Donald Trump and US politics

"

sarahaustin wrote:

"

soneka101 wrote:

Oh Lord... I can't even...

They are doing it on purpose right? They are playing dumb on purpose right? I mean, do they even know what "context" is? Or "logic"?

Edit:

Source: https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/837690165690839040

Did they meet with Russian ambassadors during the US election? Tied to the election? Lol. Context, learn it.

Yes, we could say that they need to learn about context, but hell, those are journalists, not uneducated people. People on Fox News knows the big picture, but they choose to pretend they don't, either to manipulate their audience, or to drive people with common-sense mad. They are using False Equivalence as a tool(or maybe a weapon) and they will feign ignorance if you ask them about it.

On the topic of Dems talking with Russia: I think there's zero nefariousness in meetings with Russia, because they're not an enemy of the US. If they were, the "false equivalency" argument would have weight, but they're not, so it doesn't; everyone's innocent here. Basically, the "Democratic Russian links" thing is trolling, and it's triggering you, so it's successful and should continue.

"

soneka101 wrote:

Oh Lord... I can't even...

They are doing it on purpose right? They are playing dumb on purpose right? I mean, do they even know what "context" is? Or "logic"?

Edit:

Source: https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/837690165690839040

You gotta learn 4D chess bro. They're doubling the "muh Russia" whining so that everyone gets sick of it and in the end nobody cares anymore. Solid strategy tbh.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

On the topic of Dems talking with Russia: I think there's zero nefariousness in meetings with Russia, because they're not an enemy of the US. If they were, the "false equivalency" argument would have weight, but they're not, so it doesn't; everyone's innocent here. Basically, the "Democratic Russian links" thing is trolling, and it's triggering you, so it's successful and should continue.

Yes it's trolling when it lands on the ears of someone that have understanding of the situation, but when it lands on the ears of some Trump supporters it's "News". It's fun when people condemn dishonesty on the other team, but cheer when his team do it, actually, it's not, it's pitiful.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

On the topic of Dems talking with Russia: I think there's zero nefariousness in meetings with Russia, because they're not an enemy of the US.

Still, it seems that even you is missing the point, the question is not if the Russia is a "friend" or a "enemy" of the US. The question is if the Trump campaign asked for help during the election, also if they promised something in return of that help. Because they were helped, and that is hard to deny.

Trump's policies are beneficial to Russia, so it wouldn't be weird if they helped Trump without him asking for it, that wouldn't be his fault, but meeting with Russians and them saying that it didn't happen will cast doubts if this is really the case.

I feel like I've explained this at least 10 times, and that wasn't supposed to happen. People here talk like they keep an eye on both sides of the story, but it seems they are defending Trump without even knowing about what he is being accused of.

"

Xavderion wrote:

You gotta learn 4D chess bro. They're doubling the "muh Russia" whining so that everyone gets sick of it and in the end nobody cares anymore. Solid strategy tbh.

It might be solid, but I think it's cheap af, it feels less than 4D chess and more like when your 6 year old cousin goes around lying to people saying that you showed him your D, when the only thing you did was to say that he can't put the your dog on the washing machine and turn it on.

It's waste of time for everyone.

"

sarahaustin wrote:

Sessions wasnt part of the ruling government tho and had no reason to talk to the Russians. Context.

He was part of the US government. He was a United States Senator at the time.

Jeff Sessions served for over 20 years as one of the two US Senators from Alabama and was still a senator at the time.

"It’s certainly not abnormal for a member of Congress to have a conversation with an ambassador," said Mieke Eoyang, a former foreign-policy aide to the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass."

"Meetings between ambassadors and members of Congress happen periodically, said former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee from 1993 to 1995 and who later served as vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission. "Congress is a partner with the president in the formulation of American foreign policy," Hamilton said.

"It is the nature of our system that each senator can have their own little foreign policy and talk to diplomats," Friedman,a research fellow in security studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said. "They are not compelled to follow the White House’s lead."

Christopher Madison, a former aide with the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, agreed. "Meetings are what D.C. is all about," Madison said. "Certain countries may be radioactive, but most are not. Russia was not previously."

Ted Bromund, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said there’s nothing "untoward" about such meetings. "In many cases, these are basically lobbying visits – which after all is what foreign diplomats are here to do," Bromund said. "And so what? Some things foreigners want are in our interests, others are not. How is one to decide without meeting them?"

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

On the topic of Dems talking with Russia: I think there's zero nefariousness in meetings with Russia, because they're not an enemy of the US. If they were, the "false equivalency" argument would have weight, but they're not, so it doesn't; everyone's innocent here. Basically, the "Democratic Russian links" thing is trolling, and it's triggering you, so it's successful and should continue.

