery slope to find the lowest common denominator in others just to rid yourself of having to think about **** in a different light.

I would hope you wouldnt want to be labeled “x” becuase of who you know, knew, sleep with , voted for, etc.

Maybe he aint allowed to have the benefit of the doubt. If thats how you want to play it.

 

[Nereyda Vuelve Por Dios]

Nah

Not everyone in here agrees all the time. That will definately be the case closer to primaries. There is no ciriclejerk, reasonable people just agree that Trump is trash.

You literally can't debate anything with DWalk in good faith because he gives up on presenting his case very early and focuses on ways to obfuscate the situation. You can literally presenta a cogent argument, or provide sources, or even quote DWalks all post contradicting himself and dude will just keep spinning it as you being somehow unreasonble.

Plus DWalk now is not as bad as he used to be when he would be intentionally flippant just to get a reaction.

He has been given numerous chances to stop his trolling antics and disagree with people in good faith. He refused.

Famb gotta go. All the bigots than have came through here claimed to be "breaking up the circlejerk" too.

Maybe i aint nuanced enough to see how he brings truly irreprehensible damage by what ya consider anatagonistic.

His post are empty and are rather crass. But not malicious. Or maybe that is enough to get banned. I dont like the precedent. Its all im saying.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Maybe i aint nuanced enough to see how he brings truly irreprehensible damage by what ya consider anatagonistic.

His post are empty and are rather crass. But not malicious. Or maybe that is enough to get banned. I dont like the precedent. Its all im saying.

He has been given multiple warning to change though. He is still isn't ban because he has been given another chance. Meth in detail pointing out how he trolls and he continues to do it.

And he stop pulled back the disrespect a bit. When he was here and I took him serious he would ask me **** like if my family was on welfare that's I support it, and said I didn't care about all black people because I didn't support the tax code being made easier )Trump's tax cut) for him to get a rental property.

The Fry Cook joke came from him mocking fast food workers. When there were bigots around, he would enter and try to bait people that they didn't care about justice because the were not applying their views to affluent white men. He stills does this. People would write him long post and he would response with a dictionary definition about one word in the post, or ask for a source of something clearly known, or just say "allegedly". Dude enter here seemingly just to stir things up. Continuously wasting people's time. He was warned to stop all his behavior and he continued it.

How is that no malicious? This man is supposedly a lawyer. If a judge (Meth in this situation) tells you to stop a behavior and you continue it, what happens; do they just tolerate the behavior for because it is a slippery slope to remove some that continuously tries to act in bad faith just to frustrate the other side? I have never seen a courtroom ran like this.

Dude refuses to chill on the trolling. **** him

And Meth gives tons of warnings in here before someone gets punished. If you ignore the warning multiple times then you get clipped. DWalk has been warned and so far has refused to change. I don't see the slippery slope. We had to put up with Blco's racism for years before he was clipped. Ninja was not gonna get clipped because of his racially insensitive post. IntheHallyway was peddling soft race science months before he finally crossed the line enough to get punished. NT has a very high tolerance for non liberal views, especially in this thread. It is just conservatives on here continuously show they can't help themselves from crossing the line.

 

[Mark Antony]

Ya'll crying over a cat who admits to troling 100% of the time to break the "circle jerk"? pssh, use that energy on something better.

 

[whywesteppin]

Not to gloat, but this is important. The news media (NYT and WaPo, mostly) have been right on almost everything. This wasn't speculation and hearsay. This was good reporting and journalism.

THE WASHINGTON POST

Why did Obama dawdle on Russia’s hacking?
By David Ignatius

Where it shows up: Vol. 2, Page 29

Key quote from the report: “On January 12, 2017, a Washington Post columnist reported that Flynn and Kislyak communicated on the day the Obama Administration announced the Russia sanctions. The column questioned whether Flynn had said something to ‘undercut the U.S. sanctions’ and whether Flynn’s communications had violated the letter or spirit of the Logan Act.”


Why it’s important: One of the origin points of the investigation can be found in David Ignatius’s column, which revealed that Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s choice to serve as national security adviser, had talked to Russian officials during the transition period about possibly lifting sanctions once the Trump administration was in place. The piece set off a string of high-profile denials from the White House, causing alarm among Justice Department officials since they knew Mr. Flynn’s statements to be untrue. Mr. Flynn resigned the following month.

THE NEW YORK TIMES

Excerpts From The Times’s Interview With Trump
By Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman

Where it shows up: Vol. 2, Pages 93-94

Key quote from the report: “Hicks, who was present for the interview, recalled trying to ‘throw [herself] between the reporters and [the President]’ to stop parts of the interview, but the President ‘loved the interview.’”

Why it’s important: Mr. Mueller’s team never got Mr. Trump to sit down for a formal interview. Instead, the president submitted written responses, vetted by his lawyers, to questions from the special counsel. In July 2017, however, Mr. Trump spoke to these three reporters from The New York Times. The Mueller report seizes upon the president’s remarks to The Times about Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his efforts to get Mr. Sessions to withdraw his recusal and reassert control over the Russia inquiry.

