Donald Trump and US politics

Gowdy's speeches are epic but his voting record leaves much to be desired (IMHO). He certainly talks the talk, arguably better than anyone (hence my mentioning him), but he only somewhat walks the walk.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Gowdy's speeches are epic but his voting record leaves much to be desired (IMHO). He certainly talks the talk, arguably better than anyone, but he only somewhat walks the walk.

Fair enough. I guess I like to see him get fired up and really grill some of these people.

Remember when Trump Tower communicated with Russian Alfa Bank? Fake news.

http://8ch.net/pol/res/9577717.html#9581242

Rowdy Gowdy

"

Xavderion wrote:

Remember when Trump Tower communicated with Russian Alfa Bank?

I still don't get this shit.

Hillary Clinton was receiving money from Saudi while being a presidential candidate. It's on the books. No one cares.

Trump >might have< had some unspecified >dealings< with >some Russians< or >something Russian<, maybe, unnamed officials claim... == shitstorm!!

"

morbo wrote:

Hillary Clinton was receiving money from Saudi while being a presidential candidate. It's on the books. No one cares.

I do.

You can bet I'd be caring a lot more if she was president, too.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

You can bet I'd be caring a lot more if she was president, too.

But there would be no talk about it from (neolib) mainstream media.

If Hillary can receive bribes from foreign governments, then so can Trump. Or better: none should receive bribes. Afaik there is no solid proof of this "Russian connection" for now, except a lot of hearsay and smearing propaganda, right?

Now, Hillary was a governmental official under Obama and back then they were actually starting & supporting wars in favor of Gulf states political interests (Libya & Syria). Was there any outrage for Clinton's private dealings with shady governments, who probably have influenced US politics in the region? I don't remember, but probably not.

If MSM was equally diligent in exposing potential governmental corruption, regardless of who is in power, that'd be great.

"

morbo wrote:

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

You can bet I'd be caring a lot more if she was president, too.

But there would be no talk about it from (neolib) mainstream media.

If Hillary can receive bribes from foreign governments, then so can Trump. Or better: none should receive bribes. Afaik there is no solid proof of this "Russian connection" for now, except a lot of hearsay and smearing propaganda, right?

Now, Hillary was a governmental official under Obama and back then they were actually starting & supporting wars in favor of Gulf states political interests (Libya & Syria). Was there any outrage for Clinton's private dealings with shady governments, who probably have influenced US politics in the region? I don't remember, but probably not.

If MSM was equally diligent in exposing potential governmental corruption, regardless of who is in power, that'd be great.

Of course left MSM would be quiet, and FOX and a bunch of right wing media would be 'howling at the moon'.

Why does this have anything to do with biased media being biased?

I really don't get this point of view.




Right wing media is biased towards the right.

Left wing media is biased towards the left.

Plenty of people in the government are corrupt and get away with it.

I don't see why any of the above absolve any one person, president, campaign, associates from investigation. Being that an investigation will either prove guilt or innocence.


Here's the thing.... if I'm accused of having sketchy kiddie pics I'm gonna open the fuck up to everyone and their gran to come and see that I do not. If I go to every extreme possible to prevent people from getting the proof either way, there's a good reason for it.

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

I don't see why any of the above absolve any one person, president, campaign, associates from investigation. Being that an investigation will either prove guilt or innocence.

It doesn't absolve. I was simply pointing out the difference: in Hillary's case the bribes are on the books, from known sources and the political favors (=war support) can be guessed with a degree of certainty. In Trump's case it's all still a bunch of suspicion and conspiracy.

But sure, investigate away. I'm very interested of what the supposed "Russian dealings" are even about? Guns, vodka, girls, golf courses? If it doesn't involve causing the deaths of 10.000s people in pointless wars, it will be still better than Obama/Hillary corruption.