On one hand: god forbid the level of political discourse from a major news network be expected to rise above that of fucking 4chan.
On the other hand: you do realize that when FOX offers shit like this, it's because people actually believe it, right? The problem is not and never was "Sessions talked to Russia". The problem is "Sessions claimed he didn't while under oath". Because of shit like this, there are more people than before confused about this context. Fox doesn't do this on accident.

"

soneka101 wrote:

Only someone that doesn't understand the accusations against Sessions would mention the meetings of Obama.

"

soneka101 wrote:

"

TheAnuhart wrote:

Who said there was anything wrong with a rep/sen meeting with a Russian ambassador?

Anyone could say that a rep/sen meeting with a Russian ambassador CAN be wrong depending on the CONTEXT. If you don't understand that I won't waste my time here teaching you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4aZPj8wPuQ

Fun Fact - how hard was it to crack Podesta's emails?

Passw0rd1

Running456

*Were* some of his actual passwords. It doesn't take a nation state to hack into that, and in fact 4chan hacked Podesta:



There are three contexts to consider here:

1) The democrats are trying to deflect attention away from other things (such as Trump's speech) and damage Trump's cabinet. In a criminal court, that would be called motive.

2) Jeff Sessions as a US Senator had legitimate reasons to meet with representatives from other nations.

3)The left is trying to take Sessions replies out of context of what they were really asking - which is - did he meet with the Russian ambassador as a representative of Trump's campaign.

Put in a much simpler way - if Gowdy met with the Russian ambassador and said he didn't would we have the same BS Storm? No, we would not, as evidenced by all the other members of Congress who met with Russians and no outcry. The outcry is purely because they believe Sessions acted as a member of Trump's campaign during the meeting. You can keep trying to spin it to mean something that it doesn't.

As I explained earlier, thousands of people KNEW something like this was coming for about 6 hours before it happened. It wasn't because they had inside information either, it was because the left acts in a very predictable manner.

Where are those women who alleged Trump sexually assaulted them? Why isn't that case still being actively pursued? Why isn't the media still all over it?

Motive number 3 - Trump is trying to clean out the globalists from the intelligence community and they are fighting back. WaPo-Amazon's contract with the CIA is worth about 600 million.

Say whatever you want, but if what the left claimed was true, there would be some details to back them up. Security simply isn't that tight, and there are too many inside the IC that would gladly give out that info if it were there.

"

soneka101 wrote:

The question is if the Trump campaign asked for help during the election

Would that be like the Cleveland Cavaliers asking the Russians for help beating the Golden State Warriors, or is it more like Hillary Clinton asking the Russians for help beating Bernie Sanders?

The left still can't believe they lost or understand why. This nonsense of blaming everyone else for their own problems is a big reason why they lost. The left tried to demonize average Americans as "deplorables". They called anyone who disagreed with their lack of immigration policy racist.

BLAME BLAME BLAME

It wasn't the Russians. The democrats need only to look in the mirror to see who betrayed them.

"

soneka101 wrote:

the question is not if the Russia is a "friend" or a "enemy" of the US. The question is if the Trump campaign asked for help during the election, also if they promised something in return of that help. Because they were helped, and that is hard to deny.

Helped, sure, but not by Russia. More likely a secret Bernout within the DNC (evidence points to DNC leak, not DNC hack), and a 14-year-old who RNGed his way into Podesta's cybersecurity incompetence (Podesta emails were from a low-skill phishing attack — edit: 4chan user wouldn't surprise me). And, obviously, one of the last journalists remaining on Earth, the great Julian Assange.

What you liberals don't understand is that you didn't have a dog in the fight this election. One candidate was a sabre-rattling corrupt neoconservativive with a disturbing relationship with Russia, and the other was Donald Trump. This election featured some of the most blatant election manipulation, fraud, and corruption ever seen, during the Democratic primary. Even the early media portrayal of Trump during the GOP primaries was a Clinton camp plan, and we've got the DKIM-verified email to prove it.

There are, essentially, two types of sane political analysts: those who think Clinton is thoroughly in the pocket of the military-industrial complex and their Deep State propagandists and that Trump is a viable solution; and those who think Clinton is thoroughly in the pocket of the military-industrial complex and their Deep State propagandists and that Trump is a buffoon whom the Deep State will have little trouble manipulating into pursuing a lie-driven warmongering foreign policy. Fuck, I'll even give your side the credit that the latter of those two is more probable. Only if Trump's exceptional "dankest timeline" luck continues (praise kek) will things prove otherwise.

I'll also give you that the Democratic nominee you deserved, but were cheated out of, would likely have defeated Trump; we would probably have President Sanders right now. It really sucks for liberals that a neocon secured the Democratic nomination.

I'm not anti-liberal. I too was a Democrat once. But you really should wake up to how tainted your party has become. Not how tainted liberalism has become — although the DNC is an existential threat in that regard. For the love of all that's sane, stop supporting the establishment Dems and either retake your party or go Green or something.

And stop it with the neocon russophobic narrative. It's just Iraq WMDs all over again.