THE WASHINGTON POST

Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say
By Devlin Barrett, Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Sari Horwitz

Where it shows up: Vol. 2, Pages 84-85

Key quote from the report: “On the evening of June 14, 2017, the Washington Post published an article stating that the Special Counsel was investigating whether the President had attempted to obstruct justice. [...] On Saturday, June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn and directed him to have the Special Counsel removed.”

Why it’s important: The Washington Post’s reporting that the special counsel’s investigation had expanded into questions of obstruction seemed to have agitated the president. Only two days after The Post’s publication of its story, Mr. Trump called his White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, at home from Camp David, directing him to fire the special counsel.

THE NEW YORK TIMES

Trump Ordered Mueller Fired, but Backed Off When White House Counsel Threatened to Quit
By Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman

Where it shows up: Vol. 2, Pages 113-116

Key quote from the report: “The President began the Oval Office meeting by telling McGahn that the New York Times story did not ‘look good’ and McGahn needed to correct it. McGahn recalled the President said, ‘I never said to fire Mueller. I never said “fire.” This story doesn’t look good. You need to correct this. You’re the White House counsel.’”

Why it’s important: In January 2018, The New York Times reported that Mr. McGahn had threatened to quit after the president asked him to fire the special counsel. The fallout and the president’s reaction to the story are integral to the special counsel’s review of whether Mr. Trump obstructed justice.

THE WASHINGTON POST

Trump moved to fire Mueller in June, bringing White House counsel to the brink of leaving
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Josh Dawsey

Where it shows up: Vol. 2, Page 114

Key quote from the report: “The next day, the Washington Post reported on the same event but added that McGahn had not told the President directly that he intended to resign rather than carry out the directive to have the Special Counsel terminated. In that respect, the Post story clarified the Times story, which could be read to suggest that McGahn had told the President of his intention to quit, causing the President to back down from the order to have the Special Counsel fired.”

Why it’s important: The Washington Post built on The Times’s reporting about Mr. McGahn’s refusal to fire Mr. Mueller.

THE NEW YORK TIMES

In a Private Dinner, Trump Demanded Loyalty. Comey Demurred.
By Michael S. Schmidt

Where it shows up: Vol. 2, Page 35

Key quote from the report: “After Comey’s account of the dinner became public, the President and his advisors disputed that he had asked for Comey’s loyalty. The President also indicated that he had not invited Comey to dinner, telling a reporter that he thought Comey had ‘asked for the dinner’ because ‘he wanted to stay on.’ But substantial evidence corroborates Comey’s account of the dinner invitation and the request for loyalty. The President’s Daily Diary confirms that the President ‘extend[ed] a dinner invitation’ to Comey on January 27.”

Why it’s important: We now know that James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, wanted to make sure that his contemporaneous memorandum about his dinner with the president made it into the hands of the press. In May 2017, The Times revealed Mr. Comey’s account of this meeting, detailing the president’s insistence that he pledge his loyalty. The report makes clear that, despite the administration’s denials, The Times’s reporting on this meeting is accurate.

 

[boris]

He’s kinda right. Let’s be honest the Mueller report was a let down. Yeah Telfon Don did some wrong things but it’s hard to explain in a simple way to stupid voters who are looking for succinct answers. The Democrats better run a great candidate because it’s looking like an uphill battle.

The Democrats have an uphill battle thanks to gerrymandering, the electoral college, and the fact that the Republicans play by a completely different set of rules.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Can’t wait for debate season and for someone to point out that Trump is exact kind of crooked he accused Hillary of being, and it’s all verified via the mueller report.

 

[boris]

On the issue with dwalk and his role in this arena, i feel it is very much needed.

He maybe a a bad lawyer, aloof on the role of government, ****ty debater, flat out disingenuous. But he is needed to offset the circle jerk. They say every hero needs a villan. And he is our cock Cheney.

I flat out ignore/skim though his empty post. But dont think he antganoistic. Hes just flat out wrong/illogical

Let him be wrong. Its fine.

I don't know, maybe you haven't been around enough manipulative people in your life to see what dwalk tries to do in this thread. If you're just ignoring his posts, then you probably aren't paying attention to the patterns in his behavior.

 

[hand2handking]

 

[deleted]

Maybe i aint nuanced enough to see how he brings truly irreprehensible damage by what ya consider anatagonistic.

His post are empty and are rather crass. But not malicious. Or maybe that is enough to get banned. I dont like the precedent. Its all im saying.

The precedent of banning trolls who only seek to antagonize has been in place for a while now

 

[KHUFU]

I love sleeping well at night. It is one of the benefits of trying to be on the right side of history. It is not too hard to see into the future, all it takes is courage. I am not too concerned with those who constantly root for, and then champion the bad guys. So if you root for a xenophobic racist, sexist, misogynist, thinking that this is the way to go, then more power to you. Simply put, use the poster in question as a representation of how not to be.

 

[whywesteppin]

pee pee tape(s) is real. thread: