r/POTUSWatch • u/MyRSSbot • Jun 15 '17
President Trump on Twitter: "You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA" Tweet
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/875321478849363968•
u/Succubint Jun 15 '17
I had to LOL at this. The dude's knee-deep in shady dealings and it's just finally catching up on him. I have no doubt that there are peepee tapes and that he's sexually assaulted minors. He's utter trash and deserves to rot in jail for all the crimes he just assumed he'd never be charged for because he's a rich, famous bully.
The people investigating Trump aren't bad or conflicted. They're civic-minded patriots who know criminals and liars when they see them.
•
u/G19Gen3 Jun 15 '17
Has there been any legitimate evidence of anything yet? As far as I know, there hasn't. Lots of accusations =/= proof of lawbreaking.
•
u/ChanceTheDog Jun 15 '17
You have no doubt there's pee pee tapes and he's sexually assaulted minors. I'm shocked you just throw the worst accusations at him in such a cavalier way, you wonder why he would tweet this way.
•
•
u/LawnShipper Jun 15 '17
Remember the progressive dogma - guilty until proven innocent. I'm hoping to see Trump taken down but man oh man these flimsy, barely verifiably side-issues just serve as fodder that can be pointed to in order to discredit ANY allegations levied at him.
•
u/ChanceTheDog Jun 15 '17
I'm all for his vindication, but I'm on your side if the dude lands dirty. I'll want him out. I want him to do work and improve our country far more though. It's sad so many hope for his failure just so they can say "told you so." If the dude is half as dirty as his biggest opponents think then it's a disgrace to our entire history. If he's fine, it means our country's media is as fucked as many of us have thought for a long time now, and it's time to revamp
•
u/KennyFulgencio Jun 16 '17
It's sad so many hope for his failure just so they can say "told you so."
Jesus. That's not it at all. It's more like believing he already did certain things and hoping he's punished and exposed for it, and that the people who defended and supported him change their minds rather than continue to support a traitor.
You don't have to believe he did those things or is a traitor, yourself, but at least understand the mindset of people who want him punished. It's not like they're hoping he'll lose some championship game or be humiliated for no reason in the future.
•
u/Succubint Jun 15 '17
I have no doubt because I've read the information on the above. The Steele Dossier is being vindicated every day, details have been corroberated. I followed the suits against Trump by those harmed by Trump University and those sexually assaulted by him. There was a woman who was 13 when she alleges he raped her. Look it up. With his comments on Access Hollywood in terms of sexually assaulting women, it's totally believable he acted this way.
It's more credible than the sheer BS coming out of the Liar-In-Chief's mouth, at any rate.
•
Jun 15 '17
Liar-In-Chief's mouth
Obama is gone. It's 2017
•
u/NiggaOnA_Horse Jun 15 '17
Trump has been proven to lie more than any other President. It is PROVEN. I don't get how people do not see this yet.
•
Jun 15 '17
Nice try ... and wrong.
•
u/NiggaOnA_Horse Jun 15 '17
No, true. I know you will say #fakenews anyway, but here.
•
Jun 15 '17
It's not fake news. It's not news at all. It's the masturbatory porn of the left in drag as a fact checking site.
Here is a very simple (aka proglefties can understand this) of encoded bias: The Deal [Paris Accord] does not compel anything from either country. That is, strictly speaking, true, but criticizing Trump on this is just bogus.
What Trump was referencing is that - as a practical matter - Paris would not have stopped China, but internal US politics DOES put pressure against more coal plants. I happen to think he is wrong on WHY this is so (it's economics, not the enviroweenies that is killing coal), but he was absolutely right in asserting there was nothing in it for us or the environment. The point is that this "fact check" is at least misleading, and substantively a lie....like everything from the progleft.
•
Jun 15 '17
The comments above were not about the Paris agreement. They were commenting on the person that Donald is.
The point is that this "fact check" is at least misleading, and substantively a lie
You mean like every motherfucking lie told by this administration that has come to light?
Since you're going to rag on a pulitzer-prize winning publication because you don't like what it says, I'm just not even going to bother having a conversation longer than this with your ignorant head. All you'll do is deny everything because you live in some fucking alternate reality.
Trumpers are so fucking detached from reality it's actually harming our country.
•
Jun 15 '17
I am very grudgingly a Trump voter, but I can spot bias and fraud, notwithstanding one media elite organization giving awards to another.
•
•
u/LawnShipper Jun 15 '17
she alleges
Can we maybe focus on things we can prove he did, not things we think he did but couldn't prove it in court?
→ More replies•
u/p68 Jun 15 '17
Trump is the pinnacle of shit. I've hardly come across any accusations that seem out-of-character, especially with the points you've brought up.
However, let's not assume that every single thing is true until we come across more corroborating evidence. The Dossier does indeed seem solid in many respects, but that doesn't mean we can assume that 100% of the information is on point.
•
u/Debonaire_ordinaire Jun 16 '17
Next time your hanging out with the inner circle, tell the people investing trump I said hi. They'll know what it means
•
Jun 15 '17
knee-deep in shady dealings
Provide evidence that demonstrate this. Literally NO one in the many media outlets trying to crucify him have managed to do this. I'm not defending him particularly, but you guys that hate him so much just look more and more stupid and mean as the weeks go by.
•
u/QueNoLosTres Jun 15 '17
Canadian here. I detest the DNC/RNC above all else. I like what Trump is doing to the system, but do not like Trump the man. He's a wrestler, for fuck sakes!.
I have to think Trump has had dealings with the mob, as I've heard it was impossible to build any kind of big projects in NYC/Atlantic City without the mob's concrete/construction companies. As for the Russia Bullshit? Yeah, no. "The Russians!" Is Big Media carrying out their marching orders: help her not feel utterly humiliated for being the worst Presidential candidate of ALL TIME.
•
Jun 15 '17
Sort of in the same boat. Don't like Trump, love that he is violating the elite powers daily. He's already done the three things I wanted from him: Wipe the floor with that vile piece of trash Hi-liar-y, put in a strong Supreme Court justice, and make progleft heads explode.
•
u/-ParticleMan- Jun 15 '17
He hasn't done any of those things
•
Jun 15 '17 edited Jun 28 '17
[deleted]
•
u/-ParticleMan- Jun 15 '17
You said "wipe the floor with Clinton" he didn't wipe the floor be getting 3 million fewer votes.
For such isn't a strong judge
And "the"" left" is freaking out about his illegal activities, his blatant and constant lies, his wiping his ass with the constitution, hypocrisy, wasting of millions in taxpayer money on himself, and his total disregard for the people of America including his conned supporters
None of those things are what you've deluded yourself into thinking what happened or anything to be proud of
→ More replies•
u/Zhenyia Jun 15 '17
You said "wipe the floor with Clinton" he didn't wipe the floor be getting 3 million fewer votes.
If anything, that makes it more of a wipe. He lost the election and still took the presidency from Hillary.
And "the"" left" is freaking out about his illegal activities
Didn't bother them when Obama did it.
his blatant and constant lies
Didn't bother them when Hillary did it.
his wiping his ass with the constitution
Didn't bother them when any democratic president in the past 100 years did it.
face it. They only care that he's doing these things because he's not a democrat.
None of those things are what you've deluded yourself into thinking what happened or anything to be proud of
Well he did win the presidency (and beat Hillary), he did nominate Gorsuch, and he does live in progressive's heads rent-free. So... not so much of a delusion.
•
u/KennyFulgencio Jun 16 '17
He lost the election and still took the presidency from Hillary.
He was pretty shitty about that whole "Lock Her Up" thing though. That was the one thing I liked about his campaign, and as soon as he won he said "that played good before the election, right?" with his shit-eating smug grin. Not even a tiny token effort at following up on it, no investigation, just pure contempt for his voters and one of the major issues he'd based his campaign on. Hillary was and is hugely hated, it's not like it was a tiny part of his base that voted for him because they loathed her; it was a big deal, and for him to just drop it like that was fucking disgusting.
•
u/Zhenyia Jun 16 '17
and as soon as he won he said "that played good before the election, right?" with his shit-eating smug grin. Not even a tiny token effort at following up on it, no investigation, just pure contempt for his voters and one of the major issues he'd based his campaign on
Yeah basically. I don't like trump, I just like that the people who've been annoying me for the past 4 years are massively annoyed by him. He is a self-centered, conniving liar, but then again, most politicians are.
•
u/-ParticleMan- Jun 16 '17
He dropped the Hillary thing because he knew there was nothing to lock her up for. The republicans were trying for 20 years straight and came up with nothing.
Trump knew it was a con.
•
u/heavyhandedsara Jun 15 '17
So aside from nominating Gorsuch, the primary thing you like about his presidency is that he annoys people?
Hmmm... my experience from playground rules is that only serves to keep anyone from playing with you. Which is perhaps not an ideal character quality trait for a president.
•
u/Zhenyia Jun 15 '17
the primary thing you like about his presidency is that he annoys people?
Yes. People who've been going out of their way to be as annoying and downright hateful to me as they possibly can for the past 4 years.
I've been hearing about how all white people are racist, all men are sexist, I've been treated as if I were guilty of bigotry until I prove my own innocence of such, I've seen political movements I supported and was a part of be hijacked and run by racists and sexists (but it's okay they aren't white dudes so their racism and sexism is excused), quite frankly the least I could do is enjoy the fact that Trump annoys them. It's a small bit of recourse I receive from the fact that these people have hijacked the left and turned it into just as bigoted an entity as the right. Fuck em.
Trump is pretty shitty though not gonna lie.
•
u/KennyFulgencio Jun 16 '17
I feel the same way about most of the things you just listed. For months I was pretty happy about The_Donald existing because it was like the antimatter SRS. I liked it that their hate and trolling was now being mirrored by an equally poisonous hate and trolling directed at them, and pissing them off as much as they'd tried to piss everyone else off.
That enjoyment wore off around the middle of last year, though. And I'm not feeling any of the same schadenfreude from having Trump in office.
•
u/Zhenyia Jun 16 '17
Oh hell, I am. I'm loving this whole cultural reaction to Trump. Every time someone freaks out about Trump, I can honestly say "If/when the Republicans were reacting this way to an equivalent event that happened to Obama or the liberals in general, you would/did call them idiots and mock them. Now look at you."
Conservative meme culture was mocked constantly through Obama's terms, that period solidified the idea that older people make shitty memes. All the hysteria, the lying or at least vast stretching of the truth, the overuse of frequently refuted arguments boiled down to be social-media ready, it was all rightfully made fun of. Now liberals do the exact same thing about Trump. Covfefe, Milania not holding Donald's hand or kissing him or whatever, that lady sitting on that couch wrong, it's all "Michelle is a tranny!" level of petty, overblown and completely irrelevant criticism.
SRS has been acting like smug, self-righteous freedom warriors who are totally justified in acting like complete assholes, sperging out at the slightest provocation, blatantly brigading and abusing both Reddit's system and the Reddit admin's blind-eye towards them to impose their morality onto people who do not want it. T_D starts to do even a fraction of that, really only the first half, only the stuff I described before and including "blatantly brigading" Reddit acts like it's the end of human civilisation, makes more than 50 Anti-The_Donald subreddits, the admins quarantine their sub and regularly reset the scores of posts that are threatening to show up on /r/all, it's totally different.
Fox News went from being considered a conservative news outlet to being a complete pariah, a mistrusted butt of everyone's jokes about the media. Their lies about Obama, their one-sided coverage, they are fake news. That's true. The other media outlets do the same thing leading up to President Trump, and that's all just fine. You're an idiot if you're at all skeptical of them and there's no way that John Oliver and Stephen Colbert are giving me dumbed down, easily digested versions of the news that are delivered in such a way to be totally palatable to my political position. That's not something that Fox News would do.
It's so much hypocrisy, so many double-standards, doublethink, so many instances of people holding themselves and others to blatantly different standards. It started to come to light once the SJW thing started to happen, where women and minorities are allowed to be assholes and to break all the rules and to be self-interested bigots, but white people and men aren't, but this election has cast a thousand floodlights onto this hypocrisy.
And you know what else? The left doesn't even get to be smug about it. They don't get to play the victim. They don't get to dodge the blame and send it downstream. They can try, but people aren't taking them seriously anymore. People aren't sympathetic anymore. They held their celebrations and their victory parades 2 years before the game was even held, and then they lost the game. They may be a majority online, but go in real life off campus, and they're reaping what they sowed. Their attempts to dodge this one are falling flat.
Let me be honest with you. I hate Trump. Not as a politician, as a person. He's a trust-fund baby who goes around acting like a self-made man, he's a misogynist and a racist, and he's a complete narcissist. I don't like him as a politician either. But you know what? He's president. He won the election. We're gonna have at minimum four, at most eight (and if the Dems run Mark Zuckerberg it will be eight) years of him. Eight years of him trying to roll back all the good stuff Obama did, of the world treating America like ignorant, obese hicks again, four to eight years of fucking shit. I'm not gonna let him live in my brain rent-free, and I'm not going to be miserable for half a decade because I lost an election. I'm going to enjoy the small consolation prize I got: The worst parts of the left getting exactly what they deserve. This is justice. This is them having all that shit they shoveled into my yard shoveled back into theirs. I'm using unhealthy doses of schadenfreude as a painkiller for these next few years. And I must say, it's working better than I ever could have hoped.
•
Jun 15 '17 edited Jun 28 '17
[deleted]
•
u/heavyhandedsara Jun 15 '17
You see, I'm against every major policy initiative Trump has enacted or attempted to enact. I don't criticize him for inane stuff.
But it's not just the left who is criticising Trump. Critics of his policies and words include prominent Republicans and his own daughter. Pretending that the controversy and scandal surrounding him is being drummed up superficially by the left is ignoring reality.
I'll give you my own sense of annoyance when people spend weeks talking about COFEFE and whether Melania holds his hand on the tarmac. Jesus Christ, why waste our time on this when there are lives at stake due to his policies?
•
•
u/Dragofireheart Jun 15 '17
The dude's knee-deep in shady dealings and it's just finally catching up on him.
Such as?
•
u/LittleKitty235 Jun 15 '17
Are we limited to just his political life or can we site all the crappy business dealings he has made?
•
u/Dragofireheart Jun 15 '17
I'm well aware that he has had crappy business dealings.
Trump University is a more recent example.
Go ahead and cite what you want.
→ More replies•
Jun 15 '17
Firing Comey while he's investigating his campaign, for one. Or when The President helped build a hotel in Azerbaijan that appears to be a corrupt operation engineered by oligarchs linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.
•
u/Dragofireheart Jun 15 '17 edited Jun 15 '17
Firing Comey while he's investigating his campaign, for one.
Comey's firing had nothing to do with that.
The President helped build a hotel in Azerbaijan that appears to be a corrupt operation engineered by oligarchs linked to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.
Citation needed.
EDIT: Missed your citation.
•
•
Jun 15 '17
It was because of his handling of the Clinton case, or that his running of the FBI wasn't up to snuff, right?
Of course, if Comey's Hilary Clinton's case were such a concern, Trump would have fired him ASAP, instead of giving him an akward hug and keeping him on for several months. And Andrew McCabe, the current active FBI Director, disputed reports (under oath) that the FBI was being poorly run.
Reasonable doubt is not in the Trump Administration's favor.
And I linked the citation for that shady Trump Tower. You might not have seen it.
→ More replies•
u/Succubint Jun 15 '17
Watch the interview he says it was because of Russia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/trump-russia-comey.html?_r=0
He told Russian officials while meeting the in the Oval Office that he'd quashed the investigation by firing Comey.
It's so fricking obvious that I fear for your cognitive abilities. Trump has repeatedly incriminated himself on the record.
→ More replies•
Jun 15 '17
I believe you are breaking rule 1. This isn't even a little neutral.
•
Jun 15 '17
[deleted]
•
Jun 15 '17
Throwing out unfounded/unverified claims just because you don't like a person and wouldn't put it past them is basically just trolling Trump supporters, imo. I was using the neutral argument in regards to the spirit of the sub rather than that particular rule. I can see how my wording wasn't very clear.
•
•
u/gjallard Jun 15 '17
He clearly never read anything about the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 40s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee
•
Jun 15 '17
the funniest thing is that they were 100% right about the State Department being infiltrated by communists.
•
•
•
Jun 15 '17
Or he thinks this is worse because it is happening to him and who he believes are the best people in America.
•
u/aviewfromoutside Jun 15 '17
There was a basis for that though. Against Trump there is none.
→ More replies•
u/RandomDamage Jun 16 '17
The problem with the House Unamerican Activities Committee was that there wasn't a basis for most of it.
Hearsay and personal grudges were the order of the day.
At least with Trump there is a formal investigation by professional investigators instead of a chain letter of "tell on your friends for favorable treatment by the committee".
•
u/aviewfromoutside Jun 16 '17
I am not sure professionals can be trusted anymore, if they ever could. At least the other one's were public.
•
u/RandomDamage Jun 16 '17
Criminal investigations, real criminal investigations, are never public.
This isn't a police procedural, and people can actually destroy evidence effectively if they realize that it is potential evidence.
OPSEC is as much a watchword for criminal investigation as for military operations.
•
u/badDNA Jun 16 '17
Once upon a time Infowars was purely entertainment and conspiracy. Nowadays MSM has dipped it's toe in the same game and decided to go full bore.
•
u/WikiTextBot Jun 15 '17
House Un-American Activities Committee
The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) (aka, The House Committee on Un-American Activities, HUAC or HCUA) was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives. The HUAC was created in 1938 to investigate alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and those organizations suspected of having communist ties. In 1969, the House changed the committee's name to "House Committee on Internal Security". When the House abolished the committee in 1975, its functions were transferred to the House Judiciary Committee.
The committee's anti-communist investigations are often associated with those of Joseph McCarthy who, as a U.S. Senator, had no direct involvement with this House committee.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information ] Downvote to remove | v0.21
•
•
u/x19DALTRON91x Jun 15 '17
Lol wut...
Trump must be forgetting about the birther conspiracy he fueled and the Clinton email scandal
...better buttercup?
•
•
u/CaptnYestrday Jun 15 '17
This is a witch hunt. Like him or hate him. It has gotten ridiculous. Folks in DC all know exactly what this is, but they have known all along. Now it's just a joke. This will go nowhere, but it will not be the end of it. I've been saying for months.
They will keep at this till they are gone or he is gone. They are not pursuing this for truth or justice.
•
u/ThomasofHookton Jun 16 '17
I don't agree. The Russian investigation is about the extent of their involvement in the 2016 elections and if any members from the Trump Campaign was involved. Enough has come out (Sessions, Kushner, Manafort) to justify at least a closer look.
I personally don't believe Trump personally is involved but he is continuing the news cycle by his constant tweets and media denials. If he had just quit talking about it, quit trying to meddle with the investigation (firing Comey) there would be no cause for obstruction of justice.
So yes, the media doesnt like Trump and may be sensationalising this but the dude hasn't exactly helped himself.
•
u/eltoro Jun 16 '17
How is this a witch hunt? It's an investigation. The 20th Benghazi investigation was probably a witch hunt, the first one or two were not.
Also, he admitted to firing Comey in order to stop an investigation on him or his staff. That's pretty much exactly what Nixon did.
•
u/-StupidFace- Jun 16 '17
I agree, they are going to keep this russia thing up every single day he is in office. The "russia investigation" is never going to end. The MSM is going to start to lose large chunks of viewers because of this too, at some point even the haters are going to get 100% sick of hearing about RUSSIA, and tune out.
•
u/m0neybags Jun 15 '17
It's hard to believe this tops the Salem witch trials when we haven't thrown him into a river to find out if he drowns yet.
•
•
u/Dwayne_J_Murderden Jun 15 '17 edited Jun 15 '17
They hung the girls in Salem. You're thinking of Monty Python.
Edit: They also crushed a dude with big fucking rocks.
•
u/FluentInTypo Jun 16 '17
The Salem Witch trial did include drowning girls. If they drowned, they were a witch. If they miraculously survived being drown, with rocks tied to their feet, weighing them down, they were considered not a witch. Very convenient criteria when you just want to slaughter women justly.
•
u/Dwayne_J_Murderden Jun 16 '17
I'd like to see you provide a source, because that is absolutely not true.
•
u/FluentInTypo Jun 16 '17
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_drowning
Eh, I had it reversed, but its true.
•
u/HelperBot_ Jun 16 '17
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_drowning
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 80459
•
u/Dwayne_J_Murderden Jun 16 '17 edited Jun 16 '17
That link has no mention of Salem. Trial by water was a thing, but it didn't happen during the Salem Witch Trials.
•
•
•
u/Terminal-Psychosis Jun 15 '17
He's absolutely right. This whole WMD level "Ze Russians!" bullshit has reached absurd levels.
The ex FBI director's testimony blew that whole thing right out of the water,
and still the corporate controlled MSM won't give up their pathetic propaganda.
•
u/vankorgan We cannot be ignorant and free Jun 15 '17
So far the former CIA, former FBI, and current NSA director, as well as Representatives from either side of the political spectrum have agreed that Russia attempted to undermine the last presidential election in the united States through a systematic campaign of misinformation.
Additionally, it's become clear that members of the Trump campaign hid meetings, and planned to hide more meetings, with Russian officials from the US intelligence community.
I think that investigating these facts and the possible connections between them absolutely should be a top priority for the USA.
What is it that you disagree with?
•
u/Terminal-Psychosis Jun 21 '17
But none of that has anything to do with what Trump, or I, commented on.
There has been absolutely zero wrongdoing found in regard to Trump, or his cabinet, and any dealings with foreign powers. This includes Russia.
•
u/vankorgan We cannot be ignorant and free Jun 21 '17
I'm confused, do you think that Russia attempted to manipulate the American voters during the last election?
•
Jun 15 '17
But why wasn't this a big deal in 2012...surely the Russians have done this before? Sessions didn't mention his meetings with the Russian ambassador because they were part of his official duties as a Senator, along with meetings with other foreign officials. If this is about Flynn and Kushner...they need to do the investigation and get it over with. Aside from these 2, I haven't heard of any other "questionable" meetings. This is all dragging out for too long, and as far as we know hasn't resulted in any evidence of so-called collusion thus far. It has become an obsession that hasn't produced any hard evidence of collusion.
Also, a campaign of misinformation? It's nothing illegal to spread misinformation. The media spreads rumors and false info all the time based on "anonymous sources" and "former officials". Having said all that, the US is not innocent in influencing other countries elections either.
•
u/vankorgan We cannot be ignorant and free Jun 15 '17
I'm sorry I'm confused about one of your main points, why do you think that, "surely the Russians must have done this before"? Everything has to have a beginning, do you have any evidence that this isn't the first year that the Russians have tried to systematically manipulate the American presidential election at this level?
As for hard evidence, they're literally in the middle of an investigation. Why on Earth would you assume you get to see evidence in the middle of an investigation?
Additionally, your last point is actually a little upsetting to me. You've essentially said, "we're guilty of it so we have no right to be upset." Are you American? Are you really saying you don't care if another country attempts to manipulate our elections as long as"we deserved it?" Jesus man, who's side are you on?
•
Jun 15 '17
Yes I am American. We do it all the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006
•
u/ermahgerd_cats Jun 15 '17
I never understood this mentality. It doesn't put us on any higher moral ground, but it doesn't mean we should dismiss when it happens. It's a problem when anyone does it, the other times just never directly influenced American politics so people never got upset about it. If people heard that we meddled in other country's diplomatic processes at the moment, and that it affected us, we'd be just as upset about it.
•
u/heavyhandedsara Jun 15 '17
We also bomb other countries with impunity. I doubt your attitude would be "Oh well" if that was the case.
Isn't there also a smack of hypocrisy in not caring that the Russians interfered with our elections, but being pissed about DNC primary collusion? I, for one, what the causes of both to be fully investigated and rooted out. As far as I am concerned, the Russians have undermined faith in our democracy and I won't be satisfied until I know the extent of it and how it can be avoided. I also have grave doubts about the mechanisms of our parties and the lack of accountability among them.
•
u/vankorgan We cannot be ignorant and free Jun 15 '17
You didn't answer my question. Do you really not care what happens to your country as long as we did it first?
•
Jun 15 '17
I think it's more the accusation that the Trump campaign colluded directly with Russia. There has been no evidence that this has occurred. Also, the sensationalism around this is ridiculous. Of course other nations try to influence elections. Releasing damaging information about Hillary was part of it. Finally, this is clearly an attempt by Democrats to paint a false picture of corruption around the GOP in time for midterms. Under no other situation would a charge of corruption against a sitting United States President be conducted so publicly. If it was being investigated, it would be kept under wraps until evidence was uncovered. Mike Flynn is the only one who may need to be targeted for corruption and he hasn't been taken to court yet, so it may yet still be smoke and mirrors.
•
u/vankorgan We cannot be ignorant and free Jun 15 '17
I think it's more the accusation that the Trump campaign colluded directly with Russia. There has been no evidence that this has occurred.
But there are ongoing investigations, why on Earth would you assume that they'd make evidence public prior to formal charges?
Also, the sensationalism around this is ridiculous. Of course other nations try to influence elections. Releasing damaging information about Hillary was part of it.
So because countries try to influence each other's elections it's fine? We should sit back and take it? What if a country you don't trust (could be Russia, could be another) attempted to manipulate an American election in favor of Democrats? Would you really still feel the same way?
Finally, this is clearly an attempt by Democrats to paint a false picture of corruption around the GOP in time for midterms. Under no other situation would a charge of corruption against a sitting United States President be conducted so publicly. If it was being investigated, it would be kept under wraps until evidence was uncovered. Mike Flynn is the only one who may need to be targeted for corruption and he hasn't been taken to court yet, so it may yet still be smoke and mirrors.
It's a bipartisan investigation headed by a registered Republican, not to mention the fact that Democrats don't have any power anymore in Congress.
•
Jun 15 '17
But there are ongoing investigations, why on Earth would you assume that they'd make evidence public prior to formal charges?
Democrat Senate intelligence committee members have seen they've seen no evidence of collusion https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/19/feinstein_no_evidence_of_russian_collusion_with_trump_campaign_but_there_are_rumors.html
•
•
u/Terminal-Psychosis Jun 21 '17
Rediculous waste of taxpayer money.
There is nothing shady going on at all. No evidence has been found of such, nor will be.
The MSM, and certain 3-letter agencies are just pushing a huge, steaming pile of hype and propaganda for political reasons.
Time for those yahoos to take a long walk off a short dock.
The former, corrupt, FBI director has thankfully got the boot, and even HE condemned the MSM for their bullshit.
•
u/vankorgan We cannot be ignorant and free Jun 21 '17
When you put yourself opposite of every single source that disagrees with you I fear that, even if you were wrong, you'd never notice. You're point seems to be that the entire intelligence community, and 90% of journalists, plus over half of the country and Representatives on both sides of the aisle are dead wrong. Isn't it at all possible that you've been mislead?
•
u/LookAnOwl Jun 15 '17
A registered Republican appointed by Deputy AG Rosenstein, who was appointed by Trump. How anyone thinks this is some DNC scheme is beyond me.
•
Jun 15 '17
To clarify, Comey cleared the air regarding any of Trump's team having colluded with Russian officials. What isn't up for debate is if the Russians hacked into a government voting facility and infected them with Trojans, obtaining an unknown amount of information and doing unknown (to us laypeople) amount of damage. In Comey's testimony, right before Comey says the NYT spread a false story, Risch says:
Number one, obviously, we all know about the active measures that the Russians have taken. I think a lot of people were surprised at this. Those of us that work in the intelligence community, it didn't come as a surprise, but now the American people know this, and it's good they know this, because this is serious and it's a problem.
This exchange is important:
Chairman Richard Burr - North Carolina: Do you have any doubt that Russia attempted to interfere In the 2016 election?
James Comey: None.
Chairman Richard Burr - North Carolina: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the DNC and DCCC systems and the subsequent leaks of that information?
James Comey: No, no doubt.
Chairman Richard Burr - North Carolina: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the cyber intrusion in the state voter files?
James Comey: No.
Chairman Richard Burr - North Carolina: Do you have any doubt that officials of the Russian government were fully aware of these activities?
James Comey: No doubt.
Chairman Richard Burr - North Carolina: Are you confident that no votes cast in the 2016 presidential election were altered?
James Comey: I'm confident. When I left as director I had seen no indication of that whatever.
I believe the Russian hacking was likely the cause of sudden and mysterious party affiliation changes across the Democratic Party. People who had voted dem. for years were suddenly registered as independent of unaffiliated and were unable to vote as a result. It started in the primary, I can't remember if it continued into the general. I think that this could've also been part of Putin's aim to undermine trust in the Democratic Party.
•
u/Terminal-Psychosis Jun 21 '17
Off topic. That's not what he means by witch hunt, nor what I meant by the ridiculous Russian tinfoil hat theories that are being so brutally pushed by the MSM (and our own 3 letter agencies to boot).
•
u/rayfosse Jun 16 '17
So your theory is that Putin hacked democratic voter rolls to favor Clinton over sanders? That's ridiculous. Has it occurred to you that the people who dropped likely sanders voters from the rolls were dnc insiders who had the means and motive?
•
Jun 16 '17
I feel it's been made pretty clear that Putin likes to target democracies and to undermine voters faith in democracy. I think there are two solid possibilities that may have both occurred.
1) Exactly what you said, DNC corruption led to votes being tossed and affiliations changed because no one is auditing this stuff and technically the DNC could just choose the nominee without asking anyone, so they knew there would be no legal backlash.
And/or:
2) Putin saw the growing distrust of the democratic process within the Democratic Party. Being the troll he is, he used hackers to disrupt the primary process, knowing it would be blamed on the DNC because who else would have the power to change voter registrations? Distrust in the Democratic Party would push voters away, and it did. We know Putin wanted a Trump presidency, so neither of these options seem ridiculous to me.
•
u/rayfosse Jun 16 '17
You're getting too deep into fantasy with the second option. The US has a pretty fucked up political system, and political insiders try to blame Russia rather than admit that they're the ones screwing Americans. Putin isn't the mastermind of American politics that the MSM makes him out to be. The masterminds are within our own country.
•
Jun 16 '17
Neither of us have any proof of anything we are saying. You see me off in la-la land, I see you plugging your ears and refusing to think Russia would even try such a thing! We have actual proof that Russians did invest time and manpower into hacking into government voting companies. It really isn't that far of a stretch to say Putin would ask his hackers to change a few things here and there if they had the ability. You have no proof to rule this out.
I'm not denying that our own people might be undermining democracy. I actually believed it so hard that I refused to vote democrat and filled in my vote for president. Now I see some reason to think DNC corruption may not be the only factor.
•
Jun 15 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
Jun 15 '17
I believe you misinterpreted my comment. I never made any points about people leaving the Democratic Party or voting machine manipulation. I am saying that within the democratic party's database party affiliations were changed from democrat to independent or unaffiliated. Also that because of this many people thought that the Democratic Party itself was purging voters in order to reduce turnout and help Clinton win. So I believe this could have been part of Putin's plans to undermine the Democratic Party and make it seem more corrupt (not that they needed any help with that). Voting machine manipulation would mean actual votes being manipulated, of which you are correct in saying there is no evidence.
•
Jun 15 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
Jun 15 '17
The theory I'm referring to was specific to the primary season. I didn't vote for either Clinton or Trump, and was so disenfranchised after the primary that I stopped paying attention to politics for a while so I missed a lot of the drama of the general election. Many Bernie supporters saw that increased turnout meant more Bernie votes, and so thought the Democratic Party was purposefully reducing voter turnout. There were other coincidences that pointed to corruption within the party, which reinforced the above theory. I just took a final and my brain is too tired to flesh this out more.
What source do you have for your claim that being less involved favors democrats? If this an actual phenomena, or your opinion?
•
u/_GameSHARK Jun 15 '17
Did you read the same brief we did? Comey explicitly and repeatedly states that the Russians interfered with our election.
•
Jun 15 '17
Comey testified that the Russians absolutely interfered in our election.
•
u/ergzay Jun 15 '17
They did not interfere in the election. That's clear from what Comey testified. Saying otherwise is denying the facts of what was said.
Hacking into the political party and exposing them is not "interfering with the election". It's illegal and many other things but interfering in the election is one thing that it is not. Going around and spreading false information sponsored by the Russian government would also not be interfering with the election.
•
Jun 16 '17
BURR: Do you have any doubt that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections?
COMEY: None.
BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the DNC and the DCCC systems, and the subsequent leaks of that information?
COMEY: No, no doubt.
BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the cyber intrusion in the state voter files?
COMEY: No.
BURR: Do you have any doubt that officials of the Russian government were fully aware of these activities?
COMEY: No doubt.
From his testimony.
•
u/ergzay Jun 16 '17
Yep that's exactly what I'm referring to. Please read it.
•
Jun 16 '17
You mean the parts about Comey having no doubt Russia attempted to interfere with the election, no doubt Russia was behind the intrusions and leaks of DNC and DCCC, no doubt Russia was behind voter file intrusion, and no doubt that Russian government officials were aware? Is that the part of Comey's testimony that makes it clear that Russia didn't interfere with the election?
If not, which part were you referring to?
•
u/ergzay Jun 16 '17
That is not interference with the election because those things are not part of the election. It's pretty dang obvious.
•
Jun 16 '17
Determining whether that's the case is part of the investigation.
•
u/ergzay Jun 16 '17
Huh? If they hacked into voting booths then yeah that'd be interference. That would be dramatic if that were the case.
•
Jun 16 '17
It would be interesting indeed if the investigation yielded the same conclusion. The former FBI director sure seemed confidant that interference took place, according to his testimony.
→ More replies•
Jun 15 '17
Exactly how did they interfere? Unless they hacked into voting machines and switched votes, what's the big deal? The US tries to influence other elections all the time through news/online...it's nothing we haven't done ourselves.
Based on all the "anonymous sources" and "former officials" in nearly every news story, it's hard to believe anything these days...all just rumors, analysis, speculation, and hearsay.
•
u/TexasWithADollarsign Jun 15 '17
Exactly how did they interfere?
They're still compiling that information. Evidence gathering does take time, you know. This is something you don't want to rush or stop before every rock has been turned over.
The US tries to influence other elections all the time through news/online...it's nothing we haven't done ourselves.
And our influence has led to revolutions and civil wars. By your logic, if we find collusion we should do the same to this government.
•
Jun 15 '17
BURR: Do you have any doubt that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections?
COMEY: None.
BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the intrusions in the DNC and the DCCC systems, and the subsequent leaks of that information?
COMEY: No, no doubt.
BURR: Do you have any doubt that the Russian government was behind the cyber intrusion in the state voter files?
COMEY: No.
BURR: Do you have any doubt that officials of the Russian government were fully aware of these activities?
COMEY: No doubt.
From his testimony.
EDIT: Fixed formatting.
•
Jun 15 '17
Still not a thing about anyone from the Trump campaign directing Russia to do any of this though. And is anyone investigating past elections as well?
•
Jun 15 '17
Still not a thing about anyone from the Trump campaign directing Russia to do any of this though.
No, that's not an aspect of the investigation; or at least wasn't at the point Comey was fired.
•
u/Machismo01 Jun 15 '17
By his own testimony, Trump was not under investigation. His campaign was. Important distinction. He stated that Hillary Clinton personally was investigated.
Not that I trust either one in the end.
•
u/AnonymousMaleZero Jun 15 '17
At that time, he wasn't under investigation at that time. People always seem to forget that this is an ongoing investigation.
•
Jun 15 '17
That's not what was asked. He was asked if there was Russian interference. Not whether or not Trump directed it.
•
Jun 15 '17
Then why is everyone so worried about Trump directing it? Any evidence of that? Not so far...nothing.
•
Jun 15 '17
I don't think anyone with a fraction of intelligence thinks that Trump is smart enough to direct it.
The more likely scenario is that Putin did it because he knew that Trump would be a great patsy, and Trump was either aware of, or outright complicit in it.
That evidence will come.
If anything, Trump and his supporters should be welcoming this investigation, in order to clear Trump's name once and for all.
•
u/nickcan Jun 15 '17
Let the fbi do their work.
Investigations like this take months. You can't claim "no evidence" in the middle of an investigation. They are checking for evidence now. Let them do their jobs.
•
u/boltandrodassembly Jun 15 '17
That sounds like it was a failure of our intelligence agencies, nothing to do with a candidate.
•
Jun 15 '17
Comey specifically testified it had nothing to do with the candidate.
•
•
u/AnonymousMaleZero Jun 15 '17
At the time he was not under investigation. But this is an ongoing investigating and things have probably changed since then.
•
Jun 16 '17
Yes, Comey was quite clear that his testimony could only apply up to the point he was fired.
•
u/ahandle 🕴 Jun 15 '17
It's a bullshit argument you're repeating.
Voter machine hacking is very specific, and has not ever been a talking point except for those who believe the investigation is unfair.
Interference in the Election us much more broad and requires much more thorough investigation.
Tiny is as Tiny does.
•
u/ergzay Jun 16 '17
I'm looking forward to when this is all resolved so that so many Trump haters out there will have so much egg on their face. No thanks to the media brainwashing them as well.
•
Jun 15 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/FactCheckOnTheFly Jun 16 '17
If there was Russian interference in the election and the IC knew about it, it was President Obama's job to stop it, not candidate Trump's. The bottom line is nobody in the Obama administration tried to stop it because they had all convinced themselves Hillary would win in a landslide.
If Hillary had won like she was "supposed to", nobody and I mean NOBODY would be bitching about "MUH Rushuns". The MSM would be treating it like the nothingburger that it is.
•
Jun 16 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/FactCheckOnTheFly Jun 16 '17
In 2012 Obama publicly MOCKED Romney for calling Russia a threat. He told Mitt Romney at a debate that "the 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back."
They also publicly MOCKED Sarah Palin for saying that from certain islands, Russia is visible from Alaska.
These days, four short years and a lost election later, the democrats seem to be seeing Russians EVERYWHERE.
•
u/zedority Jun 16 '17
In 2012 Obama publicly MOCKED Romney for calling Russia a threat. He told Mitt Romney at a debate that "the 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back."
Please cite the actual footage. This a distortion of what Obama specifically objected to.
They also publicly MOCKED Sarah Palin for saying that from certain islands, Russia is visible from Alaska.
I was under the impression that this was more because she claimed that this is something that gave her foreign policy experience? That seems eminently mockable.
These days, four short years and a lost election later, the democrats seem to be seeing Russians EVERYWHERE.
Democrats like Lindsay Graham and John McCain? And I'm not sure why a change in four years should be so odd. A lot can happen in four years. A lot did happen just last year, in terms of reconsidering what Russia is willing to do.
•
u/FactCheckOnTheFly Jun 16 '17
I'm not your private fucking Google service. You are the WORST kind of Reddit debater. "Fetch me this, fetch me that." It is not my job to do your research for you.
•
u/zedority Jun 16 '17
I'm not your private fucking Google service. You are the WORST kind of Reddit debater. "Fetch me this, fetch me that." It is not my job to do your research for you.
It literally is the job of a person making a claim to back it up. it's called the burden of proof.
You made a claim about what Obama allegedly said, you should back it up. It is not my job to support your unsupported allegations.
•
u/WikiTextBot Jun 16 '17
Philosophical burden of proof
In epistemology, the burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shorthand for Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information ] Downvote to remove | v0.21
•
u/HelperBot_ Jun 16 '17
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 80427
•
u/CykoNuts Mid[Truth]dle Jun 15 '17
I agree with you, I've been looking at this from multiple angles. And democrat senators on the intelligence committee, as well as previous directors of the CIA and national Intelligence, all have confirmed on TV that there is no evidence yet, just alot of smoke so far. Russia may well have tried something (which is hard to prove if they are somewhat competent hackers) but I don't see how Trump could have been a part of it. One guy who testified said Trump's involved because he referenced a fake news article that was created by the Russians. Russia might have created those articles to influence the election, but Trump wasnt in on it, just fell for their bait if that truly was what they were doing. They desperately want to find something, but I feel like it will bite them in the end. When you pressure someone like this, I think it will just make their resolve stronger. I feel like it's part of the reason Trump won.
•
u/KennyFulgencio Jun 16 '17
Russia may well have tried something (which is hard to prove if they are somewhat competent hackers
Yeah. By far the best theory I've heard is that the breadcrumb trail was intentional, because they assumed Hillary would win, and wanted to give Trump ammo to attack the election as illegitimate (which he would have used to jumpstart that news network he was planning to launch when he thought he'd lose, and, knowing him, it would likely include lawsuits against the government for permitting voting fraud--not that he'd win, but it would boost his profile and energize his base).
It seems all but undeniable that Putin very deliberately wants to destabilize the west culturally and politically. They had a great plan for doing so with Hillary in office, by enabling the attacks on her and the election that the GOP was planning for. (E.g. Chaffetz's abrupt retirement, after expecting his career to be built on taking down President Clinton II, and the GOP having absolutely nothing planned to replace Obamacare--they truly were banking on being the continuing party of obstruction/opposition for a while after this election.) With Trump's unexpected win, it still serves Putin's goals, in different but very effective ways. I really wonder which outcome would have been more effective for him, having Clinton in office or Trump.
•
Jun 16 '17
It's kind of Putin's MO to do this actually. He's been doing it in Eastern Europe for ages now and the US has been slow to acknowledge it until now. That's what he did in France too. He leaves just enough for plausible deniability to create division and to try to show the country in question who's boss. This is just par for the course, TBH.
•
u/CykoNuts Mid[Truth]dle Jun 16 '17
That's an interesting conspiracy. However my understanding was that there were no breadcrumb trails pointing to Russia. I've read some reports from security experts who've done independent studies on the government report, and all of them say it's impossible to pin this on Russia. Most of the ip addresses were to other countries, and the code used was old Ukrainian software that anyone can buy, not Russian. Here's one from the security firm who protects wordpress. https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/
I'm pretty sure Putin, and most foreign leaders want the US to fail, or at least weaken. I think every country wants to be number one. The general consensus was that if you wanted a better economy and a stronger military, vote Trump. Those are opposite of what Putin would have wanted. If I was Putin, I think I would have wanted Clinton in office. She is still in the middle of multiple investigations, and with evidence of corruption through WikiLeaks. Her associates have done multiple deals with Russia, and she pushed through an approval to sell 20% of our uranium production to Russia. Both her and Obama have been trying to strengthen Russian relations. I think Putin would have loved Clinton.
•
u/KennyFulgencio Jun 16 '17
I'm not sure if I'm confused or if your information is out of date. The info about the IP addresses pointing to the GRU came out last week or the week before; of course a post from 2016 wouldn't reference it.
•
u/CykoNuts Mid[Truth]dle Jun 16 '17
Unless something new come out, that's the same thing they've been saying for a year now. This article is from July 2016:
CrowdStrike linked both groups to "the Russian government's powerful and highly capable intelligence services." APT 29, suspected to be the FSB, had been on the DNC's network since at least summer 2015. APT 28, identified as Russia's military intelligence agency GRU, had breached the Democrats only in April 2016, and probably tipped off the investigation.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack
And if you're talking about this information released from the government: https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity That's the report my article is referring to. Everything in my searches goes back this this government report. Are you able to point me to where you heard this new information?
•
u/KennyFulgencio Jun 16 '17
That was the initial article, but all the other journalism outlets covered it and responded to it afterward, google'll turn up tons
•
u/CykoNuts Mid[Truth]dle Jun 16 '17
Thanks, searching GRU brought me to all the old articles. Looks like the internal report got leaked. It matches closely to the public report the government released. For example, the public report has this diagram on page 2/3: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf which resembles the diagram on the leaked report. After reading the article, it's highly likely the public report was based off of this report. But this report might have gotten some updates, hence the May date. I don't see anything with new information, this might be a new leak, but not anything new except for the higher detailed diagram. The article says there's significantly more details, but they don't go into any of it except that they learned that they targeted voter systems.
I'm a little wary of this article, it's coming from anonymous sources, and doesn't going into detail on any new information that could point to Russians. And it makes the same exact claims as the public report, which multiple security experts have proven that the evidence released actually doesn't prove it's the Russians. All the evidence they've released so far, have been disproven. All they had to do was release one shred of evidence that it was the Russians, but instead they release a ton of evidence that actually is misleading. They release things like a bunch of ip addresses that they claim are Russian, but it's mainly TOR exit points. Only a minority of the ip address were Russian, it was mainly other countries, like the US.
•
u/KennyFulgencio Jun 16 '17
I'm a little wary of this article, it's coming from anonymous sources
She wasn't anonymous for long. It was an NSA contractor. She was arrested within a couple of days by the FBI and has been indicted by a federal grand jury.
•
u/CykoNuts Mid[Truth]dle Jun 16 '17
Oooooh, this was the document that Reality Winner leaked. I wasn't really around during that time, but I now understand the news reports better. No wonder they said nothing new was really leaked. The leaked documents doesn't give any additional evidence that it was Russians. And when you mentioned the GRU, I think the reason why my searches kept bringing up the old articles was because the public report from the government is based on these documents. All of the Russian indicators that the government has released so far, has been proven to not really be Russian indicators by multiple security experts.
•
Jun 15 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/CykoNuts Mid[Truth]dle Jun 16 '17
I feel like, the hardcore pro-Trumper will support him no matter what, and the hardcore anti-Trumpers will hate him no matter what. What's at stake is those somewhere in between. You're right that they need to just simply lay out what warrants a Trump-Russia investigation. But here in lies the issue, typically you discover evidence which leads to an investigation. Instead, the super anti-Trumpers created a Trump-Russia narrative, and made it seem like he was being investigated for for it. And now they are struggling to find evidence. You notice the goal post moving as more truth comes to light.
TRUMP COLLUDES WITH RUSSIA
Anonymous sources tell us he has secret meetings and dealings with Russia. Why is he so cozy with Russia and defending them. He even references fake news stories Russia created!
TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA
*Hopefully nobody noticed we moved the goal post. Turns out there never was any investigation into Trump because there's no evidence of any wrong doing from Trump. Everyone in the IC has come out to say no evidence on Trump. Trump even asked to be investigated personally but Comey refused. Trump must be clean, but we moved the goal post to his campaign, so no one can say we mislead them. Comey did say that the NYT article was almost entirely wrong, and Flynn has been dismissed of any wrong-doing. Crap, we might have to move the goal post again. But people will still think Trump has all these business dealings with Russia, so they will still subconsciously think he colluded with Russia. *
Those in the middle don't like to be misled, and if the Russia narrative turns up empty, they will feel betrayed. The narrative made it seem like it was certain that Trump was going to be impeached any day now. This feeling of betrayal is what made me give Trump a chance. I voted Obama, was anti-Trump, and was going to vote Hillary. The constant character assassination on Trump initial is what made me anti-Trump because I believed the media. Thought he was racist and all that. But once I started looking into it, watching his clips, I realized the media was being manipulative. I decided to give Trump a chance and voted him, and I'm glad I did. Once I gave Trump a chance, I realized he's not that bad, certainly way better than what the media made him out to be. Based on the statistics, it's obvious many Obama voted switched votes, and I'm one of them. Now that Trump's in office, they decide to double down. I have many friends who refused to listen to me, and still voted Hillary. But this Russian thing has been heaven sent. It's so powerful that even my hardcore CNN faithful friend has admitted that CNN is fake news, and now started watching other news source. A few weeks ago, he was gloating to me how Trump was done for, and was going to get impeached soon. I send him the videos of the IC saying there's still no evidence yet, and told him to just wait and see. After the Comey testimony, he's now a hesitant Trump-supporter. He got so sick of being wrong so much. The exaggerated anti-Trump media has flipped me, and a decent amount of my anti-Trump friends. If the investigation doesn't end with Trump being guilty of anything, my experience is telling me that a decent amount of voters will be willing to give him a chance, and a portion of those will become strong supporters of Trump, like me.
•
Jun 16 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/CykoNuts Mid[Truth]dle Jun 16 '17
I didn't vote Trump, or support him to spite the media. The media's bias allowed me to give Trump a chance, and the more I started to understand, the more I agreed with his policies.
I agree that nobody really knows the truth, and nobody truly knows what's going to happen after the truth comes out (if it ever comes out). I believe in karma. Not some cosmic power, but that if you're up to no good, you eventually lose out in the end. If you have evil intent, it will backfire.
I also don't think it's republican vs democrat any longer. It's some form of Pro-Trump vs Anti-Trump war right now. I think it was a Princeton study that said the US has been an Oligarchy for several decades now. If that's true, the Oligarchy, or Establishment, is most likely on the Anti-Trump side. Also, I heard of another shooting, if it's real, I hope it doesn't escalate. Otherwise things are going to get ugly.
•
Jun 16 '17
I think that's pretty much it. I hate the man, but I don't really think he colluded (he's too stupid to do that). I think obstruction charges are possible but maybe not likely (not a lawyer so I wouldn't know) and I wouldn't be surprised one way or the other. Russians obviously interfered, quite possibly giving him the election considering his razor thin margins in the three states he needed. Dems are obviously going to pounce on this because duh why wouldn't they? Especially after all the made up scandals the Republicans charged Obama with. Media needs something to report on, I don't know if I blame individual media outlets as much as the system of 24 hour news. Here's where I break with you, though...
Suppose all that is true. There's no collusion, but Russians interfered. Trump asked Comey to let Flynn go, not because Comey was gonna find out anything about Trump/Russia collusion, but because it was just bad optics politically. Dems and media exploited it for different reasons. Let's say all that is true. That doesn't mean Trump didn't obstruct justice and it certainly doesn't mean that this is a witch hunt. The best excuse Republicans could come up with was "he's new to government." This is exactly why we don't elect reality tv stars to the presidency. They don't fucking know anything. And now Republicans are pissed because they put a narcissistic moron in charge of the country and can't get anything done. Obviously people are going to think there's something suspicious considering all the weirdly nice things he's said about the Russian dictator, considering the several campaign officials he had who previously worked for the Russians, considering the fact that he got the Republican platform to be more Russia friendly, considering the fact that his foreign policy agenda is a dream-come-true for Vladimir Putin, and considering the fact that he had barely anything negative to say at all about the Russian government attacking his opponent's political campaign. In fact, the man openly encouraged it on national television. So it seems a bit much to me for his supporters to constantly be bitching and moaning about how unfair it is. Maybe there's no fire, but the rest of us are suffocating from the smoke and we'd all like to know what the source of it is.
Let's be clear... this would not be happening if it were a President Rubio or a President Kasich or even a President Cruz. We would all be bitching about how the Republicans are trying to destroy healthcare, SS, and ruin the lives of poor people, but there was only one candidate who had eerily close connections with the very government that interfered in our election, and that is the one that the Republicans chose. So it's more than a little frustrating that his supporters are acting like it's just partisanship and a grand media conspiracy that's making up a story.
•
u/SobinTulll Jun 15 '17
He does seem to have a real gift with hyperbole. It makes it hard to know when he wants to be taken seriously or not.
It makes me wonder if he does this deliberately. That way, he can say anything, wait to see the response, then decide if he wants to claim it was meant literally or not.
This may be a way someone can attempt to not look foolish. But a president doing this creates too much chaos and confusion, it's not justifiable doing this just to save face.
Of course, maybe he just doesn't think before he talks.
I'm not sure which I find more troubling.
•
u/Vaadwaur Jun 16 '17
Of course, maybe he just doesn't think before he talks.
I'm not sure which I find more troubling.
My guess is that he always talked like this and then learned the double faced thing as a technique. It seems to work for him when he is on a smaller scale.
•
u/Slamulos Jun 16 '17
He's not wrong though. The only thing that would make the lies and attacks from media stop is he resigns, being polite won't accomplish anything so he might as well fight back.
•
Jun 15 '17
To be honest, it seems to me that his public face is mostly a facade. I've seen several quotes from people saying that off camera, away from the press, he's a much less grandiose person. The hyperbole is his way of grabbing attention. During the election, the press loved him because he generated ratings. They've only been so negative lately because of his "fake news" accusations. His over the top persona is why he edged out the competition in the crowded Republican primary.
•
u/SobinTulll Jun 15 '17
This is an issue with some people seeing elections as a personality contest. All this, he is entertaining, or, he seems like someone I could have a beer with, kind of thinking is a flaw in our system.
I'd love a system where each party summited a written platform, and everyone made up their mind based on that.
→ More replies•
Jun 15 '17
Well, a large part of the presidency is personality. You can elect someone like Steven Hawking, but if they can't get their ideas through Congress, they are useless. I would rather a persuasive idiot with proper advisors than a genius with no charisma.
•
u/SobinTulll Jun 15 '17
A persuasive personality shouldn't influence the vote, I would like to think that congress would vote on things based entirely on the value of the ideas themselves, but sadly, you are likely right. My species frustrates me so.
•
Jun 15 '17
True. In an ideal situation, state interests would dominate politics, but unfortunately it requires someone who can make deals or coerce people to come along.
•
Jun 15 '17
[deleted]
•
u/SobinTulll Jun 15 '17
Good point. I wish we could find out conclusively if he does have a narcissistic personality disorder. I mean, from everything I've read about it, my guess would be yes. But that's just my opinion. On the other hand, I have a friend who's sister is diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder, and he says he's sure that Trump does have it. But again, I know a guy that knows someone, isn't much better then my personal opinion.
•
Jun 15 '17
[deleted]
•
u/SobinTulll Jun 15 '17
It may help to look at it form the prospective of the scientific method. There is a hypothesis is that Trump has a narcissistic personality disorder. You can make predictions about his actions based on this hypothesis. If the predictions prove accurate, then we have a working theory.
•
•
u/Big_Foot_Lives Jun 16 '17
Rule 2: No snarky low-effort comments consisting of just mere jokes/insults and not offering anything to the discussion (please reserve those to the other thousand circlejerk-focused subreddits)
IOW, don't act like the President.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 15 '17
Rule 1: Be civil, address the argument not the person, don't harass, troll or attack other users, be as friendly as possible to them, don't threaten or encourage any kind of violence, and don't post anyone's personal information.
Rule 2: No snarky low-effort comments consisting of just mere jokes/insults and not offering anything to the discussion (please reserve those to the other thousand circlejerk-focused subreddits)
Please don't use the downvote button and instead just report rule-breaking comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
Jun 15 '17
Even topping the red scares of McCarthyism?
That would be terrifying if his assertion had any basis in the facts; meanwhile his actions show a different story!
•
•
u/blamethemeta Jun 15 '17
Another anti-trump subreddit? How many do you guys need? At least the pro-Trump subs don't reproduce.
•
u/FamiliarGalaxy9 Jun 15 '17
This is just a tweet. Not pro or against. Its not telling you how to think.
•
Jun 15 '17
this is not an anti trump sub, the whole point is to have links to unbiased news sources. the comments lean anti trump because that's just how reddit is.
•
•
u/cedo222 Jun 15 '17
It's hard to know when he wants to be absented any real factual basis whatsoever.
•
•
u/[deleted] Jun 15 '17
This is bigger than Salem.